AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE

Airports

A2: TSA good / terrorism

The lack of another airplane terrorist attack is not evidence of TSA effectivenessLarry Anderson, Editor, February 4, 2016, “TSA Security Checks Under The Scanner: Are Ineffective Airport Screenings Putting Travelers At Risk Of Attacks?,” SourceSecurity.com, http://us.sourcesecurity.com/news/articles/tsa-security-checks-scanner-ineffective-airport.sb.19571.html, Accessed 2-28-16

The latest TSA administrator, Peter Neffenger, is being called on to improve the situation. But how do you improve what amounts to a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that resembles a federal jobs program more than a security operation? There is talk of more emphasize on workforce recruiting, training and management. There is also talk about more intelligence gathering about passengers – likely outsourced – before they get to the airport. Assigning a commercially developed “risk score” could be used to sort passengers for less screening. It’s a variation on the idea of the existing PreCheck program – offering less screening to someone who volunteers for a background check. But will any of it improve the situation? The lack of a successful terrorist attack is sometimes cited as evidence of the success of the TSA. However, if you evaluate the bigger picture, including the TSA’s repeated failures and inefficiencies, it seems more likely we have just been extremely lucky.

TSA bureaucracy and lack of transparency prevent effectivenessJudi Ritter Sutherland, Staff Writer, January 14, 2016, “'Bureaucracy And Stagnation' Preventing TSA From Addressing Security Threats,” Homeland Security Today, http://www.hstoday.us/briefings/daily-news-analysis/single-article/bureaucracy-and-stagnation-preventing-tsa-from-addressing-security-threats/e5928d181c28bf9721364a5f33974a33.html, Accessed 2-28-16

According to Subcommittee Chairman John Katko (R-NY), time and time again TSA has wasted taxpayer dollars on ineffective screening technology. Although the private sector is largely responsible for the research and development of screening technologies, a lack of transparency between TSA and the private sector hinders security technology innovation. “I am concerned that bureaucracy and stagnation are preventing TSA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from being responsive to legitimate security threats facing our nation,” Katko said. “Indeed, while it is critical that any acquisitions process include safeguards to prevent wasting taxpayer dollars on poor investments and unproven technology, it is just as critical that we are not failing in our most basic mission—to prevent terror attacks against transportation targets. This, no doubt, is a challenge, and I am intent on holding both TSA and industry accountable to a reasoned, effective investment strategy.”

TSA is as failure. Those who are responsible end up getting bonusesAndrew Becker, Staff Writer, February 9, 2016, “TSA official responsible for security lapses earned big bonuses,” Reveal, https://www.revealnews.org/article/tsa-official-responsible-for-security-lapses-earned-big-bonuses/, Accessed 2-28-16

Over several months before undercover auditors carrying hidden weapons slipped undetected past security screeners at U.S. airports, the official ultimately responsible for the lapses received cash bonuses and awards that reached nearly $100,000, according to a whistleblower complaint obtained by Reveal. A classified U.S. Department of Homeland Security report, details of which were leaked to ABC News last year, found that the Transportation Security Administration failed to find weapons – including fake explosives – more than 95 percent of the time during 70 covert tests. Arlen Morales, a spokeswoman for the inspector general’s office, confirmed the tests occurred from early April to mid-May at eight domestic airports. The embarrassing public disclosure raised the ire of Congress and set off a firestorm within the department, spurring Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to reassign the acting administrator. At a Senate hearing in June, Homeland Security Inspector General John Roth told lawmakers that he was deeply concerned by the combination of human blunder and technology failure. But the findings weren’t surprising to current and former TSA officials, who say that the security operations office had come to focus on efficiency and reduced wait times. They were surprised to learn that the assistant administrator in charge of screening received bonuses and award money, especially because the agency’s internal tests had flagged security vulnerabilities in the past.

Transgender discrimination

TSA surveillance measures like body scans rely on a binary understanding of gender that discriminates against transgendered personsBrooke M. Feldman, Guest Writer, January 21, 2016, “Airport Security and Gender Identity: Time to Fly into Embracing Gender Diversity,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brooke-m-feldman/airport-security-and-gend_b_9033296.html, Accessed 2-28-16

Transgender persons will be screened as he or she presents at the security checkpoint. The advanced imaging technology used to screen passengers has software that looks at the anatomy of men and women differently. If there is an alarm, TSA officers are trained to clear the alarm, not the individual. The body scan machines used at most airports nationwide feature pink and blue start buttons, which activate computer algorithms designed to screen female and male passengers. If a TSA officer presses the wrong button or if a passenger has body characteristics of more than one gender, unexpected body shapes may register as anomalies. It didn't take me look to recognize that my gender presentation likely led to my "groin anomaly." As a gender non-conforming female who presents in a way that would be unfortunately labeled by much of the world as more masculine than feminine, I experience challenges regarding my gender identity and presentation on a daily basis. These challenges range from strange looks when entering the restroom to being called sir pretty regularly, and lots of things in between. If you are somebody who cleanly and comfortably nestles into the gender binary of male or female, experiencing gender identity or gender presentation challenges may be difficult to understand or comprehend. It reminds me of how it can be difficult for a white person to truly understand or comprehend the experiences of being a person of color. However, for those of of us who do not fit neatly into what the world has taught as male or female, we live with these challenges everyday. Many of us experience anxiety when having to enter a public restroom in order to take care of the basic human function of urinating. Many of us endure strange looks and overhear snickers and judgmental comments as we pass by. Many of us feel the nails scraping on chalkboard type of feeling when somebody uses the wrong pronoun to refer to us; the uncomfortable feeling when we are called "him" but very much identify as "her." And now, many of us are subjected to embarrassing and inconvenient extra airport security measures at times because of a machine built for a gender binary of male or female that fails to acknowledge all of the rich diversity that exists in-between.

Anti-Muslim Surveillance

Anti-Muslim surveillance undermines counter-terrorism

The FBI’s renewed anti-Muslim surveillance is discriminatory and creates a chilling effect that undermines counter-terrorism effortsPatrick G. Eddington, Policy Analyst for Homeland Security and Civil Liberties, Cato Institute, February 11, 2016, “Obama, American Muslims, and Our Constitutional Duplicity,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-g-eddington/obama-american-muslims_b_9209380.html, Accessed 2-28-16

Between 1993 and possibly as late as 2006, several Arab- and Muslim-American suburban communities near Chicago were the subject of intense FBI surveillance, an episode that will be featured in the 2016 documentary The Feeling of Being Watched. As reported by The Intercept in January 2015, a Department of Justice-issued CVE-related grant to the St. Paul-Minneapolis Police Department was used in 2009 to fund a police liaison position with the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, which used the liaison to organize community outreach meetings on gang prevention and domestic violence. The police subsequently pressured MAS officials to turn over lists of attendees at the meetings, but MAS officials refused out of concerns community members would end up in local, state, or federal law enforcement databases without cause. The FBI's renewed emphasis on surveillance and informant development within the Arab- and Muslim-American community for intelligence gathering purposes is not only discriminatory and having a chilling effect on the community, it contravenes efforts by local officials to uncover potential extremists by making citizens less willing to talk to government officials and police at any level.

Anti-Muslim surveillance actually promotes radicalization and undermines the fight against terrorismAndrew Noakes, Senior Advocacy Officer at the Remote Control Project, February 11, 2016, “Mass surveillance doesn’t work – it’s time to go back to the drawing board,” New Statesman, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/02/mass-surveillance-doesn-t-work-it-s-time-go-back-drawing-board, Accessed 2-28-16

Counter-radicalisation experts have meanwhile argued that mass surveillance may alienate Muslim communities, making them distrustful of the police and possibly even contributing to radicalisation. In 2014, Jonathan Russell from the counter-extremism group Quilliam wrote that the “introduction of a sweeping [mass surveillance] law…will be exploited by extremists to show that the government wants to spy on its own citizens [and] that all Muslims are suspected of being terrorists.” This will set alarm bells ringing for those who know the fight against terrorism will ultimately be won only by preventing radicalisation in the first place.

FBI mass surveillance is counterproductiveAndrew Noakes, Senior Advocacy Officer at the Remote Control Project, February 11, 2016, “Mass surveillance doesn’t work – it’s time to go back to the drawing board,” New Statesman, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/02/mass-surveillance-doesn-t-work-it-s-time-go-back-drawing-board, Accessed 2-28-16

In fact, mass surveillance is not only ineffective but downright counter-productive. A 2009 report by the US government found that only 1.2 per cent of tips provided to the FBI by mass surveillance techniques made a significant contribution to counter-terrorism efforts. Another recent study by the New America Foundation found that National Security Agency mass data collection played a role in, at most, 1.8 percent of terrorism cases examined. By contrast, traditional investigative methods initiated 60 per cent of investigations. Suddenly mass surveillance doesn’t seem so vital.

Anti-Muslim surveillance is racist

Muslims are being scapegoated in the latest round of “national security” biogtryHina Shamsi, Director, ACLU’s National Security Project, February 11, 2016, “Why I Have Hope For American Muslim Equality,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-shamsi/vwhy-i-have-hope-for-american-muslim-equality_b_9204680.html, Accessed 2-28-16

That may seem counter-intuitive at a time when anti-Muslim hysteria, discrimination, and violence have reached such a crisis stage that The Huffington Post has decided to track a "deplorable wave of hate." And indeed, it was important for the president to use the power of his office to acknowledge an essential truth: Like all Americans, you're worried about the threat of terrorism. But on top of that, as Muslim Americans, you also have another concern -- and that is your entire community so often is targeted or blamed for the violent acts of the very few. Blaming the bad acts of a few on any religious or racial community is the essence of bigotry. Sadly, it's not new in our country. At various times in U.S. history, Catholics, Jews, African-Americans, and Japanese-Americans -- to name just a few -- have all been scapegoated as national security threats, and suffered as a result. I'm glad that the president reminded Americans of that past and talked about the history and diversity of American Muslims, starting from those brought here as slaves in colonial times, to the generations who helped build this nation, to all who are part of our rich, pluralistic society today.

FBI coerces informants

The FBI coerces new Muslim immigrants to become informantsMario Tama, Staff Writer, February 12, 2016, “Spying for Citizenship: An FBI Deal for Muslim Informants,” The Takeaway, http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/spying-citizenship-deal-offer-fbi-informants/, Accessed 2-28-16

In 2006, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales laid out guidelines for the FBI's use of "confidential human sources," also known as informants. His directives, which are still in force today, prohibit the FBI from recruiting informants through the promise of help on residency or immigration status. But a new investigation by Talal Ansari, a reporter for BuzzFeed, finds that the FBI breaks its own rules in its recruitment of Muslim-American informants. As he tells The Takeaway, "They approach these immigrants at a time where they have not heard back from the immigration department. "They're completely in the dark; they're never informed on why they're facing an immigration problem," Ansari continues. "And that's when the FBI shows up and says, 'If you want help with your immigration problem, we're happy to do so—if you spy on your friends, community, family."

Islamophobia impacts

Islamophobia is more than just microaggressions, but manifestations of a fundamentally racist systemDeepa Kumar, Staff Writer, January 30, 2016, “It's Not Just Hate Crimes: Islamophobia Is the Outgrowth of a Deeply Racist System,”

Grayzone Project, http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/its-not-just-hate-crimes-islamophobia-outgrowth-deeply-racist-system, Accessed 2-28-16

Ironically, the progressive scholarly community, which could shed light on such structures, has tended also to focus on individuals. The manifestations of anti-Muslim racism have been viewed through the lens of daily acts of hostility i.e., the daily verbal attacks, insults, and dismissals experienced by people of color. Coined by Harvard professor Chester Pierce to discuss the experience of African Americans, the term "microagressions" has since been expanded along the way to include other people of color, as well as women, LGBTQ people, the disabled and others. No doubt, Muslims and those who look Muslim endure constant microaggressions, which collectively cause psychological trauma and have impacts on their health and well-being. It is draining to be at the receiving end of such treatment as I am constantly reminded by friends on Facebook. However, Islamophobia is about more than microaggressions. Daily acts of hostility, hate crimes and even job discrimination (such as the recent firing of NJ school teacher Sireen Hashem), are the outward manifestations of a system that is fundamentally racist.

Islamophobia is rooted in colonialism and sustains imperial hegemonySeema Sengupta, Staff Writer, February 22, 2016, “Confronting Islamophobia,” Arab News, http://www.arabnews.com/columns/news/884271, Accessed 2-29-16

Indeed, the extent of intolerance against followers of Islam has reached alarming limits since the ghastly 9/11 attacks, though typecasting of the faith has gone on in the West for quite some time now. The hard fact is Islamophobic myths did not arise spontaneously after the demolition of New York twin towers or the end of the Cold War. Pathological fear of Muslims is in fact rooted in centuries of conquest and colonialism, right from the days of the Crusades to the present day “war on terror.” To be precise, manufacturing fictive enemies out of fanciful delusions has been the cornerstone of imperial hegemony. Indeed, there is no denying that Islamophobia and imperialistic geopolitics has long been intertwined. And a systematically circulated myth has helped sow the seeds of anti-Muslim paranoia in popular psyche across the globe. So intense is the resultant hatred that there are several instances of people from India’s Sikh community being targeted fatally in the United States only because they resembled Arab Muslims.

Anti-Muslim surveillance violates the very principles of the ConstitutionHina Shamsi, Director, ACLU’s National Security Project, February 11, 2016, “Why I Have Hope For American Muslim Equality,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-shamsi/vwhy-i-have-hope-for-american-muslim-equality_b_9204680.html, Accessed 2-28-16

The problems don't end with these government programs, though. Surveillance programs target American Muslims without any suspicion of wrongdoing. Muslims are detained indefinitely at Guantánamo . Blacklists disproportionately target Muslims. The use of lethal drones in majority-Muslim countries has violated international and domestic law. For well over a decade, programs and policies like these have sent a very powerful message: When it comes to American Muslims, our nation's actions often do not match the principles of equal treatment and religious freedom enshrined in our Constitution.

Backdoors are illegitimate

Backdoors undermine security

Backdoors make us more vulnerable to hackers and terroristsBruce Schneier, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, a program fellow at the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and an Advisory Board member of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, February 1, 2016, “Security or Surveillance?,” Lawfare, https://lawfareblog.com/security-or-surveillance, Accessed 2-29-16

Adding backdoors will only exacerbate the risks. As technologists, we can’t build an access system that only works for people of a certain citizenship, or with a particular morality, or only in the presence of a specified legal document. If the FBI can eavesdrop on your text messages or get at your computer’s hard drive, so can other governments. So can criminals. So can terrorists. This is not theoretical; again and again, backdoor accesses built for one purpose have been surreptitiously used for another. Vodafone built backdoor access into Greece’s cell phone network for the Greek government; it was used against the Greek government in 2004-2005. Google kept a database of backdoor accesses provided to the U.S. government under CALEA; the Chinese breached that database in 2009.

Backdoors make everyone more vulnerable. The risks outweigh the benefitsBruce Schneier, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, a program fellow at the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and an Advisory Board member of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, February 1, 2016, “Security or Surveillance?,” Lawfare, https://lawfareblog.com/security-or-surveillance, Accessed 2-29-16

Ubiquitous encryption protects us much more from bulk surveillance than from targeted surveillance. For a variety of technical reasons, computer security is extraordinarily weak. If a sufficiently skilled, funded, and motivated attacker wants in to your computer, they’re in. If they’re not, it’s because you’re not high enough on their priority list to bother with. Widespread encryption forces the listener — whether a foreign government, criminal, or terrorist — to target. And this hurts repressive governments much more than it hurts terrorists and criminals. Of course, criminals and terrorists have used, are using, and will use encryption to hide their planning from the authorities, just as they will use many aspects of society’s capabilities and infrastructure: cars, restaurants, telecommunications. In general, we recognize that such things can be used by both honest and dishonest people. Society thrives nonetheless because the honest so outnumber the dishonest. Compare this with the tactic of secretly poisoning all the food at a restaurant. Yes, we might get lucky and poison a terrorist before he strikes, but we’ll harm all the innocent customers in the process. Weakening encryption for everyone is harmful in exactly the same way.

Disease Surveillance

A2: Zika virus

Treating Zika like it was SARS or Ebola diverts resources away from a solutionGeorge Annas, professor and director of the Center for Health Law, Ethics, and Human Rights at the Boston University School of Public Health, et al, February 1, 2016, “Zika virus is not Ebola,” Boston Globe, https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/01/zika-virus-not-ebola/gbBZA18ILkLcLK2VNM7XfM/story.html, Accessed 2-29-16

In many ways Zika represents a form of endemic illness that is becoming more and more familiar. We can assume that Zika will eventually distribute to many of the same areas covered by dengue, chikungunya, yellow fever and West Nile virus — all of which are carried by the same mosquito. None of these diseases have the ability to spread by casual person-to-person contact, and there is no reason to believe that Zika will be spread by casual person-to-person contact either. This stands Zika in sharp contrast with SARS and Ebola, about which there was much, warranted, global concern. All of this suggests that there is much we do not know, and that what we do know so far falls far short of justifying Zika as a public health emergency of international concern. Doing so is not without consequence. By declaring Zika a public health emergency, the WHO raises unnecessary alarm, diverts resources away from the work that needs to be done to better understand this disease, and chips away at public confidence in the ability of global authorities to discriminate between diseases that truly warrant such a label, and ones where a more judicious approach is more suited to the conditions on the ground.

Zika is not a global threatClare Wenham, Staff Writer, January 22, 2016, “Zika isn’t a global health threat like Ebola. It needs a targeted response,” The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/27/zika-virus-ebola-security-policies-poverty, Accessed 2-29-16

Quite simply, Zika does not pose the same security concern to the global population that we saw during Ebola and it should not be considered a threat in the same way. This is despite the US Centers for Disease Control now placing the virus at alert level two. Zika spreads through mosquito bites in affected regions, producing mild flu-like symptoms that rarely require hospitalisation and a negligible mortality rate. The virus can be readily controlled through effective mosquito control procedures, such as destroying the infected insects and larvae, or insecticide use. I am not suggesting that we should ignore Zika or shouldn’t seek to protect unborn babies from potential harm. As a pregnant woman myself, I have the utmost sympathy for the affected women struggling with the impact of this disease on their children. However, we need to ensure the focus of the global community remains on sustainable measures to control mosquito borne infections, rather than knee-jerk security responses.

Zika is not Ebola! The WHO declaration of Zika spreading was politically motivated and only inspires fearGeorge Annas, professor and director of the Center for Health Law, Ethics, and Human Rights at the Boston University School of Public Health, et al, February 1, 2016, “Zika virus is not Ebola,” Boston Globe, https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/01/zika-virus-not-ebola/gbBZA18ILkLcLK2VNM7XfM/story.html, Accessed 2-29-16

Just last week, the World Health Organization last week announced that the Zika virus was “spreading explosively.” Today, it declared Zika “a public health emergency of international concern.” The political pressures on the WHO to take this action have been strong. The shadow of Ebola also looms large, and the WHO seems, perhaps understandably, motivated by the worldwide conclusion that it was ineffective in responding to the Ebola epidemic in 2014, waiting to designate that disease as an “emergency” until it was far too late for this designation to matter. It did not want to make this mistake again. The problem is that Zika is not Ebola, or anything like Ebola, and declaring Zika an emergency will simply stoke fear, and even panic, in a public that deserves to have public health decisions made on the basis of facts and science, rather than on politics and fear.

A2: Zika virus

Equating Zika and Ebola produces failed policies. It’s a false comparisonClare Wenham, Staff Writer, January 22, 2016, “Zika isn’t a global health threat like Ebola. It needs a targeted response,” The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/27/zika-virus-ebola-security-policies-poverty, Accessed 2-29-16

With the World Health Organisation executive board in full swing, and soon after the World Economic Forum’s designation of infectious disease as a key global challenge, Zika has received considerable global attention. Notably, there has been a growing conversation focused on learning lessons from the failures of the global health community during the Ebola outbreak in west Africa, and applying these to Zika to ensure that this virus doesn’t become the next big global health threat. While this comparison may be understandable, it ignores two important points. First, the response to Ebola as a global security threat failed to produce a comprehensive mechanism to stop the outbreak. Second, Zika is a very different disease to Ebola and warrants a different policy response . Ebola inspired fear in the public through violent symptoms, its rapid and uncontrollable spread, high case fatality and the lack of a viable cure. It was this fear that spurred western governments to install political placebos, such asairport screening, despite the flawed logic that this might stop the virus entering a country. While these security-focused policies may have played well with the electorate they did not actively improve the health situation in the affected states of Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, and did nothing to improve sustainable health provision in these countries. Nor did most of these global decision-makers consider the impact that diverting their resources to one “threat” had on other local health concerns such as malaria and maternal health.

Domestic Drones

Policymaking good – Domestic drones requires legal solutions

The problems with domestic drone-based surveillance require a policy-making focusJonathan P. West, professor & chair in the Department of Political Science and director of the graduate program in public administration, University of Miami and James S. Bowman, professor of public administration at the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy, January/February 2016, “The Domestic Use of Drones: An Ethical Analysis of Surveillance Issues,” Public Administration Review, p. 2.

Automated flight technology, in sum, holds possibilities that were science fiction a generation ago; in an age of aerial drones and big data, what was once invisible and meaningless is now made visible and meaningful. As surveillance has become capital rather than labor intensive, aerial monitoring will be increasingly easy to do. The line between public and private spheres will be further blurred, and this may profoundly change the character of civic culture. With the “gold rush” mentality surrounding the commercialization of drones—thousands of jobs and billions in revenue are potentially in play—it is critical that stakeholders confront difficult questions, avoid hurried judgments, and employ reliable policy-making processes.

Policymaking good – Permutation for kritiks

Individual ethical theories are not enough to confront drones. The permutation is the best approachJonathan P. West, professor & chair in the Department of Political Science and director of the graduate program in public administration, University of Miami and James S. Bowman, professor of public administration at the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy, January/February 2016, “The Domestic Use of Drones: An Ethical Analysis of Surveillance Issues,” Public Administration Review, p. 3.

The heroic assumptions of the philosophical approach—that individuals are ostensibly and universally logical, possess full information, and have the willpower to use it—often do not hold in real life. For Bazerman and Tenbrunsel (2011), the goal is to be prepared for the unconscious psychological forces that routinely affect decisions. In short, while the philosophical approach focuses on what constitutes a balanced, ethical decision, behavioral ethics helps predict and explain why a decision may be deficient. It does not replace traditional methods but supplements them to better describe how moral choices are made. Although the philosophical and behavioral ethics analyses may not produce definitive answers, they do provide direction by assessing the reasoning used to explain conduct. Individual ethical theories may lead to different evaluations of drone monitoring, but these differences must be assessed, not passed over. Neither the presence nor absence of robotic aircraft is obviously good or bad, as both can be problematic. Given the adolescence of the drone era, the lack of agreed-upon metrics makes it difficult—and crucial—to scrutinize the promise and problems of UAV operations. To take into account contending interests, domestic aerial surveillance will be investigated using the classical philosophical perspective, followed by a behavioral ethics examination. The study, which is intended to provide equal space to competing claims, reflects the nature of the literature. Because work on perceived drawbacks of drones is more extensive than benefits, critics receive more attention than supporters.

Drones depoliticize being (no value to life)

Even used for non-lethal purposes, drones reduce people to depoliticized units of data devoid of meaningElke Schwarz, Anglia Ruskin University, UK and University College London, February 2016, “Prescription drones: On the techno-biopolitical regimes of contemporary ‘ethical killing’,” Security Dialogue, Vol. 47(1), pp. 61-62.

The rationale for positing the use of drones as an ethical means of killing is deeply biopolitical. Drones enable the (de)politicization of targets by abstracting human life into a techno-political entity that can be captured in clinical terms as data, typically through new visualization techniques. In such a context, targeted killing practices come to reflect a logic of biopolitical power in which logistical decisions and arithmetic calculations turn political violence into a form of risk management. As Dillon and Reid note, such practices of biopolitical securitization rest on a rendering of ‘life as a mechanism and mechanisms as life’. On one hand, ‘life’ appears as the target of necro-political practices and the terrain on which these practices play out; on the other, theories of organic life processes serve as the very basis for such practices. An expanded understanding of biopolitics thus takes into account the structure of scientific thought, seeing the practice of analysing the body politic as resting on an understanding of biological life processes. It also ties in another, ancillary, consequence of the scientific process of truth-finding in societies where biological life dominates the social realm – namely, the possibility for a naturalistic conception of political ends, represented by the anthropomorphization of a body politic as ill, or in mortal danger, and in need of professional intervention. Modern biomedical epistemologies are crucial here, serving to shape the production of specific biopolitical and scientific-technological subjectivities.

Domestic surveillance from on high represents a dronopticon of psychic imprisonment that literally transforms its human targetsIan G.R. Shaw, School of Geographical and Earth Sciences, The University of Glasgow, February 3, 2016, “The Urbanization of Drone Warfare: Policing Surplus Populations in the Dronepolis,” https://www.academia.edu/21497961/The_Urbanization_of_Drone_Warfare_ Policing_Surplus_Populations_in_the_Dronepolis, Accessed 2-28-16

Moreover, by securing and saturating the urban atmosphere, the police swarm not only straightforwardly mediates the technogeographies of state power, but comes to recalibrate the psychological and emotional landscapes of the humans that it targets. Drone surveillance amounts to a psychic imprisonment within a perimeter no longer defined by bars barriers, and walls, but by endless circling off lying watchtowers above. In places outside of the global north, surplus populations--such as those in Palestine--are already subject to this exact form of atmo-psychological security. The fractured geographies of Palestine are not simply enclosed by Israeli-controlled land on their borders, but also above and below. Israel has refused to hand over control of airspace even after its disengagement from Gaza. The dronopticon, then, is more than an architecture of state power, but an affective swarm capable of enclosing, hacking, and remaking the lifeworlds it infiltrates.

Drones depoliticize being (no value to life)

Drones typify the techno-political dimension of warfare where humans are reduced to numbers and data in a life-denying and objectifying gaze of surveillanceElke Schwarz, Anglia Ruskin University, UK and University College London, February 2016, “Prescription drones: On the techno-biopolitical regimes of contemporary ‘ethical killing’,” Security Dialogue, Vol. 47(1), p.

Signature strikes echo the biomedical practice of risk profiling and surveillance with a view to prophylactic intervention. That which might pose a risk is identified and selected as a justified target merely on the basis of identifiable markers, patterns and algorithmic calculations, and in most cases the exact factors that contribute to the algorithmic determination of targets remain opaque. What enters into the picture here, by means of surveillance and data-capture technology, is the capture of life and the potential threat to life as a calculable and ascertainable factor. The technology itself, understood as offering greater visual accuracy and scope of information, invokes the supposition that clear patterns of abnormality can be detected, which then serve to justify and legitimize a specific target selection. This practice typifies an important techno-biopolitical dimension of drone warfare, for the ‘patterns of life’ analysis employed in selecting signature strike targets is not only a modality of cultural and spatial mapping, but also a biopolitically informed one. Joseph Pugliese explains this entwinement of algorithmic and biological knowledge in the following terms: The military term ‘pattern of life’ is inscribed with two intertwined systems of scientific conceptuality: algorithmic and biological. The human subject detected by [the] drone’s surveillance cameras is, in the first scientific schema, transmuted algorithmically into a patterned sequence of numerals: the digital code of ones and zeros. Converted into digital data coded as a ‘pattern of life’, the targeted human subject is reduced to an anonymous simulacrum that flickers across the screen and that can effectively be liquidated into a ‘pattern of death’ with the swivel of a joystick. Viewed through the scientific gaze of clinical biology, ‘pattern of life’ connects the drone’s scanning technologies to the discourse of an instrumentalist science, its constitutive gaze of objectifying detachment and its production of exterminatory violence. Basic biological data, such as age and gender, factor into the distinction as to whether a suspect is assigned to a risk group. As Becker and Shane (2012) have revealed, all military-age male persons count as potential combatants, and therefore legitimate targets, in a US targeted killing strike zone, and their actual status is often not confirmed until after a strike has already occurred. Life here is abstracted as data, to be fed into a risk matrix and used in a pathological assessment of the body politic.

Using drones in law enforcement surveillance represents necropolitics of surveillanceIan G.R. Shaw, School of Geographical and Earth Sciences, The University of Glasgow, February 3, 2016, “The Urbanization of Drone Warfare: Policing Surplus Populations in the Dronepolis,” https://www.academia.edu/21497961/The_Urbanization_of_Drone_Warfare_ Policing_Surplus_Populations_in_the_Dronepolis, Accessed 2-28-16

But how will the urbanization of drone warfare extend and rework this extant logic? On the one hand, unmanned vertical policing extends the police dream of pacification through air power, or a scopic

verticality. Under this understanding, the drone intensifies already-existing regimes of aerial policing--further enclosing the targeted society from above, and rendering the illegible spaces of necropolis visible. Yet drones also hold the potential to transform state technics. They materialize a more intimate form of aerial policing that challenges the notion that drones are remote technologies. Currently, the Predator and Reaper class of military drones surveil the ground from up to a flight ceiling of 25,000 and 50,000 feet respectively. But a big trend in military and domestic robotics is to develop micro or nanodrones that can range in size from a humming bird to an insect. Crucially, by going smaller, the geographies of state surveillance become more intimate.

Drones depoliticize being (no value to life)

Nano-drones for policing are inevitable and will swarm urban environments. This dronopticon is a deterritorialized mode of surveillance and State power to regulate lifeIan G.R. Shaw, School of Geographical and Earth Sciences, The University of Glasgow, February 3, 2016, “The Urbanization of Drone Warfare: Policing Surplus Populations in the Dronepolis,” https://www.academia.edu/21497961/The_Urbanization_of_Drone_Warfare_ Policing_Surplus_Populations_in_the_Dronepolis, Accessed 2-28-16

Most U.S. police drones in existence today are variants of the small-scale quadcopter drones used by amateur hobbyists. Grand Forks sheriff’s department in North Dakota, for example, owns four drones. This includes the quadcopter Qube, developed by AeroVironment, as well as the U.S. military’s most widely used fixed-wing drone, the hand-launched Raven. Moreover, advances in artificial intelligence are enabling small-scale nano drones to cooperate together in emergent, cooperating constellations called “swarms”. It is here that the specifics of a dronified form of policing are glimpsed. With an ability to swarm in roving robotic clouds, the (nano) drone holds the potential to pervade, saturate, and modulate the urban volume in a way that neither the helicopter nor CCTV can adequately perform. Peter Adey (2014, p. 835) has previously written that, atmospheres are becoming objects of security, whilst security itself has gone, or is going, atmospheric. Perhaps, therefore, we are entering a new technicity of atmospheric security. Crucial to the idea of atmospheric security is that individuals can be immersed without being physically contained or touched. Jeremy Bentham’s classic blueprint for a Panopticon is reflected in today’s network of CCTV cameras fused to the urban architecture. This horizontal form of surveillance is complemented by the vertical power of the helicopter. But the police drone, or rather, the police swarm, will be able to move across both axes of the city, and can thus occupy street and sky simultaneously. Accordingly, the police drone disrupts the extant geometries of state power that are constrained to an X and Y axis. Furthermore, nano drones would be able to move inside workplaces, or perch inside of homes undetected. These drones would be able to infiltrate a range of currently inaccessible urban micro-geographies. Such future police drones thus materialize a swarm-like space of panopticism, or what could be labelled as a deterritorialized dronopoticon. There are fewer reasons to doubt that in the future, swarms of nano drones will pass freely through the foams of urban living, shuttling between the biopolis and necropolis, to ensure that everyone is secured in their right place.

Drones – A Foucauldian analysis of power improves decisions

A Foucauldian analysis illuminates modes of power that undergird surveillance. The alternative allows us to make better decisionsJeffrey Vagle, Lecturer in Law and Exec. Director of the Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, February 9, 2016, “Surveillance Is Still About Power,” Just Security, https://www.justsecurity.org/29240/surveillance-power/, Accessed 2-28-16

Why? Because Foucault’s framing of power relationships can give us the tools to better understand and evaluate the surveillance choices we make as a society. Our most commonplace policies regarding public safety, public health, and public welfare, as seen through the lens of Foucault’s framework, can reveal just how much of this structure is about power and the management of population segments. Foucault understood and described both the productivity of power (the fact that power relationships are necessary to the modern society) and subjectivity through power relations (the impact of these power relationships is not limited to repression, but includes also the intent to teach, to shape conduct, and to install and enforce identities, and can result in all of the above). Surveillance can take many forms, but irrespective of how extraordinary or common a particular manifestation may be, the management of a power relationship is at its core. Opening our eyes to these implications can only help in our comprehension of surveillance in all its forms and effects. By applying this principle, we are able to better understand the full impact of our policies. When police departments tout “hot spot policing” algorithms as efficiency boons, we can better evaluate who actually bears the brunt of this burden shifting. When our state governments approve warrantless, unannounced home searches for aid program recipients, we can better examine the true nature of these programs. And when federal law enforcement agencies demand “backdoors” to the encryption programs that protect our digital data, we can better understand the context of power relationships that govern every surveillance program, and begin making policy decisions that benefit and protect us — all of us.

Border drones – Drones represent ongoing militarization

Our criticism is an essential supplement to the ongoing debate on domestic drone surveillance. We should turn attention to militarization of the borderReece Jones, Department of Geography, University of Hawai'i-Manoa, and Corey Johnson, Department of Geography, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, February 2016, “Border militarisation and the re-articulation of sovereignty,” Transactions, p. 7.

US customs and Border Protection has nine predator drones that patrol the Southwestern border, which is the largest fleet used in US domestic airspace. Additionally, the Department of Defense uses the more sophisticated Global Hawk drone for drug smuggling interdiction missions over Mexico, but not over US territory. The CBP program began in 2004 with a pilot study that determined that the unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) could be used for reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting and acquisition (RTSA) duties along the border. Each system costs $18 million to purchase and millions more to maintain and operate each year. Military contractors actively engage in lobbying efforts to ensure that their technologies are integrated into existing fleets, including Northrop Grumman, whose drone-mounted surveillance system is called ‘Vader’. The use of drones has been critiqued by a number of scholars in recent years, but these interventions have been primarily focused on their use abroad in support of US and British military missions. Williams (2011) questions the ‘persistent presence’ idea of UAVs by considering the embodied geopolitics of the lived experience of the crew, which she argues represent an assemblage of human and machine elements. Gregory emphasises the sense of intimacy experienced by the drone operators, despite the distance from the images on their monitors: This sensation is partly the product of the deliberate inculcation of a ‘warrior culture’ among UAV pilots, but it is also partly a product of interpellation, of being drawn into and captured by the visual field itself. Given the growing deployment of drones along US borders, there is a critical need for more research into the impact of these programmes.

Border militarization represents the combination of military culture and surveillance to solidify the re-emergence of state sovereign powerReece Jones, Department of Geography, University of Hawai'i-Manoa, and Corey Johnson, Department of Geography, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, February 2016, “Border militarisation and the re-articulation of sovereignty,” Transactions, p. 11.

Third, contrary to some theorists who argued that state sovereignty is in decline, being eclipsed by global flows and transnational actors, we argue that the militarisation of borders more accurately represents a re-articulation of sovereign power. New technologies and hardware, government funding and the adoption of military culture combine to allow the expansion of state security practices in areas that were once beyond the reach of the state. This is not emblematic of the retreat of the state or the end of sovereignty, but rather is the re-emergence and expansion of the idea of the territorially bounded state and sovereign power narrated, performed and enacted through violence at the border. The last decade of border securitisation represents a fundamental shift in the role of borders as lines, which have become lines for protecting privilege through militarised security techniques. By taking the

borderline seriously, it allows us to situate these broader changes in relation to it. It is at borders, in the liminal spaces between polities, cultures and economies, where these concepts find their fullest expression as states seek to cope with the flows and movements that characterise our increasingly global world, and where humans are most exposed to the realities of our persistently territorial world.

Export Controls

Undermine cyber security

Export controls interfere with information sharing essential to cyber securityMichael Hardy, Staff Writer, January 15, 2016, “Schneck: Export controls could hinder cyber work,” Federal Times, http://www.federaltimes.com/story/government/cybersecurity/2016/01/15/schneck-export-controls-could-hinder-cyber-work/78841482/, Accessed 2-29-16

A set of export controls, intended to promote transparency and greater responsibility in the exports of weapons systems and other technologies, poses a risk of compromising cybersecurity, according to a Department of Homeland Security official in testimony before a joint House subcommittee hearing. A 41-member group called the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies developed and agreed to the controls in 2013. In January, a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's IT Subcommittee and the Homeland Security Committee's Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies Subcommittee examined the impact of the measures. Phyllis Schneck, deputy undersecretary for cybersecurity and communications at DHS, told the panel that the rapid evolution of technology could conflict with the export controls in ways that hamper U.S. cyber protection efforts. “Technology is evolving at a faster pace than ever before,” reads her written testimony. “Our adversaries are also changing rapidly, and are constantly developing new tools and attacks to compromise critical networks, steal data and potentially damage our physical infrastructure. In this environment, it is essential for cybersecurity researchers and developers to share information rapidly across borders in the interest of creating the next security solution of combating an emerging risk.”

Surveillance export controls undermine cross-border development for the next generation of cyber security toolsMichael Hardy, Staff Writer, January 15, 2016, “Schneck: Export controls could hinder cyber work,” Federal Times, http://www.federaltimes.com/story/government/cybersecurity/2016/01/15/schneck-export-controls-could-hinder-cyber-work/78841482/, Accessed 2-29-16

Schneck acknowledged that some of the risks the controls are intended to reduce, such as surveillance tools and intrusion software, are also cybersecurity concerns. “But such examples also exemplify why we must support improved cybersecurity,” she said. The risk posed by the export controls is a slowdown in cross-border development efforts, she said. “[I]n implementing that control, we need to avoid unintended consequences to cybersecurity. In a threat environment where our adversaries continue to gain in sophistication, we cannot afford to unduly constrain development of the next generation of cybersecurity solutions.”

iSurveillance

A backdoor for iPhones makes everyone more vulnerable to hackers and criminals will sift servicesPaul Szoldra, Staff Writer, February 17, 2016, “Apple is right: The FBI needs to accept that encryption is here to stay,” Tech Insider, http://www.techinsider.io/apple-tech-experts-terrorists-encryption-2015-11, Accessed 2-29-16

A US judge ordered Apple to help the FBI unlock an encrypted iPhone on Tuesday, but Apple CEO Tim Cook says it "would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data." According to others in the tech community, he's absolutely right — inserting a backdoor into an iPhone might help government investigators, but it would also make Apple products more prone to hackers. Meanwhile, the smart criminals will just move to encrypted communications services like Telegram or ProtonMail, both located off American shores and out of reach of US courts.

Capitulating to FBI demands sets a dangerous precedent. The slippery slope is realNicholas Weaver, senior staff researcher focusing on computer security at the International Computer Science Institute, February 17, 2016, “Not a Slippery Slope, but a Jump off the Cliff,” Lawfare, https://lawfareblog.com/not-slippery-slope-jump-cliff, Accessed 2-29-16

When I first read the court order in the San Bernardino case, I thought it was reasonable, as it is both technically plausible and doesn't substantially impact user security for most people. Even if Apple's code escapes it only compromises security for those who have a weak passcode on an older phone which is then captured by an adversary. As backdoors go, its one that I can (*GASP*) actually live with! The problem is this is a direct invocation of Benjamin Wittes's world of government-mandated malicious updates. The request seems benign but the precedent catastrophic. The request to Apple is accurately paraphrased as "Create malcode designed to subvert security protections, with additional forensic protections, customized for a particular target's phone, cryptographically sign that malcode so the target's phone accepts it as legitimate, and run that customized version through the update mechanism". (I speak of malcode in the technical sense of "code designed to subvert a security protection or compromise the device", not in intent.) The same logic behind what the FBI seeks could just as easily apply to a mandate forcing Microsoft, Google, Apple, and others to push malicious code to a device through automatic updates when the device isn't yet in law enforcement's hand. So the precedent the FBI seeks doesn't represent just "create and install malcode for this device in Law Enforcement possession" but rather "create and install malcode for this device".

Apple should resist. The government will use this to demand cooperation in other casesVindu Goel, Staff Writer, February 26, 2016, “A Brief Explanation of Apple’s Showdown With the U.S. Government,” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/technology/a-brief-explanation-of-apples-showdown-with-the-us-government.html, Accessed 2-29-16

The F.B.I. wants Apple to help unlock an encrypted iPhone used by one of the two attackers who killed 14 people in the San Bernardino , Calif., mass shooting in December . Specifically, the bureau wants Apple to create software that would help it override a security system on the phone designed to erase its contents after 10 unsuccessful tries to enter its password. Apple is resisting for several reasons. First, it argues that the government is trying to force it to create software that does not exist. What is more, the company says writing that software would amount to hacking its own technology. Apple claims this would create a security risk for all iPhone customers, especially because other government agencies in the United States and abroad could then demand Apple’s assistance in other cases. In a court filing, Apple disclosed that there were nine other cases in which the Justice Department has asked for its help unlocking phones.

Police Surveillance

“Big Data” is coming soon (surveillance State)

New technology will soon transform police surveillance to a totalistic mapping system of the entire populationElizabeth E. Joh, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis School of Law, 2016, “The New Surveillance Discretion: Automated Suspicion, Big Data, and Policing,” Harvard Law & Policy Review, 10 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 15, http://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/10.1_3_Joh.pdf, Accessed 2-28-16

Whether the police identify a person and choose to investigate him for suspected criminal activity is a decision largely left up to the police. The decisional freedom to focus police attention on a particular person or persons rather than others--what I'll call "surveillance discretion"--is a widely accepted means of investigation. Law enforcement would be unimaginable without it. This task of filtering--identifying suspects from the general population--exemplifies traditional police work. Police officers usually generate leads by focusing their attention on particular suspects through observation, questioning, and information conveyed by witnesses, victims, or other third parties. New technologies have altered surveillance discretion by lowering its costs and increasing the capabilities of the police to identify suspicious persons. Furthermore, soon it will be feasible and affordable for the government to record, store, and analyze nearly everything people do. The police will rely on alerts generated by computer programs that sift through the massive quantities of available information for patterns of suspicious activity. The selection of investigative targets that emerge from big data rather than from traditional human investigation represents an important expansion in the powers of the police. That expansion, in turn, calls out for new tools of police accountability.

Big data will massively expand police surveillance powersElizabeth E. Joh, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis School of Law, 2016, “The New Surveillance Discretion: Automated Suspicion, Big Data, and Policing,” Harvard Law & Policy Review, 10 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 15, http://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/10.1_3_Joh.pdf, Accessed 2-28-16

Big data will revolutionize the surveillance discretion of the police. By allowing the identification of large numbers of suspicious activities and people by sifting through large quantities of digitized data, big data expands the surveillance discretion of the police. Of course, the use of big data is not the first time the police have focused on numbers, information, or record-keeping. Accurate documentation of crime and criminals has been a concern that reaches back to the nineteenth century and the invention of the Bertillonage system. As they became more professional and bureaucratic, police of the twentieth century have sometimes been described as "knowledge workers" for whom information processing, rather than crime control, is a primary focus. Even in their crime control capacities, large urban police departments in the 1990s had already turned toward data-driven or intelligence-based policing styles, of which the most famous is the N.Y.P.D's Compstat system. The use of big data , then, accelerates and magnifies trends that until now had been slowly moving toward a heavier reliance on information and computers--with a specific emphasis on data analytics.

The police will soon have massive new powers for surveillance. Big data will move us to a “Minority Report” societyElizabeth E. Joh, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis School of Law, 2016, “The New Surveillance Discretion: Automated Suspicion, Big Data, and Policing,” Harvard Law & Policy Review, 10 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 15, http://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/10.1_3_Joh.pdf, Accessed 2-28-16

The police have always possessed surveillance discretion. Big data promises to expand and accelerate their ability to discover crime and identify suspects. One day the ability to sort, score, and predict social activity will be an ordinary aspect of policing, in the same way we now experience entertainment, dating, and shopping. Yet the use of big data in policing will be different because of its consequences. To be sure, big data policing may remedy some entrenched policing inequities. And it may heighten expectations about accountability. But enhancing the scope and power of the police to designate people as suspects will also further complicate longstanding concerns about discretion. Secrecy about these processes, moreover, can further alienate the public from the police. Because policing is a democratic institution and not just a technological enterprise, those concerns should trouble us.

Police surveillance – Militarization is increasing now

Ferguson illustrated the ongoing militarization of the police. A war culture of mass surveillance has infiltrated police thinking, fostering the logic of perpetual warfareReece Jones, Department of Geography, University of Hawai'i-Manoa, and Corey Johnson, Department of Geography, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, February 2016, “Border militarisation and the re-articulation of sovereignty,” Transactions, p. 2.

The consequences of police militarisation were clearly on display in the aftermath of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, when marches were met by ‘police’ in body armour, armoured vehicles and assault weapons. Much of this military hardware was obtained by local police departments through the Pentagon's ‘1033 program’, which since the early 1990s has transferred some $5 billion in excess equipment to civilian law enforcement agencies, including to university police, school districts and other federal agencies such as Customs and Border Protection. One irony of this process is that while police are increasingly operating under a ‘war’ mentality with a militarised culture, command structure and hardware, the military is increasingly operating in a policing role. The daily activities of US and coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan were typically checking documents, raiding houses and searching for criminals/insurgents in a manner similar to SWAT teams on drug raids. We argue, following Miller (2014), that the borderline itself is an ideal location to observe the blurring of internal and external logics of the police and military into an all-encompassing logic of perpetual war, surveillance and security.

Uniqueness answer for disads

Border surveillance thumpers

Obama is cutting 50% surveillance on the border nowRick Moran, Staff Writer, February 2, 2016, “Feds to cut aerial surveillance on the border by 50%,” American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/feds_to_cut_aerial_surveillance_on_the_border_by_50.html, Accessed 3-1-16

Let me get this straight. We have a new surge of illegal aliens from Central America crossing the border with the addition of Cubans trying to enter the country illegally. And rather than increasing surveillance, DHS wants to cut it by 50%? With a little less than a year left in office, it appears that President Obama wants to allow as many "refugees" as possible to present themselves for entry into the U.S., with all the associated costs and turmoil in towns across America who will be forced to take care of them. The president is very generous with taxpayer funds when it comes to resettling illegal immigrants his policies have encouraged. And even when the policy is reversed, it will take years to repair the damage done to our immigration enforcement efforts.

The DHS and DOD have cut aerial border surveillance in half for the next budgetLeo Hohmann, Staff Writer, February 5, 2016, “Bombshell: Obama cutting border surveillance in half,” WND,

http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/bombshell-obama-to-cut-border-surveillance-in-half/, Accessed 3-1-16

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is planning to cut 50 percent of the budget for aerial surveillance along the U.S.-Mexico border, agents revealed at a congressional hearing Thursday. In an effort to understand why DHS is cutting funding, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, wrote a bipartisan letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson. “Any decrease in aerial observation is not only imprudent, but contradicts the very mission of border security enforcement,” the letter states. The lawmakers’ letter also asks for detailed information about the reduction aerial-based border security, also known as Operation Phalanx. Abbott and Cuellar describe news of the funding cut for border security as “unsettling.” “It has come to our attention that for calendar year 2016 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested 3,850 hours of persistent aerial detection, situational awareness and monitoring capability support for Operation Phalanx from the Department of Defense (DOD). This request was fifty percent lower than that of recent years. Given the recent surge of migrants from Central America and Cuba along the southern border, we believe DHS should request more surveillance and security resources, not fewer. Moreover, Texas requested additional aerial observation resources in a September 30, 2015, letter that went unanswered by your department. “The fact that DHS now appears to be taking the opposite approach is unsettling.”

A2: Politics

CJS reform will not pass now

Election year politics and an overlapping legislative calendar means no CJS reform. The final bill would look nothing like what Obama is pushing, so there is no internal link to their impactsJohn T. Bennett, Staff Writer, February 5, 2016, “Criminal Justice Debate Turns to ‘How Much’ Is Possible,” Roll Call, http://blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/criminal-justice-debate-turns-much-possible/, Accessed 3-1-16

Debate about a sweeping criminal justice overhaul bill favored by Republicans and Democrats is now focused on the size and scope of potential changes, but there are reasons to doubt its passage this year. Some congressional aides and members of the advocacy community involved in the overhaul effort say they remain upbeat about Obama signing a measure into law — possibly before Congress adjourns for a prolonged summer and campaign season break. Still, some sources say, with one month of a truncated election-year legislative calendar already gone and the politics of an election year overlapping the legislative calendar, the prospects for the kind of soup-to-nuts bill Obama and some senior Republicans want appear to be fading. “Advocates are really stressing the need to ensure the bill addresses a large number of people,” one Senate Judiciary Committee aide said. But some involved in the debate say the final bill could be a pale reflection of what its proponents originally hoped for.

CJS reform won’t pass this yearBill Keller, Staff Writer, February 12, 2016, “Justice Reform, RIP?,” The Marshall Project, https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/02/12/justice-reform-rip#.FqAUSAFdA, Accessed 3-1-16

Among advocates campaigning to reduce the country’s bloated prison population and invest in rehabilitation, there is a growing sense that a) Congress is unlikely to pass anything this year worthy of being called reform, and b) it might be better to start over in 2017. Even the decidedly modest reforms that had some momentum a few months ago – measures that would mainly reduce mandatory minimum sentences for some drug offenders – have run into fierce opposition from law-and-order hawks such as Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark, who credits mandatory minimums for the 25-year decline in violent crime.

Very little chance CJS reform happens this year for two reasons: election year & insufficient compromisesDara Lind, Staff Writer, February 9, 2016, “The Senate might be getting rid of the boldest part of its criminal justice reform bill,” Vox, http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10949310/criminal-justice-reform-bill, Accessed 3-1-16

It's not clear that this is a done deal. The lead sponsors of the bill, Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), released a statement Monday night that said they're working to address concerns, but that "how those changes will look is still being determined." It's possible that supporters of reform will manage to

fight off major changes — or, more likely, to demand that the changes in the Politico article be accompanied by changes that expand relief to "nonviolent" offenders. Grassley and Durbin's statement promised the senators are "moving ahead to get a bill ready to be considered on the Senate floor." But it's not clear that the compromises that have been proposed will be enough to satisfy congressional opponents of criminal justice reform — much less enough to pass a major bill through Congress in a presidential election year.

CJS reform will not pass now

No real chance for CJS reform. At best, there would be miniscule changesBill Keller, Staff Writer, February 12, 2016, “Justice Reform, RIP?,” The Marshall Project, https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/02/12/justice-reform-rip#.FqAUSAFdA, Accessed 3-1-16

Supporters of reform are mobilizing a last-ditch assault on Capitol Hill, hoping to convince lawmakers that reform is a matter of public safety and fiscal prudence. They are pinning some hopes on Ryan, on endorsements from police chiefs and prosecutors, and on the fact that everybody is still actively negotiating. “The clock has not run out,” said one congressional aide. Gloomier advocates say that even if Ryan delivers in the House, it would take a near-miracle to get anything bold through the Senate. Some reform proponents believe the best they can expect is that Congress will grant a very narrow reprieve for one group of crack cocaine offenders. Back in 2010, Congress reduced sentences for inmates who were punished under a law that treated crack cocaine far more severely than powder cocaine. (The most conspicuous difference between the two forms of the drug is that powder is more popular with white users, while crack users tend to be black.) An estimated 5,800 people convicted before 2010 remain imprisoned. Congress could make these prisoners retroactively eligible for a judicial review of their sentences.

No impact to CJS reform / water-down

CJS reform will only affect 9% of prisonersWilliam A. Galston, Senior Fellow and The Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in Governance Studies and Elizabeth McElvein, Research Assistant, Governance Studies, Center for Effective Public Management, February 13, 2016, “Criminal justice reform: the facts about federal drug offenders,” The Brookings Institute, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2016/02/13-criminal-justice-reform-galston-mcelvein, Accessed 3-1-16

First, let us contextualize the scope and scale of the legislation at hand. The Sentencing Reform & Corrections Act is federal legislation, so it pertains only to prisoners held at the federal level. Of the more than 2.3 million individuals incarcerated in the United States, only 9% (210,567) were held at the federal level. By contrast 59% of the U.S. incarcerated population (1,350,958 individuals) is held at the state level, while the remaining 32% of the population (744,592 individuals) is held at the local level [Figure 1]. Compared to the population of individuals incarcerated in the United States in, federal level reform pertains to a relatively small number of people.

If Obama gets CJS reform passed it will be a watered-down compromise with republicansBrian Sorenstein, Publishing Editor, February 9, 2016, “Did Obama approve GOP efforts to water-down criminal justice reform?,”

Shadow Proof, https://shadowproof.com/2016/02/09/did-obama-approve-gop-efforts-to-water-down-criminal-justice-reform/, Accessed 3-1-16

Republicans are likely to further weaken sentencing reform legislation, and it appears President Barack Obama’s administration may have approved efforts to water down reform. The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act was introduced with lofty statements against mass incarceration and pledges of bipartisan cooperation. While falling well-short of abolishing mandatory minimums, the bill did make some effort to reduce certain lengthy sentences . Importantly, mandatory minimum sentence reductions were not only proposed for nonviolent drug offenders, but for some violent criminal convictions as well, including for so-called “armed career criminals.” But sentence reductions for some violent offenders may be removed from the bill as part of an effort to keep bipartisan criminal justice reform alive amid strong conservative criticism, according to POLITICO. The news comes after the White House confirmed to Huffington Post that President Barack Obama “recently” held a secret meeting with GOP leaders about the bill on February 4. President Obama has a history of placing greater emphasis on bipartisanship than the strength of legislation. He relied upon this sort of political deal making to pass several bills important to his legacy, including the 2009 stimulus bill and the Affordable Care Act , which bargained away key provisions to secure Republican support.

The Senate version won’t resemble the bill Obama is pushing. They will cave to CottonDara Lind, Staff Writer, February 9, 2016, “The Senate might be getting rid of the boldest part of its criminal justice reform bill,” Vox, http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10949310/criminal-justice-reform-bill, Accessed 3-1-16

Criminal justice reform in Congress was always a compromise — not just between Democrats and Republicans, but between legislators who believe the US needs to end mass incarceration and those who aren't so sure. The question is just how far that compromise will go. According to a report from Politico's Seung Min Kim, the Senate's criminal justice reform bill — which was voted out of committee last year but hasn't made it to the floor yet — is still evolving. The Politico report says the bill is being changed to allow fewer people convicted of violent crimes to apply for release — presumably in response to concerns from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who started going around a few weeks ago saying the bill would result in the release of "thousands of violent felons."

No impact to CJS reform / water-down

Compromises will water-down CJS reform and increase some mandatory minimumsJohn T. Bennett, Staff Writer, February 5, 2016, “Criminal Justice Debate Turns to ‘How Much’ Is Possible,” Roll Call, http://blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/criminal-justice-debate-turns-much-possible/, Accessed 3-1-16

Congressional advocates of the bill are also talking behind closed doors about several remaining issues, including the extent to which a final compromise package will alter mandatory minimum sentences. Sources involved in the debate believe Grassley, Cornyn and others ultimately will be able to sway enough of their on-the-fence colleagues. “In fact, in some instances, the Senate bill would increase mandatory minimum sentences,” Cox said. Another issue still being debated is known in the legal world as “mens rea,” or criminal intent, defined as “the state of mind indicating culpability which is required by statute as an element of a crime,” according to Cornell University. Cornyn is pushing to include a provision ensuring those who face prosecution actually had the intent to commit a crime. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va., wants it included in a final bill. The White House and other senators do not, arguing it could help corporations sidestep litigation. While Holden said Koch Industries believes “criminal intent standards are very important because people should not go to prison unless they have criminal intent,” he added that it does not “want this issue to sink everything else on criminal justice reform.” It is unclear whether GOP lawmakers will be influenced by the involvement of Koch, which views criminal justice policy changes as a win for civil liberties. Obama has spoken publicly for months about his desire for Congress to pass legislation that eases penalties for some crimes while also making it easier for former prisoners to adjust to life on the outside. Even amid warnings that campaign-trail politics could sink bipartisan work on the measure, it appeared a 2016 possibility.

No impact to CJS reform / overfederalization answers

Overfederalization is not an internal link and the Court resolves the impactSusan R. Klein, Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law, University of Texas School of Law and Ingrid B. Grobey, J.D., the University of Texas School of Law, 2012, “Debunking Claims of Over-Federalization of Criminal Law,” http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-62/issue-1/articles/debunking-claims-over-federalization.html#section-668f1dcdb78a4d16c7e4a2f20dcac198, Accessed 3-1-16

Finally, overbroad or vague federal criminal proscriptions, while admittedly troubling, are not a product of over-federalization itself. Vague federal statutes, particularly in the area of fraud, derive from the common law and have been in existence for decades (for example, the frequently charged mail fraud statute, the enactment of which dates back to 1876). While vague statutes have created temporary but serious problems in the federal system, the Supreme Court has managed to interpret such federal proscriptions in a manner that balances the amount of breadth needed to capture new forms of criminal conduct against the level of narrowing necessary for fairness. The Court has taken a similarly active role in curbing what might otherwise constitute strict liability offenses by imposing extra-textual mens rea requirements, particularly in the area of regulatory offenses. The Court’s active involvement in these areas has served and continues to serve as a powerful antidote to the perceived ills of congressional overreaching, poor statutory drafting, and regulatory criminalization.

The evidence proves there is no impact to overfederalizationSusan R. Klein, Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law, University of Texas School of Law and Ingrid B. Grobey, J.D., the University of Texas School of Law, 2012, “Debunking Claims of Over-Federalization of Criminal Law,” http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-62/issue-1/articles/debunking-claims-over-federalization.html#section-668f1dcdb78a4d16c7e4a2f20dcac198, Accessed 3-1-16

The academic and professional literature addressing this phenomenon focuses primarily on the dangers of this runaway freight train and what we can do to get things back on track. Sara Sun Beale warns that the sheer number of federal criminal offenses will overwhelm the federal judicial system, and she recommends that we fix over-federalization by trying a large swath of federal crimes in state courts. The late William Stuntz worried that the growth of the federal criminal code gives federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors unhealthy amounts of discretion to charge just about anyone, and he suggested that the Supreme Court impose substantive limits on the definitions of crimes. Steven Clymer and Stephen F. Smith independently insist that the expansion of the federal criminal code gives federal prosecutors an opportunity to unfairly charge select defendants with controlled substance violations (according to Professor Clymer) and sex crimes, bribery, RICO, and mail fraud (according to Professor Smith) in a forum characterized by government-friendly procedural rules and draconian sentences. The American Bar Association reported that overgrowth of the federal criminal code now threatens both the efficacy of our federal court system and the continued viability of local law enforcement. For the ABA, the solution is a combination of congressional restraint and Supreme Court enforcement of federalism principles. Rather than focus on the ever-growing size of the federal criminal code, we suggest a reevaluation of the premise underlying these reform suggestions: Is there actually a problem with the

sheer number of federal criminal offenses in existence, and, if so, does this problem warrant radical intervention? Based upon our examination of the current federal criminal code and federal criminal caseloads, the answer at this point in time is no. An objective review of the evidence suggests that the number of federal proscriptions has little effect, negative or positive, in the real world of federal criminal justice enforcement.

NEGATIVE EVIDENCE

Antiblackness Kritik

Surveillance Links

The entire surveillance apparatus is antiblack. Laws to maintain order always disproportionately hurt black bodiesDorothy Roberts, Penn Integrates Knowledge professor at the University of Pennsylvania and Jeffrey Vagle, Lecturer in Law and Exec. Director of the Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, January 4, 2016, “Racial surveillance has a long history,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/264710-racial-surveillance-has-a-long-history, Accessed 2-28-16

In the U.S., this system of structural surveillance emerges from a history of racism and white supremacy that links the use of deadly force by police against young black men and women to our systems of criminal justice, social programs and public health. Its reach, as well as its near invisibility to those privileged enough to escape its gaze, makes it especially difficult to address in its entirety, and we are often left to deal with its effects in piecemeal, incident by sickening incident. This complex system of overlapping surveillance regimes did not emerge overnight but through reactions to moments of crisis, eventually becoming permanent aspects of government and society over time. In 18th century New York, for example, the fear of armed insurrection by enslaved people led to a series of ordinances strictly regulating the movement of blacks and Indians within the city. One such class of statutes required all unattended slaves to carry lighted lanterns after dark so that they could be easily identified and monitored by white authorities. Any person of color found in violation of these lantern laws was sentenced to a public flogging of up to 40 lashes, the actual number left to the discretion of the slaveholder. Fast-forward to the late 20th century, and we continue to see the instantiation of surveillance mechanisms in response to perceived public crises. These laws and practices were enacted seemingly to maintain public order generally, but disproportionately targeted minorities and the poor.

The 1AC takes a colorblind approach to surveillance that masks the uncomfortability of racial politics and oppression in the ongoing legacy of spying on people of colorAlvaro Bedoya, founding executive director of the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law, January 2016, “The Color of Surveillance,” Slate, http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/01/what_the_fbi_s_surveillance_of_martin_luther_king_ says_about_modern_spying.single.html, Accessed 2-28-16

There is a myth in this country that in a world where everyone is watched, everyone is watched equally. It’s as if an old and racist J. Edgar Hoover has been replaced by the race-blind magic of computers, mathematicians, and Big Data. The truth is more uncomfortable. Across our history and to this day, people of color have been the disproportionate victims of unjust surveillance; Hoover was no aberration. And while racism has played its ugly part, the justification for this monitoring was the same we hear today: national security. The FBI’s violations against King were undeniably tinged by what historian David Garrow has called “an organizational culture of like-minded white men.” But as Garrow and others have shown, the FBI’s initial wiretap requests—and then–Attorney General Robert Kennedy’s approval of them—were driven by a suspected tie between King and the Communist Party. It wasn’t just

King; Cesar Chavez, the labor and civil rights leader, was tracked for years as a result of vague, confidential tips about “a communist background,” as were many others. Many people know that during World War II, innocent Americans of Japanese descent were surveilled and detained in internment camps. Fewer people know that in the wake of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson openly feared that black servicemen returning from Europe would become “the greatest medium in conveying Bolshevism to America.” Around the same time, the Military Intelligence Division created a special “Negro Subversion” section devoted to spying on black Americans. Near the top of its list was W.E.B. DuBois, a “rank Socialist” whom they tracked in Paris for fear he would “attempt to introduce socialist tendencies at the Peace Conference.” This pattern is not limited to the past. For years after Sept. 11, the New York Police Department—with significant help from the CIA—monitored bookstores, restaurants, and nightclubs in Muslim neighborhoods and placed informants, known as “mosque crawlers,” in places of worship, where they reported on sermons and recorded the license plates of innocent congregants. (The program was notoriously ineffective, and the NYPD settled two lawsuits over this conduct earlier this month.) Other reports show that the Department of Homeland Security—an agency founded to protect against terror attacks—has been tracking Black Lives Matter activists. If you name a prominent civil rights leader of the 20th or 21st centuries, chances are strong that he or she was surveilled in the name of national security.

Surveillance Links

Surveillance cannot be divorced from the legacy of slavery. It’s a structural system of overlapping mechanisms of racial regulation that continually devastates black communities Dorothy Roberts, Penn Integrates Knowledge professor at the University of Pennsylvania and Jeffrey Vagle, Lecturer in Law and Exec. Director of the Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, January 4, 2016, “Racial surveillance has a long history,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/264710-racial-surveillance-has-a-long-history, Accessed 2-28-16

The system of structural surveillance inflicts multiple, simultaneous harms on communities of color. For example, the intersection of two key structural surveillance systems — prisons and foster care — disproportionately affects black mothers, who are at higher risk than whites of being incarcerated and having their children removed from them. According to a 2010 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, black children are 7.5 times more likely than white children to have a parent in prison. Scholars have long shown that children in foster care are at an increased risk of incarceration, while children with incarcerated parents are more likely to end up in foster care, with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services data showing black children in foster care at a rate twice that of white children, adjusted for relative population sizes. The buildup of the prison and foster care systems as state responses to social insecurity obscures the need for social change while further monitoring, disrupting and punishing poor families of color. Even the processes through which social services are delivered fall within this system of structural surveillance. Social programs for the poor in America began to take a sharp disciplinary turn in the mid-20th century, as existing racial, political and social orders began to change. A conservative backlash movement to reform social programs adopted racially coded language that presented images of an out-of-control minority underclass (recall the breathless warnings during the 1980s of “welfare queens” taking advantage of an overly generous benefits system), driving perceptions among white voters of a growing crisis that required immediate and severe action.

The result was a wide-ranging system of welfare surveillance, stripping benefit recipients of their dignity, privacy and, ultimately, their social safety net. Under the guise of fraud prevention and quality control, government agencies closely scrutinized applicants, demanding that they identify all sexual partners, submit to blood and urine tests for drug use and open their homes to unannounced (and warrantless) searches by government agents. Because racial patterns of poverty can be directly attributed to systems of slavery, Jim Crow, redlining and other efforts to control or marginalize African-Americans, these reforms have had a disproportionate — and devastating — effect on black communities in this country. And the resulting welfare surveillance system functions as a new form of racial regulation.

A2: Capitalism explains antiblackness

Only antiblackness can explain modern capitalism. White supremacy informs “racial capitalism” which maintains the prison industrial complex Dennis Childs, Professor of Literature UCSD, and Mark Karlin, editor of BuzzFlash at Truthout (interviewer), February 7, 2016, “Capitalism, Slavery, Racism and Imprisonment of People of Color Cannot Be Separated,” Truthout, http://www.truth-out.org/ progressivepicks/item/34726-capitalism-slavery-racism-and-imprisonment-of-people-of-color-cannot-be-separated, Accessed 2-28-16

(Karlin) How is the US prison industrial complex intertwined with the history of capitalism in the United States? (Childs) Like the military-industrial complex, the prison industrial complex represents a system of transferring public wealth over to powerful corporate and political interests that are wreaking harm on an unimaginable scale. But again, in the book, I try to point out the ways in which this modern system of profiting from human misery is grounded in ideologies of white supremacy that make the association of Blackness and criminality as interlocked in the modern white US imagination as "Africanness" and enslavement were before 1865. In this sense, what the important Black studies theorist Cedric Robinson calls "racial capitalism" is vitally important to my work insofar as it illustrates the degree to which racism is a part of the very structural mainframe of this society. That said, the one social predicament that brings together nearly every one of the over 2.3 million people encaged in the US no matter what their race, ethnicity or religion is poverty - a lack of access to decent housing, fair employment, health care, education etc. I'm sure your readers may have heard that a recent Oxfam study found that the world's 62 most wealthy people now own more that the bottom 50 percent of the global population - which equates to roughly 3.6 billion people. This unspeakable fact of capitalism, its tendency to eviscerate whole collectives of people and then criminalize them for performing the predictable outcomes of that evisceration, is one of the instrumental pathologies that fuels the production of prisoners as commodities, namely poor people of color. It also informs the fact that since Bill Clinton passed NAFTA over 20 years ago there has been a 500 percent increase of immigration from countries to the south - and the fact that in following the uneven flow of capital northward, the migrant labor population is then criminalized as the most rapidly increasing demographic of prisoners in the US. This is why [President] Obama has been referred to as the "deporter in chief" by migrant activists, as he has overseen the imprisonment and deportation of over 2 million people. I hope that in offering a genealogy of what I call racial, capitalist, misogynist incarceration in the book I help move us further along in our critical approach to dismantling the PIC as both a national and global node in the larger neocolonial and imperialist project that is wreaking havoc the world over, especially in the global South.

Politics Disadvantage

1NC – Criminal Justice Reform

A. Criminal justice reform will pass now but Obama’s political capital is keySam Brodey, Staff Writer, January 22, 2016, “In what promises to be a hard-fought election year, what might Congress actually accomplish?,” Minnesota Post, https://www.minnpost.com/dc-dispatches/2016/01/what-promises-be-hard-fought-election-year-what-might-congress-actually-accomp, Accessed 2-29-16

Last year saw an unprecedented number of politicians from both parties question the effectiveness and wisdom of the American criminal justice system as currently constructed. This year could be when they actually do something about it. The effort to implement meaningful reforms to the criminal justice system has been strongest in the Senate, where liberal and conservative lawmakers alike have united around a few changes that reform advocates have been pushing. A bipartisan group of senators introduced a package last fall that would roll back mandatory minimum sentencing, ban solitary confinement for minors, strengthen programs to reduce recidivism rates, and give judges more flexibility in sentencing. That package cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee, a panel upon which Sen. Amy Klobuchar sits. She, along with Sen. Al Franken, has been broadly supportive of criminal justice reforms. Specifically, Klobuchar has pushed the idea of increasing the role of drug treatment courts, an alternative to the traditional court system, for low-level offenders with addiction problems. Klobuchar said in a statement that she is “hopeful” something will pass this year, but said “there are some issues with the bill in the House,” and added that the Senate bill still awaits the amendment process, so it could still change. Franken, who called the criminal justice system “broken” in a statement, has a few measures aimed at helping. In 2015, he introduced the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act, which aims to help those in the system who suffer from mental illness. It includes measures to offer greater support for treatment courts and addicts, reduce recidivism, and help facilities better identify mentally ill inmates. House Speaker Paul Ryan mentioned Franken’s bill as one of two criminal justice bills he’d like to see passed in the House this year, and it’s already passed the Senate. On the larger package that cleared the Judiciary Committee, Franken said it isn’t a perfect bill, but added he was “heartened to see Republicans and Democrats come together… and I’m hopeful we can move forward and pass the legislation in the full Senate this year.” In his final State of the Union, Obama mentioned criminal justice reform as one of just a few areas where he could work with Congress to get something done. The fact that his support hasn’t made the issue toxic for the congressional GOP is indicative of the progress Washington could make. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has not said how he plans to proceed with the existing package, and some observers on the Hill question the GOP leader’s commitment to getting it through the Senate, where he has several vulnerable incumbents to protect. But with Ryan vocally backing reform, and Obama making full use of his last year on the bully pulpit, it’s hard to see criminal justice reform being totally bypassed in 2016.

B. Link <plan hurts bipartisanship or ticks of Republicans>

1NC – Criminal Justice Reform

C. Reforms are key to address institutional racism in the criminal justice systemKali Holloway, a senior writer and the associate editor of media and culture at AlterNet, July 23, 2015, “There’s a scientific reason for the racism built into America’s criminal justice system,” Salon,com, http://www.salon.com/2015/07/23/theres_a_scientific_reason_partner, Accessed 2-29-16

For the last few days, President Obama has been touring the country, talking about the desperate need for criminal justice reform. This past Thursday, he became the first sitting president to visit a federal prison, a corrections facility in El Reno, Oklahoma. Two days prior, he spoke at the NAACP’s annual conference in Philadelphia. Much of his speech was dedicated to discussing inequities in our country’s dispensation of criminal justice — he cited several statistics pointing to the disproportionate jailing of Latinos and African Americans — and the failings of a system that now houses nearly twice as many people as it did two decades ago. “[O]ur criminal justice system isn’t as smart as it should be,” the presidentsaid. “It’s not keeping us as safe as it should be. It is not as fair as it should be. Mass incarceration makes our country worse off, and we need to do something about it.” A national conversation around criminal justice in the United States, a country that jails more of its population than any other country in the world, by percentage and in number, is long overdue. In his new book, Unfair: The New Science Of Criminal Injustice, Drexel University associate professor of law Adam Benforado looks closely at the science at work in our justice system. His research reveals that not only do race and class have a tremendous impact on access to justice, issues such as juror life experience and the fatigue level of parole boards can mean the literal difference between freedom and incarceration — and sometimes, life and death — for those who find themselves caught up in the system.

D. Rejecting racism is an ethico-political imperative that outweighs all other impactsAlbert Memmi, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Paris, Naiteire, 2000, Racism, transl. Steve Martinot, p. 165

Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. "Recall," says the Bible, "that you were once a stranger in Egypt," which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming once again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal -- indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality. Because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice, a just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.

CJS reform will pass now / political capital is key

CJS reform will pass now. Supreme fight makes it more likelyJosh Siegel, Staff Writer, February 26, 2016, “Mike Lee Believes Supreme Court Fight Helps Chances for Passing Criminal Justice Reform in Senate,” The Daily Signal, http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/26/mike-lee-believes-supreme-court-fight-helps-chances-for-passing-criminal-justice-reform-in-senate/, Accessed 3-1-16

Sen. Mike Lee believes that the Senate fight over the next Supreme Court nominee will help the chances of a criminal justice reform overhaul passing Congress this year. In an interview with The Daily Signal, Lee, a conservative leader on the issue, suggested that Republican leaders may be more eager to achieve a bipartisan deal on criminal justice reform because it would show that the Senate can be productive even while the GOP holds up the next Supreme Court nominee. “If the question is if this could actually help its chances, the answer is yes,” said Lee, R-Utah. “We in the Senate naturally want to find areas where there is significant bipartisan agreement, and this is one of them. The fact we disagree in some areas makes it much more important for us to pass bills like the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, and in that respect, it makes it more likely we will.” “There still is very strong bipartisan support for this effort, and that’s not going to evaporate simply because we have a strong disagreement when it comes to the Supreme Court vacancy,” Lee continued.

CJS reform will pass now, but a strong Obama push is the only way to maintain momentum for bipartisan supportLaura Barron-Lopez, Congressional Reporter, January 12, 2016, “Criminal Justice Reform May Be The One Thing Congress Can Get Done In Obama’s Last Year,” The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-criminal-justice-reform_us_56956994e4b05b3245dacaf3, Accessed 3-1-16

As President Barack Obama prepares to deliver his last State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday, lawmakers discussed what, if any, big policy changes they could work on with Obama during his final year office. The answer: criminal justice reform. A bill in the Senate that would grant judges more flexibility to revisit and reduce sentences for low-level drug offenders, and allow qualifying inmates to shave time off their stints, passed out of committee on a bipartisan 15-5 vote last year. Similar legislation in the House also targets harsh sentencing laws, and seeks to greatly slash a skyrocketing prison population. On Tuesday, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) cited criminal justice reform as as area the Senate could “make history [on] this year.” His Republican counterpart, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (Texas), agreed. “This could be a legacy item for the president,” Cornyn said. “I think this is an area where we could do some good, and building as we should on successful state-based programs.” Prisons, Cornyn added, “shouldn’t just be warehouses for human beings.” By all accounts, Republican party leaders in the Senate and House -- Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) -- appear willing to bring such legislation to the floor. “It’s a pretty high priority,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said when asked about the temperature among leadership to act. “And there’s a lot of interest in it on both sides, and there’s frankly quite a bit

of agreement from both sides.” Thune predicted that criminal justice reform has a “better than 50/50” shot of passing both chambers and reaching the president’s desk within Obama’s final year. “In terms of major legislative initiatives where there’s bipartisan support, there probably aren’t going to be a whole lot of them, but I think this is one,” Thune said. “And there’s a sort of a grassroots momentum out there building behind this and I think that ... creates the right conditions for action.”

CJS reform will pass now / political capital is key

Criminal Justice reform will pass, but Obama needs strong political capital to maintain bipartisan support and court RepublicansWashington Examiner, Staff Writer, February 15, 2016, "Obama's last chance to keep a promise," www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-last-chance-to-keep-a-promise/article/2583164?custom_click=rss 2-18-16, Accessed 2-29-16

C riminal j ustice reform has received a lot of attention from the president , on Capitol Hill and on the 2016 campaign trail. There is bipartisan legislation making its way through both houses of Congress to reduce prison sentences for non-violent offenders. And as we have recommended there is a need for civil asset forfeiture reform to limit the circumstances under which local law enforcement agencies can seize property. None of these are partisan issues. Other urgent reforms address the new heroin epidemic and the country's outdated mental health system. Legislation on the latter is being considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and is held up by disagreements about language on guns. In his State of the Union address, Obama said he wanted to have a "serious discussion" about ways to combat poverty, which Ryan has long made a priority in his speeches. They should be able to agree to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. This would be a much better way to attract young people to the workforce than any counterproductive increase to the minimum wage. Also, as we recommended a month ago, Congress should pass legislation to tighten the gaps in the visa waver program and to recognize that the targeting of Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East constitutes genocide. Even though most of these measures enjoy bipartisan support, it will take political skill and commitment to enact them in an election year. Many lawmakers don't see these measures as must-pass, and some Republicans want to wait until 2017 in the hope that a Republican wins the White House. But it would be a shame to waste this opportunity for reform. Ryan has shown himself to be a thoughtful conservative lawmaker. He just might be able to work with a president who has a final chance to prove that his promises of bipartisanship weren't completely false. In his State of the Union speech, Obama pledged to reach across the aisle to achieve some important things in his final year in office and "surprise the cynics." Not just the cynics, but also the skeptics, including much of the public. Many have been surprised over the last seven years at the gulf that exists between Obama's rhetoric on bipartisanship and his actions. Here's hoping he can surprise us one last time.

Obama is spending capital now to maintain bipartisan supportJordan Fabian, Staff Writer, February 5, 2016, “Obama huddles with key Republicans on criminal justice reform,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news-other-administration/268427-obama-met-with-grassley-goodlatte-on, Accessed 2-29-16

President Obama huddled with two top Republican lawmakers on Thursday in an effort to keep criminal justice reform legislation alive in Congress, the White House said Friday. Obama met behind closed doors with the chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) The White House powwow comes at a time when the bipartisan effort to overhaul the nation’s sentencing laws faces serious hurdles on Capitol Hill.

CJS reform will pass now / political capital is key

CJS reform has bipartisan support, but retaining GOP support is keyWilliam A. Galston, Senior Fellow and The Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in Governance Studies and Elizabeth McElvein, Research Assistant, Governance Studies, Center for Effective Public Management, February 13, 2016, “Criminal justice reform: the facts about federal drug offenders,” The Brookings Institute, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2016/02/13-criminal-justice-reform-galston-mcelvein, Accessed 3-1-16

A fissure among Senate Republicans threatens federal criminal justice reform, one of the few statutory overhauls that could pass Congress in President Obama’s final year. The Sentencing Reform & Corrections Act (S. 2123), which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last fall by the comfortable margin of 15-5, has earned support from a bi-partisan group of Senators, the White House, and political advocacy organizations ranging from Koch Industries to the American Civil Liberties Union. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has described the bill as a “truly landmark piece of legislation,” that addresses “legitimate over-incarceration concerns while targeting violent criminals and masterminds in the drug trade.” Recently however, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) has led a group of Republican senators in opposition of the bill. Speaking on the Senate floor earlier this week, Senator Cotton raised concerns that the Sentencing Reform and Correction Act will “reduce sentences not for those [prisoners] convicted of simple possession, but for major drug traffickers, ones who deal in hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of heroin or thousands of pounds of marijuana.” Parrying the Act’s proponents, Cotton argued that “drug-trafficking is not non-violent,” but rather part of an “industry that's built on an entire edifice of violence, stretching from the narcoterrorists of South America to the drug-deal enforcers on our city streets.”

Criminal justice is at the top of the agendaJordan Fabian, Staff Writer, February 5, 2016, “Obama huddles with key Republicans on criminal justice reform,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news-other-administration/268427-obama-met-with-grassley-goodlatte-on, Accessed 2-29-16

Criminal justice reform is high on the president’s to-do list for Congress as he pursues a handful of legacy-defining accomplishments during his final year in office. But the push to reduce criminal sentences for nonviolent drug offenders has become imperiled by policy divisions and election-year politics. Some Republicans in the House are pushing to insert language into a sentencing reform package that could make it harder for the government to prosecute corporate crimes. They want to require federal prosecutors to prove that white-collar defendants acted knowingly to violate the law. Koch Industries, which backs sentencing reform, and their GOP allies believe the provision would make the criminal code fairer — the same legal standard exists for murder and robbery cases. But the Obama administration and Democrats says it would make it more difficult to prosecute corporate pollution and food tainting cases, as well as other business-related crimes. Democrats in Congress have warned that attaching the language could sink the entire package . Grassley has suggested he is wary of tying “mens rea” language to the overall criminal justice reform effort.

The overcriminalization of federal law demands reform. There is support on both sidesBrian W. Walsh, Senior Legal Research Fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, June 9, 2011, “Doing Violence to the Law: The Over-Federalization of Crime,” Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2011/06/doing-violence-to-the-law-the-over-federalization-of-crime, Accessed 3-1-16

The "overcriminalization" problem is so widespread and pervasive that it is tempting to think that reform is futile. But there is reason to hope that Congress may change its ways. The over-federalization of crime is not a partisan issue, and both major parties stand to benefit from fight ing over-federalization once the public is better educated about the problem and its implications. With regard to the criminal law, Democrats generally recognize that the power to make laws and decisions about the enforcement of those laws should reside as closely as possible to those who will be most affected. Washington should in most cases not be dictating which members of the community should be locked up and for what conduct. Many Republicans tend to view constitutional federalism as a check on the unwarranted and potentially dangerous accumulation of power by a central government. Once they understand the mechanics and implications of the over-federalization of crime, Americans who support either party are likely to understand over-federalization as a grave threat to their rights and liberties.

CJS reform will pass now / Bipartisan public support

There is strong bipartisan support for CJS reforms among the publicEd Goeas, president and CEO of the Tarrance Group, the leading pollster for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, February 17, 2016, “Why Criminal Justice Reform Could Be a Breakout Issue for 2016,” Wall St. Journal, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/02/17/why-criminal-justice-reform-could-be-a-breakout-issue-for-2016/, Accessed 3-1-16

Changes to the criminal justice system are being debated at the federal level, but efforts first succeeded in the states. Conservative-leaning southern states including Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina took bold steps to reduce their prison populations and ultimately lowered their crime rates. So have New York and Connecticut. When asked to produce a fair and accurate picture of where Americans stand on judicial discretion and sentencing reform, instead of conducting a general national poll my team decided to surgically and strategically poll in six states. These surveys –conducted for the bipartisan U.S. Justice Action Network –found that likely voters in a large swath of the Midwest, South, and Southwest strongly support changes under consideration at the federal level. We looked at attitudes in Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin–key battleground or bellwether states. In each one, likely voters overwhelmingly agreed that our criminal justice system imprisons too many people for too long, that mandatory minimum sentences should be replaced, and that judges should have greater discretion in determining sentences. It’s notable–and forgive me if I buried the lead–that Americans across the political spectrum support these reforms. Put another way: The right and the left agree.

Impact extension: Racism

The criminal justice system is out of justice! Only bipartisan reform can end mass incarcerationsThe Washington Times, Staff Writer, February 18, 2016, “Authentic criminal justice reform,” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/18/editorial-authentic-criminal-justice-reform/, Accessed 3-1-16

Any workable criminal justice system requires justice as well as punishment, and the American system requires reform, and a lot of it. Justice has retreated, leaving only the crime. Nearly everyone, Democrat and Republican, understands that, and reform legislation is working now through both the House and the Senate . The system now costs too much and produces too little that’s good. The United States imprisons more men and women than any other country, including Russia and China. In some states the cost of the prison system approaches that of spending on education, neither prisons nor schools offering a reasonable return on the money spent. Many of the people who are locked up are not a threat to anyone, and they return to society angry, bitter and on their way back to prison from the moment they walk out the prison gates. In some states more than half of them will be back within a year or two. Harsh and ineffective drug laws often punish recreational drug users who are a threat to no one but themselves — and they do indeed threaten great harm to themselves — but to treat them as if they are bank robbers, terrorists, or child molesters is nothing short of abuse. Mandatory minimum sentences, once thought to be the cure-all of crime, can put the barely guilty away for years for minor violations of the law. Worse, men and women are going to prison to punish crimes that make no sense. Often the guilty are convicted of crimes they didn’t know were crimes, and had no intention of breaking. Law enforcement agencies spend time and resources that could be used elsewhere to enforce such laws.

Obama’s CJS reform is an essential stepping stone for future reforms that break down the regime of race-based mass incarcerationWade Henderson, President & CEO Nancy Zirkin Executive Vice President, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, October 21, 2015, “Vote Yes on S. 2123, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015,” http://www.civilrights.org/advocacy/letters/2015/support-sentencing-reform.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/, Accessed 2-29-16

On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the rights of all persons in the United States, we write to urge you to vote yes in favor of S. 2123, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015. Our country faces complex, systemic issues regarding current sentencing laws and the criminal justice system as a whole. This legislation is an important first step toward addressing some of the causes of the unsustainable and unnecessary growth in the federal system as well as the racial disparities that have persisted. The Leadership Conference believes that by helping to reduce lengthy prison sentences for certain non-violent drug offenses and providing those currently incarcerated with the opportunity to petition the court for a reduction in their sentence, this bill will serve as a powerful tool to right the wrongs of the past, ensure justice and equality moving forward, and

become a launching pad for other necessary reforms in the future. Today, nearly 1 in 100 American adults is incarcerated. America’s prison population, which has increased by 500 per cent over the past thirty years, is the largest in the world. Mass incarceration has affected individuals and families across the nation, but has had a markedly disproportionate impact on communities of color. The federal Bureau of Prisons reports that thirty-seven percent of its current prison population is African American and that thirty-four percent is Latino. These appalling numbers are the legacy of the misguided and overly punitive sentencing policies that were instituted beginning in the 1980s and1990s. Comprehensive criminal justice and sentencing reform is needed to address these systemic problems and inequities affecting American citizens and society. This bill offers the chance to begin making meaningful changes and moving toward a system that truly ensures equal justice for all.

Impact extension: Overfederalization Scenario

CJS reform resolves overfederalization and frees up resources for law enforcementWade Henderson, President & CEO Nancy Zirkin Executive Vice President, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, October 21, 2015, “Vote Yes on S. 2123, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015,” http://www.civilrights.org/advocacy/letters/2015/support-sentencing-reform.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/, Accessed 2-29-16

Decades of evidence and experience tell us that harsh sentencing regimes have done much more harm than good. The strict penalties designed to combat the distribution of illegal drugs did little to stem the drug trade, and swept low-level non-violent drug offenders into our ever-expanding criminal justice system. Furthermore, mandatory minimums have been used against minority defendants at a staggeringly disproportionate rate. Over the past several years, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has reported that about seventy percent of mandatory minimums are imposed on African American and Latino individuals. This bill will make several positive reforms to the federal sentencing system. The “three strikes” penalty that mandated life sentences for certain individuals has been reduced to a term of 25 years. A similar provision that mandated 20-year sentences for certain individuals has been reduced to 15. Judges are given more discretion to sentence below prescribed mandatory minimums by the expansion of the existing “safety valve” and the creation of a new authority for judges to depart from certain mandatory minimums . These measures work toward ensuring that strict mandatory minimums are not imposed on individuals who have little or no criminal history and whose alleged conduct was not the sort envisioned by these strict penalties. These reforms to the federal mandatory minimum sentencing scheme represent an acknowledgement that draconian sentencing approaches have failed. While we are concerned about the inclusion of several new mandatory minimums in this bill, the overall effect of its passage will be to focus our resources on incarcerating and treating people who present the greatest risk to public safety.

That undermines the rule of law and democracyJohn B. Oakley, Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus US Davis School of Law, January 1996, “The Myth of Cost-Free Jurisdictional Reallocation,” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 543 no. 1, pp. 52-63

Systemic effects: The hidden costs of adding more judges. Increasing the size of the federal judiciary creates institutional strains that reduce and must ultimately rule out its continued acceptability as a countermeasure to caseload growth. While the dilution of workload through the addition of judges is always incrementally attractive, in the long run it will cause the present system to collapse. I am not persuaded by arguments that the problem lies in the declining quality of the pool of lawyers willing to assume the federal bench or in the greater risk that, as the ranks of federal judges expand, there will be more frequent lapses of judgment by the president and the Senate in seating the mediocre on the federal bench. In my view, the diminished desirability of federal judicial office is more than offset by the rampant dissatisfaction of modern lawyers with the excessive commercialization of the practice of law. There is no shortage of sound judicial prospects willing and able to serve, and no sign that the selection

process-never the perfect meritocracy-is becoming less effective in screening out the unfit or undistinguished. Far more serious are other institutional effects of continuously compounding the number of federal judges. Collegiality among judges, consistency of decision, and coherence of doctrine across courts are all imperiled by the growth of federal courts to cattle-car proportions. Yet the ability of the system to tolerate proliferation of courts proportional to the proliferation of judges is limited, and while collapse is not imminent, it cannot be postponed indefinitely. Congress could restructure the federal trial and appellate courts without imperiling the core functions, but the limiting factor is the capacity of the Supreme Court to maintain overall uniformity in the administration and application of federal law. That Court is not only the crown but the crowning jewel of a 200-year-old system of the rule of law within a constitutional democracy, and any tinkering with its size or jurisdiction would raise the most serious questions of the future course of the nation.

Impact extension: Overfederalization Scenario

The rule of law is crucial to defeat terroristsRich Cassidy, Attorney, May 4, 2010, “The Rule of Law: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Tells us What it means and why it Counts,” On Lawyering, http://onlawyering.com/2010/05/the-rule-of-law-supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-tells-us-what-it-means-and-why-it-counts/, Accessed 3-1-16

In my last post, “Money is a Key Barrier to Making the Rule of Law Meaningful for All,” (April 29, 2010), I referred to the “Rule of Law,” as many often do, without defining what is meant by the phrase. It is an important idea, but not everyone understands it, or understands it in the same way. It occurred to me that when I attended the ABA Annual Meeting in August of 2006, I heard Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy give a really very prescient Keynote Speech defining what is meant by the concept and explaining why, in a world challenged by terrorism, it is important. The substance of Kennedy’s speech is available on YouTube. If you have 6 minutes to spare, you can hear and watch Kennedy explain his view at: YouTube – Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Freedom If you don’t, let me summarize: Kennedy equates freedom with the Rule of Law. He argues that the international jury is still out on the idea of freedom and suggests that the real battle with terrorists is not one of guns and bombs; it is a war of ideas. He argues that lawyers have a key role in making this case to the world jury.

A major terrorist attack creates nuclear conflict risks with Russia and China

Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies at Victoria University, July 2010, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects”, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33(7), pp. 571-593

Washington's early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country's armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.

Impact extension: Overfederalization Extension

Overfederalization of crime collapses judicial effectiveness and rule of lawJohn B. Oakley, Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus US Davis School of Law, January 1996, “The Myth of Cost-Free Jurisdictional Reallocation,” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 543 no. 1, pp. 52-63

Of greater workloads. The hallmark of federal justice traditionally has been the searching analysis and thoughtful opinion of a highly competent judge, endowed with the time as well as the intelligence to grasp and resolve the most nuanced issues of fact and law. Swollen dockets create assembly-line conditions, which threaten the ability of the modern federal judge to meet this high standard of quality in federal adjudication . No one expects a federal judge to function without an adequate level of available tangible resources: sufficient courtroom and chambers space, competent administrative and research staff, a good library, and a comfortable salary that relieves the judge from personal financial pressure. Although salary levels have lagged--encouraging judges to engage in the limited teaching and publication activities that are their sole means of meeting such newly pressing financial obligations as the historically high mortgage expenses and college tuitions of the present decade-in the main, federal judges have received a generous allocation of tangible resources. It is unlikely that there is any further significant gain to be realized in the productivity of individual federal judges through increased levels of tangible resources, other than by redressing the pressure to earn supplemental income. On a personal level, the most important resource available to the federal judge is time." Caseload pressures secondary to the indiscriminate federalization of state law are stealing time from federal judges, shrinking the increments available for each case. Federal judges have been forced to compensate by operating more like executives and less like judges. They cannot read their briefs as carefully as they would like, and they are driven to rely unduly on law clerks for research and writing that they would prefer to do themselves. If federal judges need more time to hear and decide each case, an obvious and easy solution is to spread the work by the appointment of more and more federal judges. Congress has been generous in the recent creation of new judgeships, and enlargement of the federal judiciary is likely to continue to be the default response, albeit a more grudging one, to judicial concern over the caseload consequences of jurisdictional reallocation.

Overfederalization erodes individual libertiesBrian W. Walsh, Senior Legal Research Fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, June 9, 2011, “Doing Violence to the Law: The Over-Federalization of Crime,” Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2011/06/doing-violence-to-the-law-the-over-federalization-of-crime, Accessed 3-1-16

The power to punish criminally—including the deprivation of one's personal liberty and even one's life—is the greatest power that government regularly exercises with respect to its own citizens. As Professor Herbert Wechsler famously characterized it, criminal law "governs the strongest force that we permit official agencies to bring to bear on individuals." Perhaps the central question that the Framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights debated, and to which they gave painstaking consideration, was how

best to protect individuals from the unfettered power of government. They were well acquainted with abuses of the criminal law and criminal process and so endeavored to place in our founding documents significant safeguards against unjust criminal prosecution, conviction, and punishment. In fact, they understood so well the nature of crimi nal law and the natural tendency of government to abuse it, that two centuries later, the most important procedural protections against unjust criminal punish ment are derived directly or indirectly from the Constitution itself, specifically the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. But despite these protections, the wholesale expansion of federal criminal law—both as to the number of offenses and the subject matter they cover—is a major threat to Americans' civil liberties. Each time Congress crafts a criminal law covering a new subject matter, it effectively expands the power of the federal government. And the types of crimes that Congress now often creates—lacking a true actus reus or a meaningful mens rea requirement—can effectively circumvent the Bill of Rights' procedural protections.

Impact extension: Overfederalization Extension

A strong rule of law is essential to freedom. Inevitable conflicts will affect everyoneRobert A. Carn, University of Houston, and Ronald Stidham, Appalachian State University, 1996, Judicial Process in America, p. 9)

Some persons in history have believed that there should be no government (and hence no laws) at all. Such individuals, called anarchists, have argued that governments by nature make rules and laws and that such restrictions impinge on personal freedom. In the past anarchists have used violence to overthrow governments and have assassinated heads of state. Such attempts to abolish law and authority have resulted in much destruction of life and property and temporary reigns of terror, but they have never brought about the elimination of law or government. Instead of increasing personal freedom, a state of anarchy virtually destroys personal freedom for all but the most powerful and savage of individuals. Few would deny that in today’s world if people are to live together amicably, law must be an essential part of life. As our population expands and modern transportation and communication link us all together, every action that each of us takes affects another either directly or indirectly and may even cause harm. When the inevitable conflict results, it must be resolved peaceably using a rule of law. Otherwise there is lust, disorder, death, and chaos. We must have some common set of rules that we agree to live by-a rule of law and order.

Muslim voters will vote Democrat

Muslim voters will reject islamophobiaWilson Dizard, Staff Writer, February 1, 2016, “Poll: Muslim voters say Islamophobia top issue in primaries,” Aljazeera America,

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/2/1/poll-of-muslim-voters.html, Accessed 2-28-16

Islamophobia is the top issue for U.S. Muslim voters in 2016, with health care and the economy in second and third place, according new poll results published Monday. The Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, surveyed 2,000 Muslim primary voters in the five states with the highest Muslim populations: New York, Illinois, California, Texas, Florida and Virginia. The poll found 30 percent of Muslims saying Islamophobia is their top concern in 2016, with 23 percent saying the economy and 14 percent saying health care. Robert McCaw, political director for CAIR, said anti-Muslim rhetoric from politicians has emboldened people who carry out acts of physical violence or discrimination against Muslims and mosques.

Muslim voters will vote DemocratWilson Dizard, Staff Writer, February 1, 2016, “Poll: Muslim voters say Islamophobia top issue in primaries,” Aljazeera America,

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/2/1/poll-of-muslim-voters.html, Accessed 2-28-16

Muslim voters overwhelmingly ally themselves with Democrats, the telephone survey found, with 67 percent saying they identify with the party. About 15 percent of respondents said they plan to vote Republican. “That’s a reflection of the toxic political environment cultivated by Trump and Carson,” McCaw said, referring to real estate investor Donald Trump and neurosurgeon Ben Carson. Both Republican presidential candidates have recently supported the idea of banning at least some Muslims from entering the U.S. A majority of Democrats polled, 51 percent, say they are supporting Hillary Clinton, while 22 percent will vote for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. McCaw said the views of Muslim voters — who are broadly liberal but with some die-hard Republican supporters among them — are mirroring the political affiliations of Jewish Americans, a niche constituency that Democrats can usually rely on for support.

Airports Negative

A2: Food prices advantage – prices systemically low

Global food prices are at an all-time lowHolly Ellyatt, Staff Writer, February 22, 2016, “World food prices tumble near 7-year low,” CNBC News, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/04/world-food-prices-tumble-near-7-year-low.html, Accessed 2-29-16

World food prices fell to almost a seven-year low at the start of the year on the back of sharp declines in commodities, particularly sugar, according to the latest data from the United Nations (UN). The Food Price Index, published by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), averaged 150.4 points in January, down 16 percent from a year earlier and registering its lowest level since April 2009. The trade-weighted index tracks international market prices for five key commodity groups -- major cereals, vegetable oils, dairy, meat and sugar – on a monthly basis.

Price drops in all major commodities are dragging down food pricesEconomic Times, Staff Writer, February 4, 2016, “World food prices continue decline in 2016: UN FAO,” http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/world-food-prices-continue-decline-in-2016-un-fao/articleshow/50849537.cms, Accessed 2-29-16

World food prices fell in January, dragged down by price drops for all food commodities and particularly steep losses for sugar and dairy, the United Nations food agency said on Thursday. The Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) food price index, which measures monthly changes for a basket of cereals, oilseeds, dairy products, meat and sugar, averaged 150.4 points in January against a revised 153.4 points the month before.

A2: Food prices advantage – alternate causality

Conflict and natural disasters cause high food pricesJacopo Bordignon, International Food Policy Research Institute, et al, March 31, 2015, “Do high food prices and droughts fuel conflict?,” Highlights from chapter 7 of the 2014-2015 Global Food Policy Report, IFPRI BLOG, http://www.ifpri.org/blog/do-high-food-prices-and-droughts-fuel-conflict, Accessed 2-29-16

The world has seen more and more conflicts in recent years, such as in Syria, Nigeria, and Yemen. What explains these conflicts and what are the root causes and effects of ongoing civil violence? The authors of a chapter on conflict and food security in the 2014-2015 Global Food Policy Report argue that, in addition to well-known triggers of conflict such as soaring food prices, natural disasters aggravate existing civil conflicts or may contribute to fueling new conflicts. They do this in several ways. Natural disasters can intensify social tensions by undermining access to water and agricultural land, by deepening inequalities between groups , and by raising food prices . Governments can further exacerbate these grievances either by providing inadequate responses to disasters or by distributing aid resources inequitably.

Conflict causes high food pricesJacopo Bordignon, International Food Policy Research Institute, et al, March 31, 2015, “Do high food prices and droughts fuel conflict?,” Highlights from chapter 7 of the 2014-2015 Global Food Policy Report, IFPRI BLOG, http://www.ifpri.org/blog/do-high-food-prices-and-droughts-fuel-conflict, Accessed 2-29-16

Food price shocks are both a determinant and effect of conflict. The recent escalation of violence in the northeast of Nigeria shows that violence contributes to soaring food prices and, as a consequence, food and nutrition insecurity. Food prices in the affected conflict areas increased because of both limited market activity and reduced trade flows. In fact there has historically been a close relationship between food price hikes and the intensity of civil conflict in Nigeria (Figure 3). The number of consecutive months with unusually high food prices from 2000 to 2013 is associated with both the number of violent civil conflict events as well as the number of deaths in these events.

A2: Food prices advantage – High prices do not cause conflicts

Higher food prices do not cause even low-level conflicts – 4 reasonsTodd G. Smith, PhD candidate at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin and a visiting research scholar at the Center for Social Science Research, University of Cape Town, December 8, 2014, “Feeding Unrest: A Closer Look at the Relationship Between Food Prices and Sociopolitical Conflict,” New Security Beat, https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2014/12/feeding-unrest-closer-relationship-food-prices-sociopolitical-conflict/, Accessed 2-29-16

The simple method of comparing FAO Food Price Index levels with observed “food riots” has several problems. First, the observed correlation may be the result of a reporting bias that attributes riots to the most easily identifiable cause, in this case, spikes in the FAO Food Price Index. In other words, the media sees unrest, sees the Food Price Index is high (as it has been for the last decade), and assumes they are seeing food-related unrest. This also helps reporters connect local events to an international audience. Second, the FAO Food Price Index measures a basket of prices paid for internationally traded food commodities and does not directly reflect the prices that consumers actually pay. In the “hungry people are angry people” line of thinking, the link between increases in international commodity prices and related events must necessarily be through consumer prices, and while it is true that increases in commodity prices pass through to consumer prices, this pass-through is rarely, if ever, one-to-one or immediate and varies enormously between countries depending on national policies that can insulate economies from the vagaries of international commodity markets. As a result, spikes in the Index are often not felt locally for some time afterward (see Figure 1). Third, drawing conclusions about causation based on this correlation ignores the complicated and often circular relationship between food prices and unrest. Political and social instability is detrimental to the functioning of all markets, which can drive up the price of everything, including food, creating what is referred to using the rather oxymoronic term “reverse causality.” Furthermore, rising food prices are generally accompanied, or in fact caused, by other phenomena, economic or otherwise, which can also lead to unrest. Such was the case in Nigeria in January 2012 when the removal of fuel subsidies led to steep increases in fuel costs, which in turn led to increases in food prices and tens of thousands of protesters taking to the streets.

Anti-Muslim Surveillance Negative

Surveillance of mosques is good for security

Precisely because most Muslims reject extremism, we need to maintain surveillance of mosquesPhilip Jenkins, distinguished professor of history at Baylor University, December 3, 2015, “The Case for Mosque Surveillance,” The American Conservative, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-case-for-mosque-surveillance/, Accessed 2-28-16

This point might be obvious, but let me say it clearly. The vast majority of U.S. mosques presently serves no such role, and their members would utterly reject radicalism, extremism, or violence. Even where there is an extremist presence, that would be absolutely contrary to the wishes of the mainstream in the congregation. The main thing the imams in those places want is to have the police help them kick out the extremists, and not to be too gentle doing so. But any terrorist Islamist presence in the U.S., present or future, does and will use mosques in this way. If you do not maintain such mosques under surveillance—and particular “certain mosques” already leaning in radical Salafist directions—you might as well abandon any and all pretense of trying to limit or suppress terrorism on U.S. soil. “Surveillance” in this instance emphatically means human intelligence within the mosque. That means recruiting informants within it, and trying to bring radicals over to your own side, to see what extremists are going to do before they do it. Just how and where is radicalization being undertaken? Who are the key militants? Are there weapons present? What are the overseas connections? And if that means recruiting and controlling imams and religious teachers, all the better.

Disease Surveillance Negative

Greater surveillance is key for Zika

We need even greater surveillance of diseases like ZikaSerusha Govender, Staff Writer, February 29, 2016, “Could Better Surveillance Stop the Rise of Infectious Diseases Like Zika?,” Good Magazine, https://www.good.is/articles/zika-virus-surveillance, Accessed 2-29-16

It’s clear now that experts misjudged the situation. More than 28 countries have been affected as of this writing; Zika is officially a public health emergency that could see as many as four million people infected by the end of the year. Yet doctors admit there is still very little that they know about the Zika virus and how it spreads, which makes it difficult to curtail. This all has an air of déjà vu to it, doesn’t it? The rapid escalation from outbreak to epidemic in such a short space of time bears an uncanny resemblance to Ebola in West Africa, ostensibly flaring from outbreak to widespread public health emergency with alarming speed. Though neither virus is new—Ebola has been around since the 1970s and Zika since the end of WWII—the leap to epidemic in both cases seems to have taken experts by surprise, despite the extensive public health surveillance systems in place. Experts warn that the United States will be the next stop on the outbreak trail; indeed, several cases have already been reported. The country is already a lot more vulnerable to such tropical diseases in general than it used to be. But are we simply seeing a dramatic increase in dangerous infectious diseases—viruses that evolve to from minor eruption to full Pompeii in an uncontrollably short timespan—or are our monitoring and response systems simply not robust enough to cope with the variety and scale of multiple outbreaks? According to Doctors Without Borders (MSF), it’s more the latter than the former. “It’s not necessarily that there are more of these diseases now,” says the MSF’s tropical medicine advisor Dr. Estrella Lasry, MD. “It’s more of an awareness issue… Globally, there is better reporting, and the response is also better so we’re more informed of outbreaks occurring.” Surveillance is a different story. The top thinkers from nearly every relevant sector—be they public health workers, medical technicians, or politicians—agree that we need better surveillance tools and tracking methods. Yet the term ‘surveillance’ puts some people on edge, especially when it involves looking into public health records, our social behavior patterns, or keeping track of where we’re going. And putting so-called officials in charge of gathering data in parts of the developing world where political systems are more unstable and fluid isn’t as straightforward as it sounds. But bodies like the WHO and MSF have been trying to drum out the message that public health surveillance is different from security surveillance, functioning as an important diagnostic tool that relies heavily on data gathered in the field by trained health workers, critical for monitoring outbreaks and developing appropriate responses. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), infectious disease surveillance gathers as much information as possible from hospital case reports, laboratory test results, and even statistics on births, deaths, marriages, and fetal deaths. Every piece of data is anonymized before it is collated, analyzed, and interpreted—and when the results are disseminated, their purpose is to help health professionals take a big-picture look so they can find patterns and, if necessary, determine whether there is an outbreak (and, if so, of which disease), and what the response should be.

The Zika virus is a global threat and robust surveillance is criticalMike Miliard, Staff Writer, February 1, 2016, “Zika virus outbreak makes disease surveillance a critical healthcare IT tool, expert says,” Healthcare IT News, http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/zika-virus-outbreak-makes-disease-surveillance-critical-healthcare-it-tool-expert-says, Accessed 2-29-16

Zika, spread to people through mosquito bites, is currently most prevalent in South America. In response, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a travel alert for U.S. citizens traveling to regions where virus transmission is ongoing. But Hockett says she expects the virus to increasingly move into the United States. She points to a recent article in The Lancet, which argued that, "with an estimated 440,000 – 1.3 million cases currently in Brazil alone, Zika virus could be following in the footsteps of dengue and chikungunya, which are also transmitted by the Aedes aegypti mosquito. "Given that an outbreak anywhere is potentially a threat everywhere," the authors argued, "now is the time to step up all efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to Zika virus." "I don't think 'scared' is the right word," said Hockett. "But we need to be aware of what's happening. And definitely, I think there are certain areas of the U.S. that are more vulnerable than others." Robust electronic surveillance – data collection and reporting – is essential to keeping that spread as limited as possible.

Greater surveillance is key for Zika

The Zika virus will infect millions in the Americas by the end of the yearLisa Schlein, Staff Writer, February 1, 2016, “WHO Declares Zika a Global Health Emergency,” Voice of America News, http://www.voanews.com/content/who-convenes-zika-virus-emergency-meeting/3171482.html, Accessed 2-29-16

The WHO predicts the virus, which may be linked to neurological disorders in babies, could infect as many as 4 million people in the Americas this year. No firm link has been established between the Zika virus and microcephaly, a neurological disorder in which babies are born with abnormally small heads. But it is hard to ignore a possible connection between the virus and this brain disorder, given recent events in Brazil. Nearly 4,000 suspected cases of microcephaly have been reported in the country since October, compared with 150 similar cases in 2014.

The World Health Organization has labeled the Zika virus as a public health emergency ripe for international spreadLisa Schlein, Staff Writer, February 1, 2016, “WHO Declares Zika a Global Health Emergency,” Voice of America News, http://www.voanews.com/content/who-convenes-zika-virus-emergency-meeting/3171482.html, Accessed 2-29-16

The World Health Organization has declared microcephaly and other neurological disorders possibly linked to the Zika virus to be a global public health emergency. A special expert meeting convened in Geneva Monday to discuss the threats posed by the explosive spread of the Zika virus in Latin America. The group of experts who met at the World Health Organization agree the Zika virus is not a clinically serious infection and that the virus alone would not constitute a public health emergency. However, the experts conclude that the possible association of the virus in Latin America with the explosive spread of microcephaly, which causes abnormally small brains in newborns, and other neurological disorders, constitutes an extraordinary event and a public health threat to other parts of the world. Therefore, WHO Director General, Margaret Chan says the expert committee has decided a coordinated international response is needed to minimize the threat in affected countries and to reduce the risk of its international spread.

Drones Negative

Consequences good – Must evaluate drones based on consequences

Drone ethics requires attention to consequencesJonathan P. West, professor & chair in the Department of Political Science and director of the graduate program in public administration, University of Miami and James S. Bowman, professor of public administration at the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy, January/February 2016, “The Domestic Use of Drones: An Ethical Analysis of Surveillance Issues,” Public Administration Review, pp. 4-5.

From a results-oriented perspective, in sum, what is ethically correct is the consequence of an action. The implications of the dependency asymmetry between institutions and individuals suggest that surveillance could be cost-effective. Drones, however, can be expensive because of operational costs and questionable reliability. The organization–individual relationship, furthermore, can have ill effects on those affected by it. The dignity of, and the respect for, the citizen is at stake. Constant observation can be an assault on the ethical rights of the populace, compromising personal autonomy. Yet an overemphasis on any single part of the ethics triad may produce a problematic decision. Advocates might think that the greatest benefit is found, but perhaps the decision is simply expedient. Opponents, in seeking the most good, may be vulnerable to opportunistic, self-serving behavior. In the discussion of the effects of deployment, both sides rely on prediction, the accuracy of which is a well-known weakness in human behavior. In light of these concerns, attention now shifts to the second school of thought.

Export Controls Negative

E-Waste Counterplan – 1NC

Text: The United States federal government should amend current trade policies to increase surveillance of e-waste exports requiring domestic recycling.

The counterplan is mutually exclusive with the plan because you can’t increase and decrease export controls. If they do, then there is no net-benefit because the perm would not solve the advantages. Either way, all our evidence proves the plan cannot solve.

Amending current export controls to include e-waste is essential to national security and proves the plan can’t solve their China advantageTom Sharpe, vice president of SMT Corp., an electronics distributor, counterfeit mitigation and electrical testing laboratory for the defense and aerospace industry, March 2016, “E-Waste Export Controls Key to Battling Counterfeiters,” National Defense, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/March/Pages/E-WasteExportControlsKeytoBattlingCounterfeiters.aspx, Accessed 2-29-16

The United States needs to fight counterfeiters with every weapon available to us. Yet we continue to allow export of untested, nonworking e-waste that provides them with an ample supply of cheap raw materials. U.S. e-waste exports are massive — nearly 800,000 tons annually by conservative estimates. Our trade laws typically prevent exports that undermine our national security. E-waste exports clearly fit that description, and Congress must act to amend current trade policy. To go on the offensive, Congress must enact legislation that requires domestic recycling of untested, non-working e-waste. This approach keeps these materials within our borders and out of the hands of Chinese counterfeiters. U.S. e-waste recyclers are well equipped to do the job with secure systems already developed and in use at many processing sites around the country. There is no magic bullet in the fight against counterfeiting. Improving supply chain procedures, improving detection and increasing enforcement are all important parts of the solution. To win the battle, we need a smart, “all-of-the-above” hard-liner strategy that most certainly includes common sense export reforms on these e-waste export feedstocks.

Counterfeit e-waste products from China undermine U.S. warfighting capabilitiesHenry Livingston, technical director and Engineering Fellow at BAE Systems, a global defense, security and aerospace company, et al, February 2015, “Electronic Waste Rules Could Help Thwart Flow of Counterfeit Parts, National Defense Magazine, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/February/pages/ElectronicWasteRulesCouldHelpThwartFlowofCounterfeitParts.aspx, Accessed 2-29-16

As highlighted in a report by the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, a flood of counterfeit electronic parts from China threatens the reliability of sophisticated defense technologies from thermal weapon

sights to advanced missile systems and from aircraft to submarines. The committee found more than 1,800 cases of counterfeit parts in defense systems. But like the proverbial tip of the iceberg, what we can see is only a small part of the problem. From our respective vantage points in the defense and computer industries, we have observed that the problem has continued to grow in recent years. While the federal government and the defense industry are implementing prevention and detection measures, additional action is needed by Congress. Counterfeits threaten reliability because advanced defense systems require sensitive electronic components manufactured in ultra-clean environments. Employees must wear “bunny suits” to prevent skin or hair being shed into the environment because even a small flake of dandruff can ruin a microchip and potentially compromise the performance of the hardware it drives. Moreover, legitimate semiconductor companies subject all of their chips to electronic testing to ensure they perform properly. Military chips are subject to additional environmental testing.

E-Waste Counterplan – 1NC

U.S. hegemony prevents great powers wars and is the best hope to deal with terrorism, disease pandemics and nuclear proliferationZach Keck, the Assistant Editor at The Diplomat and a former Joseph S. Nye, Jr. National Security Research Intern at the Center for a New American Security, January 24, 2014, “America’s Relative Decline: Should We Panic? The end of the unipolar era will create new dangers that the world mustn’t overlook,” http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/americas-relative-decline-should-we-panic/, Accessed 3-1-16

Regardless of your opinion on U.S. global leadership over the last two decades, however, there is good reason to fear its relative decline compared with China and other emerging nations. To begin with, hegemonic transition periods have historically been the most destabilizing eras in history. This is not only because of the malign intentions of the rising and established power(s). Even if all the parties have benign, peaceful intentions, the rise of new global powers necessitates revisions to the “rules of the road.” This is nearly impossible to do in any organized fashion given the anarchic nature of the international system, where there is no central authority that can govern interactions between states. We are already starting to see the potential dangers of hegemonic transition periods in the Asia-Pacific (and arguably the Middle East). As China grows more economically and militarily powerful, it has unsurprisingly sought to expand its influence in East Asia. This necessarily has to come at the expense of other powers, which so far has primarily meant the U.S., Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines. Naturally, these powers have sought to resist Chinese encroachments on their territory and influence, and the situation grows more tense with each passing day. Should China eventually emerge as a global power, or should nations in other regions enjoy a similar rise as Kenny suggests, this situation will play itself out elsewhere in the years and decades ahead. All of this highlights some of the advantages of a unipolar system. Namely, although the U.S. has asserted military force quite frequently in the post-Cold War era, it has only fought weak powers and thus its wars have been fairly limited in terms of the number of casualties involved. At the same time, America’s preponderance of power has prevented a great power war, and even restrained major regional powers from coming to blows. For instance, the past 25 years haven’t seen any conflicts on par with the Israeli-Arab or Iran-Iraq wars of the Cold War. As the unipolar era comes to a close, the possibility of great power conflict and especially major regional wars rises dramatically. The world will also have to contend with conventionally inferior powers like Japan acquiring nuclear weapons to protect their interests against their newly empowered rivals. But even if the transitions caused by China’s and potentially other nations’ rises are managed successfully, there are still likely to be significant negative effects on international relations. In today’s “globalized” world, it is commonly asserted that many of the defining challenges of our era can only be solved through multilateral cooperation. Examples of this include climate change, health pandemics, organized crime and terrorism, global financial crises, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, among many others. A unipolar system, for all its limitations, is uniquely suited for organizing effective global action on these transnational issues. This is because there is a clear global leader who can take the initiative and, to some degree, compel others to fall in line. In addition, the unipole’s preponderance of power lessens the intensity of competition among the global players involved. Thus, while there are no shortages of complaints about the limitations of global governance today, there is no question that

global governance has been many times more effective in the last 25 years than it was during the Cold War.

E-Waste Counterplan – Bipartisanship / Politics Link-out

Greater regulation of e-waste has bipartisan support in CongressHenry Livingston, technical director and Engineering Fellow at BAE Systems, a global defense, security and aerospace company, et al, February 2015, “Electronic Waste Rules Could Help Thwart Flow of Counterfeit Parts, National Defense Magazine, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/February/pages/ElectronicWasteRulesCouldHelpThwartFlowofCounterfeitParts.aspx, Accessed 2-29-16

Because of its national security implications, legislation promoting responsible electronics recycling has attracted bipartisan support in this session of Congress. The Congressional co-sponsors include chairs of committees and subcommittees related to intelligence, homeland security, rare earths and other relevant issues who recognize the national security threat posed by counterfeits. By allowing an unchecked flow of e-waste exports, the United States is contributing to the feedstock used to create counterfeit electronic parts that can find their way into the DoD supply chain and can also present a public health and safety risk. Congress must go on the offensive against counterfeiters by enacting a comprehensive policy on e-waste exports.

E-Waste Counterplan – Solvency extension

Congress should go on the offensive and amend export laws to require domestic recycling. This prevents Chinese counterfeiting and protects the militaryTom Sharpe, vice president of SMT Corp., an electronics distributor, counterfeit mitigation and electrical testing laboratory for the defense and aerospace industry, July 5, 2015, “Counterfeit electronics: Another security threat from China,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/246792-counterfeit-electronics-another-security-threat-from-china, Accessed 2-29-16

Unethical e-scrap companies and brokers here in the U.S. may promise responsible recycling — then ship broken computers to China in huge volumes. Our discarded, non-working electronics are a cheap source of raw materials. It is a very lucrative trade for the bad guys. The famous line from Pogo applies to this issue. By allowing unchecked exports of untested, non-working electronics use by counterfeiters, we are undermining our national security. Efforts to prevent fake chips from getting into supply chains have done little to stop the counterfeiters. While prevention and detection measures are important, we believe we must also choke off a huge portion of the counterfeiters’ feedstock: the massive e-waste exports from the U.S. To accomplish this, Congress must go on the offensive by requiring domestic recycling of untested, nonworking electronics. By keeping these materials in the United States, we will keep them out of the hands of counterfeiters. There already exists a strong core of responsible American recyclers across the country that use highly secure, controlled and scalable recycling processes that can easily get the job done while creating thousands of new jobs simultaneously. Our trade laws typically prevent exports of materials and services that may be detrimental to our national security and foreign policy. We need Congress to combat counterfeits by requiring amendments to our export policies as an essential step to protecting our military men and women, our national defense and our homeland security.

E-Waste Counterplan – Surveillance good

China is the primary counterfeiter of U.S. e-waste. Greater surveillance is crucial to national securityTom Sharpe, vice president of SMT Corp., an electronics distributor, counterfeit mitigation and electrical testing laboratory for the defense and aerospace industry, March 2016, “E-Waste Export Controls Key to Battling Counterfeiters,” National Defense, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/March/Pages/E-WasteExportControlsKeytoBattlingCounterfeiters.aspx, Accessed 2-29-16

The technology sector and government agencies have been working hard in recent years to combat electronic component counterfeiters, based primarily in China. It’s a fight we must win because counterfeit components threaten the reliability of technology critical to our national security as well as our health and safety. The risks were first documented in a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee study that identified more than 1 million individual suspected counterfeit electronic parts in weapons systems ranging from night-vision goggles to missile control systems. More than 90 percent of the counterfeits were traced to China. Adding to the national security threat, counterfeit microchips can help hackers and cyber terrorists launch attacks. The threat extends beyond national security to include a variety of products and systems that create public health risks. Counterfeits have been found in all sectors of the electronics industry to include medical and healthcare technologies, airport landing systems, braking systems for high-speed trains and the defense and aerospace industry, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association. To date, we have seen significant new initiatives to improve detection of counterfeiters as they enter the supply chain. The Defense Department has implemented many newer procurement policies and contract requirements with suppliers designed to ensure delivered raw components or components within delivered systems are authentic parts, which can be traced to an authorized distributor or manufacturer. In the cases where obsolete electronic components are required, which are no longer in production and must be procured from non-authorized sources, there are significant requirements for both authentication and functional testing. This is a critical initiative, but it’s not perfect. Counterfeiters are a resourceful enemy adept at finding ways to subvert these measures.

The U.S. is the world’s largest producer of e-waste. We need greater enforcement to prevent counterfeitingTom Sharpe, vice president of SMT Corp., an electronics distributor, counterfeit mitigation and electrical testing laboratory for the defense and aerospace industry, March 2016, “E-Waste Export Controls Key to Battling Counterfeiters,” National Defense, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/March/Pages/E-WasteExportControlsKeytoBattlingCounterfeiters.aspx, Accessed 2-29-16

It is clear we are battling an enormous, well-funded criminal enterprise located in a country that historically has turned a blind eye to the intellectual property rights of others. Emerging technologies will prove to be giant steps forward in detection. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is

funding the development of new technologies aimed at detecting counterfeits in the supply chain. Independently, Battelle Labs has spent the past several years and many millions of dollars developing the Battelle Barricade detection system. Enforcement also plays an important role. The Department of Justice has recently secured convictions and/or guilty pleas of individuals knowingly trafficking in counterfeit parts aimed at U.S. military applications. These are some of the many challenges underscoring how anti-counterfeiting measures must constantly evolve and adapt. All of these efforts are part of the solution. However, they share a common weakness — they only take aim at counterfeits once they are already in the supply chain. We must also attempt to prevent counterfeits by cutting off a large portion of the raw materials needed to produce them. Counterfeiters use e-waste exported from our own shores as a primary source of cheap raw materials with which to create counterfeits. The United States is the world’s largest producer of e-waste, and much of it ends up exported to developing countries for cheap processing.

E-Waste Counterplan – Chinese counterfeiting hurts readiness

Reprocessing e-waste make components unreliable and undermine military readinessWilliam Pentland, Managing Partner at Brookside Strategies, LLC, January 19, 2015, “The Surprising U.S. National Security Benefits Of E-Waste Recycling,” http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2015/01/19/why-uncle-sam-should-support-stronger-e-waste-recycling-efforts/#3e14916612f9, Accessed 2-29-16

The techniques employed to re-process the used parts into components that appear “new” make already unreliable components even less reliable. For example, used parts are commonly sanded or acid washed to remove product identification information and re-coated to further conceal that they are counterfeit. The collective impact of these reprocessing techniques is to increase the already significant risk posed by unwitting reliance on bogus components. And this risk is hardly limited to the private sector. During 2009 and 2010, more than one million counterfeit electronic components were identified in critical defense systems ranging from submarines and aircraft to thermal weapon sights and advanced missile systems, according to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee. “We do not want a $12 million missile defense interceptor’s reliability compromised by a $2 counterfeit part,” said General Patrick O’Reilly, the Director of Missile Defense Agency in 2011.

Chinese counterfeiting is the primary source that threatens our military hardware and infrastructureTom Sharpe, vice president of SMT Corp., an electronics distributor, counterfeit mitigation and electrical testing laboratory for the defense and aerospace industry, July 5, 2015, “Counterfeit electronics: Another security threat from China,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/246792-counterfeit-electronics-another-security-threat-from-china, Accessed 2-29-16

China is also the primary source of counterfeit electronics that threaten the reliability of military hardware and our critical infrastructure for telecommunications, energy and transportation. A study by the Senate Armed Services Committee found more than 1,800 cases of suspected counterfeits in advanced missile systems, helicopters, submarines and more. Because our company provides counterfeit detection services and parts to Department of Defense agencies, we participated in the study. Why are counterfeits a problem? Today’s defense technologies require sensitive electronic components assembled in ultra-clean room environments; a foreign object smaller than a flake of dandruff can compromise reliability within a single device. The counterfeiting process provides a stark contrast. On a business trip to China several years ago, I had an unforeseen opportunity to get a first-hand look at the epicenter of the counterfeit manufacturing industry in Guangdong Province. The counterfeiters start with electronic waste (e-waste) — old, discarded computers from the U.S. and other countries — and remove the used electronic components. E-waste is dismantled by hand in open-air dumps or in backyards. Workers heat components to “reflow” solder attaching them to circuit boards, making it easy to quickly remove with hand tools. After this crude process, parts are washed in rivers and laid out on sidewalks for sorting. From there, the parts are transported to hundreds of local

counterfeiting operations that employ thousands of workers. To hide brand marking and model numbers, parts are sanded or put through an acid wash, then re-coated – a process known as “blacktopping.” This process exposes these highly sensitive chips to moisture, static electricity and other damaging conditions. Acid baths used in some remarking processes can eat away at a microchip’s internal parts. Counterfeiting processes constantly improve, so it is nearly impossible for even a trained eye to detect the better ones without significant testing capabilities. Yet these components can be found everywhere, including highly sophisticated technologies that protect our war-fighters and keep critical infrastructure up and running across our country.

E-Waste Counterplan – Chinese counterfeiting hurts readiness

Chips counterfeited by China make failures inevitableHenry Livingston, technical director and Engineering Fellow at BAE Systems, a global defense, security and aerospace company, et al, February 2015, “Electronic Waste Rules Could Help Thwart Flow of Counterfeit Parts, National Defense Magazine, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/February/pages/ElectronicWasteRulesCouldHelpThwartFlowofCounterfeitParts.aspx, Accessed 2-29-16

The used parts are subjected to harsh re-processing practices that add to the performance risks before they are re-sold as “new.” E-waste is shipped by boat across the Pacific Ocean, smuggled into China and trucked to Guangdong Province, the epicenter of counterfeiting activities. There, workers pull apart the e-waste by hand, often in backyards and dump sites. The e-waste is often heated over open fires to loosen electronic components so they are easier to remove from the circuit boards to which they are soldered. Because e-waste contains toxins, these processes create serious health and environmental hazards for the workers and the community at large. The parts are then dumped on sidewalks for sorting. The process is messy, so the components are washed in a river or left outside in the rain. After drying in the open air, the parts are shipped to larger facilities that are set up for counterfeiting. The parts may be sanded or put through an acid wash to remove part numbers, then re-coated in a process known as “blacktopping” to hide identifying product information. Because chips are sensitive to moisture and static electricity incurred from improper handling, packaging and storage, the counterfeit process threatens already unreliable used components. In addition, the acid eventually eats away at a microchip’s internal parts. Obviously, microchips handled in this way will be prone to failure — sooner rather than later. Yet even to a trained eye, the chips look factory fresh. These counterfeit parts are represented as “new” by the counterfeiters and sold to U.S. companies that are unaware of their origins and incorporate the counterfeit parts into their products. While national security is a primary concern, these counterfeits also find their way into technologies across a wide range of industries, including telecommunications, health care, air travel and nuclear power. One might also find counterfeits in items you rely on every day, such as your alarm clock and your home PC as well as your car’s airbags and automatic braking systems.

Lack of e-waste recycling fuels conflicts and endangers the militaryAndrew Dobbs, Central Texas program director for Texas Campaign for the Environment, February 19, 2015, “We Threw Military Electronics in the Trash—China Sold Them Back to Us: How e-waste compromises American war tech,” War is Boring, https://medium.com/war-is-boring/we-threw-electronics-in-the-trash-china-sold-them-back-to-us-d52e06111fff#.73v88trvp, Accessed 2-29-16

Recycling electronic waste—or “e-waste,” the discarded gizmos, gadgets and machinery we use in our contemporary lives — is an issue near and dear to the hearts of environmentalists and eggheads alike. But it’s also a growing concern to military officers and some of America’s crustiest politicians—hardly the tree-hugging types. Our recycling policies not only fuel conflict in the developing world, but they help endanger sensitive military technology—while harming the health of American troops and locals

abroad. Safer and saner waste and recycling policies at home and overseas, in the military and among civilians can make for a more peaceful world.

Chinese counterfeit parts directly put our military at riskNicole Wrona, Staff Writer, January 22, 2015, “E-waste recycling in the US: A national security issue?,” WasteDIVE, http://www.wastedive.com/news/e-waste-recycling-in-the-us-a-national-security-issue/355356/, Accessed 2-29-16

Electronic waste recycling on U.S. soil has a new advocate: the national security community. Establishing tougher regulations and creating more programs that recycle e-waste in the U.S., instead of in China, could benefit the U.S. defense system by protecting it from receiving counterfeit electronic components, advocates claim. A vast amount of e-waste re-enters the market as legitimate and is passed off as "new" because of e-waste exports. According to a report issued by the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, these counterfeit parts have made their way through the supply chain and have the potential to create a substantial risk to the agency if faulty parts are used.

E-Waste Counterplan – African conflicts scenario

Lack of e-waste recycling laws fuels conflicts in AfricaAndrew Dobbs, Central Texas program director for Texas Campaign for the Environment, February 19, 2015, “We Threw Military Electronics in the Trash—China Sold Them Back to Us: How e-waste compromises American war tech,” War is Boring, https://medium.com/war-is-boring/we-threw-electronics-in-the-trash-china-sold-them-back-to-us-d52e06111fff#.73v88trvp, Accessed 2-29-16

Beyond U.S. security, e-waste recycling could potentially relieve some of the world’s most distressing conflicts. A series of civil wars has beset the Democratic Republic of Congo for nearly two decades—with a dizzying array of warring parties, including fugitive rebels from other nations taking advantage of the country’s lawlessness. Perhaps as many as 5.4 million people have died in the conflict, half of them children under five. These warring groups have found that the country’s rich supply of minerals necessary for the production of electronic devices—coltan in particular —provides a steady stream of funding. Coltan is an ore used to make the tantalum in the capacitors in electronic devices, including mobile phones and game controllers. The vibration function in these devices often use tungsten, much of which is refined from wolframite, another conflict mineral found primarily in the Congo. Wasting devices by throwing them into the trash or dumping them abroad makes it harder to develop sources of coltan and wolframite outside of the channels feeding the conflict in Central Africa.

General Impact / Scenario Extensions

China

U.S.-China relations are high now

U.S.-China relations are high now with the North Korean sanctions agreementSomini Sengupta, Staff Writer, February 26, 2016, “U.S. and China Agree on Proposal for Tougher North Korea Sanctions,” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/world/asia/north-korea-sanctions.html, Accessed 2-28-16

The United States and China reached an agreement to impose tougher sanctions against North Korea , in what appeared to be a diplomatic shift by Beijing regarding its intransigent ally. The proposed resolution is the product of intense negotiations between the two nations over the last seven weeks, since Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon it claimed was a hydrogen bomb. It was circulated to members of the United Nations Security Council on Thursday, and diplomats said it could come up for a vote in the coming days. Diplomats said the fact that Washington and Beijing had agreed on a set of measures increased the international pressure on the North Koreans. In the past, after previous nuclear tests condemned by the Security Council, China agreed only to banning weapons transfers and limited sanctions against those linked to the nuclear program.

On the brink of war with the U.S.

The U.S. & China are one minor incident away from all-out warBrendon Hong, Staff Writer, February 29, 2016, “Slowly, Relentlessly, China’s Military Expands Its Global Reach,” The Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/29/slowly-relentlessly-china-s-military-expands-its-global-reach.html, Accessed 3-1-16

Beijing has built artificial islands in the South China Sea to strengthen its claim to existing island chains. Following the USS Lassen’s freedom of navigation operation near the Spratly Islands , which China calls Nansha and claims as part of its territory, China’s naval commander, Admiral Wu Shengli, told his American counterpart, Admiral John Richardson, that a minor incident could spark war if the United States does not halt “provocative acts.” Last month, the USS Curtis Wilbur, made a similar pass near the Paracel Islands. Navy Capt. Jeff Davis said the operation “was about challenging excessive maritime claims that restrict the rights and freedoms of the United States and others, not about territorial claims to land features.”

A2: U.S.-China Relations - Chinese cooperation is a sham

Cooperative rhetoric is empty. China is expanding the militarization of the South China SeaDavid W. Kearn, Associate Professor, St. John’s University, February 24, 2016, “Island Diplomacy: China's Militarization of the South China Sea,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-w-kearn/island-diplomacy-chinas-m_b_9294872.html, Accessed 2-28-16

The revelation of Chinese deployments of surface-to-air missiles (SAM) systems on an artificially "reclaimed" island in the Paracel island chain is troubling. It marks a significant escalation in an ongoing campaign to expand Chinese power in the region, callously ignoring the interests and fears or its smaller neighbors and openly challenging U.S. commitments to maintain freedom of navigation in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. While the net effect of the deployment will not alter the balance of power in the region in the short-term, it is nevertheless an unambiguous signal of Beijing's longer-run intentions and should dispel much of the self-serving but increasingly empty cooperative rhetoric that has colored much of China's diplomacy for the past two decades.

Chinese military expansion is increasing now

Chinese militarization is transforming the South China Seas to prepare for military conflicts that undermine regional stability and SLOCs, drawing in the U.S.David W. Kearn, Associate Professor, St. John’s University, February 24, 2016, “Island Diplomacy: China's Militarization of the South China Sea,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-w-kearn/island-diplomacy-chinas-m_b_9294872.html, Accessed 2-28-16

It is apparent that China is attempting to alter the status quo in its periphery; a quest many rising powers have attempted, often leading to costly and self-defeating conflict. Given the pattern of behavior we have witnessed over the past few years, it seems that President Xi and the leadership in Beijing is much more focused on preparing for a military conflict and improving China's prospects to prevail, rather than avoiding one. Cooperative rhetoric to the contrary simply is no longer credible. The United States, its regional allies, and other interested parties have little reason to take further Chinese policy statements with anything more than a grain of salt. China should be expected to continue to "militarize" its holdings in the Paracel and Spratly island chains, exploiting its geographic alterations to transform the South China Sea into a Chinese "lake." Such a policy threatens the security of China's neighbors (including key U.S. allies) and the free navigation of critical sea lanes and undermines regional stability.

China is open about its militarization of the S. China Seas and blames the U.S.Frances Martel, Staff Writer, February 25, 2016, “U.S. Navy Plans More Military Exercises of 'Greater Complexity’ in South China Sea,” Breitbart News, http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/02/25/u-s-navy-plans-heightened-presence-in-south-china-sea/, Accessed 2-28-16

In the past month, the Chinese government has begun constructing an advanced radar system in the Spratly Islands, claimed by the Philippines, and has placed both surface-to-air missiles and fighter jets in the Paracel Islands, claimed by Vietnam. “The United States is the real promoter of the militarization of the South China Sea,” defense ministry spokesman Wu Qian said Thursday in response to Admiral Harris’s comments, adding, “China’s construction of military facilities on the islands and reefs of the South China Sea is really needed.” Wu added that the Chinese government had a right to establish an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea, which would force all aircraft in the region to request permission from China before traveling through, but Beijing had no plans of establishing such a zone soon. Wu accused the international community of “double standards” for condemning China’s militarization in the region, adding extra condemnation against the United States for causing a “ brouhaha ” about the issue.

Militarization is the status quo in the S. China Seas. They U.S. Navy has escalated its response to ChinaFrances Martel, Staff Writer, February 25, 2016, “U.S. Navy Plans More Military Exercises of 'Greater Complexity’ in South China Sea,” Breitbart News, http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/02/25/u-s-navy-plans-heightened-presence-in-south-china-sea/, Accessed 2-28-16

Admiral Harry Harris, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, said Wednesday the Navy plans to expand the frequency and variety of freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea, following reports that Beijing has escalated its militarization of islands and reefs in disputed territory in the region. “We’ll be doing them more and we’ll be doing them with greater complexity in the future,” Admiral Harris told legislators, adding what has become America’s mantra on the South China Sea: “We’ll fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows.” He accused China of “ clearly militarizing ” the sea , despite claims by the Chinese government that it is the United States, in operating in the region at all, that is escalating military tensions in the area. “China’s intent to militarize the South China Sea is as certain as a traffic jam in DC,” Harris joked.

Chinese military expansion is increasing now

Chinese expansion into the S. China Seas directly threats freedom of navigation, which is key to global tradeElizabeth Shim, Staff Writer, February 24, 2016, “China's militarization of the South China Sea a threat to global commerce, says U.S.,”

UPI News, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/02/24/Chinas-militarization-of-the-South-China-Sea-a-threat-to-global-commerce-says-US/5831456329922/?st_rec=8411456847680, Accessed 3-1-16

The head of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Command told Congress this week that China's rapid militarization of the South China Sea threatens the freedom of navigation that is necessary to global commerce. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Adm. Harry Harris said China has rapidly set up military facilities on the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, the Navy Times reported. "In my opinion China is clearly militarizing the South China Sea... You'd have to believe in a flat earth to believe otherwise," Harris told the committee chaired by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. To date, China has nearly completed land reclamation at seven sites in the South China Sea, and has finished work on runways, infrastructure and man-made bases, Harris said. A recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies stated China could also be constructing a high-frequency radar on the islands. Harris said that Chinese coercion, artificial island construction, and militarization in the South China Sea threaten the "most fundamental aspect of global prosperity -- freedom of navigation."

Chinese military growth is fueling an arms race in the Asia-PacificDavid Tweed, Staff Writer, February 21, 2016, “China Tensions Fuel Acceleration in Military Spending in Asia,” Bloomberg Business, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-22/china-tensions-fuel-acceleration-in-military-spending-in-asia, Accessed 3-1-16

China’s military growth combined with heightened territorial tensions is likely to propel the Asia Pacific region to the top rank of military spending by the end of the decade, according to a report by IHS Jane’s. The Asia Pacific will account for one in three dollars spent on defense by the early 2020s, up from one in five in 2010, according to the London-based military publisher. While the U.S. remains the globe’s biggest purveyor of weapons, China led growth in major arms exports in the 2011-2015 period, with weapons sales rising 88 percent from the previous five-year span, another report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute showed. “Rising tensions in APAC have seen a long overdue process of military modernization move up the political agenda in a number of countries,” Craig Caffrey, principal analyst at IHS Jane’s wrote in the report. “The Philippines, Indonesia, Japan and Vietnam are all following China’s lead and we see no sign of this trend coming to an end.” By 2020, total military spending in the Asia Pacific region is expected to reach $533 billion a year from $435 billion in 2015, IHS Jane’s said. In 2015, nine of the 20 fastest-growing defense budgets were found in the Asia Pacific, up from seven a year earlier. In contrast, the number of Middle East-North Africa nations topping the list fell to five from seven.

Military spending high now

China is increasing military spending by 20% for modernizationElizabeth Shim, Staff Writer, March 1, 2016, “China expected to increase military budget,” UPI News, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/03/01/China-expected-to-increase-military-budget/8411456847680/, Accessed 3-1-16

China could soon announce a significant increase in its military budget in order to accommodate the army's reorganization and continue its defense of disputed territories in the East and South China Seas. The proposed budget, to be made public Saturday during the annual National People's Congress, could increase as much as 20 percent, according to an unidentified source who spoke to the South China Morning Post. "I think even an increase of 20 percent would be acceptable this time, even though it would be the highest since 2007," the source close to the military said. In September, during Victory Day, which marked the 70th anniversary of Japan's defeat, President Xi Jinping had announced a landmark decision to cut 300,000 military personnel by 2017. The People's Liberation Army will still remain the world's biggest military force when troops will number 2 million, but the expense of the layoffs, and the cost of modernizing and improving the army's efficiency, means more spending for Beijing.

U.S. tech gap is shrinking

The U.S.-China military technology gap is shrinkingRosalind Mathieson, Staff Writer, February 16, 2016, “China Closing Tech Gap With U.S., Pacific Air Chief Says,” Bloomberg Business,

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-16/china-army-closing-tech-gap-with-u-s-pacific-air-chief-says, Accessed 3-1-16

China’s military is closing the technology gap with the U.S., though the experience of America’s pilots still gives them an “unbelievably huge” edge, according to the Pacific Air Forces chief. General Lori Robinson, in Singapore to attend the country’s air show, said she felt assured that Chinese pilots would act professionally in interactions with the U.S., citing a September agreement on rules of behavior. U.S. military pilots flying in the contested South China Sea have been warned over radio -- sometimes repeatedly -- by Chinese voices telling them to leave, while Japanese planes have been challenged in the neighboring East China Sea. Since coming to power President Xi Jinping has prioritized modernizing the military with a focus on the navy and air force, as he seeks to project power outward and assert China’s claims to territory in the waters of the West Pacific. That has included greater spending on longer-range and higher-tech ships, planes and submarines, while the People’s Liberation Army has also focused on improving training and standards for its fighter pilots. “The technology gap certainly is closing, there’s no denying that,” General Robinson said Tuesday in an interview. “The difference between that technology gap is the training that the United States air crew get. That training and the way our airmen work every single day, no matter what platform that they are on, and all the people that support those airmen to do that job. That edge is unbelievably huge.”

A2: Chinese expansionism

Foreign blockades and social unrest prevent China from expansionist strategiesWilliam Tucker, Staff Writer, February 2, 2016, “China's Military Strategy Masks Larger Problems,” In Homeland Security,

http://inhomelandsecurity.com/chinas-military-strategy-masks-larger-problems/, Accessed 3-1-16

A big question arises as to why the Chinese are pursuing these strategies now when they have been open to international trade for more than 30 years and their regional and international competitors haven’t changed. This seemingly hyper-activity largely stems from China’s growth and the concern that its military cannot adequately support the nation’s security needs especially since this unprecedented economic growth has slowed substantially. China is vulnerable not only to blockade by foreign powers, but more importantly, it is vulnerable to internal issues like internal social cohesion that constantly rise to the surface. To illustrate this point, China still spends more money on internal security than it does on national defense. In fact, there has been an increase in social disruption in the form of protests and attacks in the last year. This is all happening in the midst of political purges and realignment of the military – tasks that are not historically undertaken with ease. China has numerous issues that have long left the spotlight – eclipsed by the rapid economic growth.

Oil

Oil prices are low now

Oil prices will remain low for the next yearKeith Johnson, Staff Writer, February 23, 2016, “Saudi Oil Minister: Production Cut ‘is Not Going to Happen’,” Foreign Policy,

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/23/saudi-oil-minister-production-cuts-not-happening/, Accessed 2-28-16

Low oil prices will be a fixture of the world economy for at least the next year, as the big oil producers inside OPEC show zero appetite to rethink their 2014 decision to pump with abandon and let the market sort winners from losers. Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi told an industry conference in Houston Tuesday that a cut in production “is not going to happen.” Instead, he said, low prices will themselves drive out “inefficient and uneconomic” producers from the market, slowly bringing some balance to an oil market that remains badly out of whack.

The newest IAE report confirms low prices for another yearKeith Johnson, Staff Writer, February 23, 2016, “Saudi Oil Minister: Production Cut ‘is Not Going to Happen’,” Foreign Policy,

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/23/saudi-oil-minister-production-cuts-not-happening/, Accessed 2-28-16

Expectations for a sustained period of cheap oil don’t just come from the top dogs at OPEC. The International Energy Agency, in its medium-term oil report released Monday, also said that oversupply in the oil market will continue into 2017. The IEA noted that low prices are indeed poleaxing U.S. shale producers, who need higher prices than their Mideast rivals; the IEA projected U.S. shale oil production will fall this year by about 600,000 barrels a day, the first such contraction since the American energy boom began in 2008. Bankruptcies have already littered the oil industry, and big banks are increasingly setting aside money to cover bad loans to the U.S. oil and gas patch, too. But even a modest growth in demand, primarily from developing economies, won’t be enough to erase the huge supply overhang that exists today. Analysts figure the world pumps between 2 million and 3 million barrels per day more than it consumes.

Prices increasing now

Oil prices just shot up 32%. They’ve already bottomed outMatt Eagan, Staff Writer, February 29, 2016, “Is the oil crash over? Prices soar 32% in 12 days,” CNN Money, http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/29/investing/oil-prices-surge-opec/, Accessed 3-1-16

Oil has stopped crashing. Investors around the world freaked out when oil prices plummeted to a 13- year low of $26.05 a barrel on February 11. But as of Tuesday they have climbed back to $34.40 a barrel, marking an incredible 32% spike in the span of just 12 trading days. The ridiculous surge from the recent lows reflects a swing in sentiment, even if it's not a dramatic shift in the fundamentals. The world still has too much oil and U.S. production hasn't slowed enough yet to ease the epic supply glut. "Fundamentally, things are still extremely weak. It's being driven more by hope," said Matthew Smith, head of commodity research at ClipperData, which tracks global crude shipments. Hope has been fueled by OPEC, Saudi Arabia, Russia and other producers agreed to a tentative deal on February 17 to freeze output. "That was the trigger. It helped us reach a bottom in oil," said Rob Thummel, a portfolio manager at energy investment firm Tortoise Capital.

Global oil prices have bottomed out. Higher prices are inevitableReuters, Staff Writer, March 1, 2016, “Oil prices have bottomed out, but growth will not be sharp: IEA,” http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iea-outlook-idUSKCN0W34VD, Accessed 3-1-16

Global oil prices appear to have bottomed out and are expected to rise through this year as investment cuts help to reduce a supply glut, a senior analyst at the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday. Benchmark Brent crude futures LCOc1 were up 44 cents at $37.01 a barrel at 1304 GMT (06:04 EST), the highest in eight weeks. They hit a more than 12-year low of $27.10 on Jan. 20. "Oil prices appear to have bottomed out," Neil Atkinson, the new head of IEA's oil industry and market division, told a seminar in Oslo. "Prices are expected to grow throughout 2016 and into 2017, reflecting expectations that the market is going back into balance in 2017," he added.

Russia

No military threat - GeneralRussia no threat for 4 reasons—no allies, bad relations, can’t match U.S. tech and economy can’t maintain spendingDave Majumdar, Defense Editor, January 26, 2016, “Is Russia's Military Really Punching Above Its Weight?,” The National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-military-really-punching-above-its-weight-15025, Accessed 2-28-2016

But that doesn’t mean that Russia doesn’t face significant geopolitical challenges. Russia’s two allies—Belarus and Kazakhstan—are of almost no military value. “In the Collective Security Treaty Organization, Belarus and Kazakhstan are both equivalent to Romania in the Warsaw Pact,” Pukhov notes. “Negligible military value [to the] the rest [of the] CSTO member states.” That situation is made all the more troubling because of deteriorating relations with Poland, the Baltic states, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. There is also the issue of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Effectively, that means Russia has to prepare to defend its interests in every direction, Pukhov stated in his slides. Meanwhile, Russia can’t hope to match the United States and it allies technologically. “Russia can hardly compete with the ‘Collective West’ in regards to investments in engineering development and fundamental research,” Pukhov noted. Which means Moscow has to invest smartly a new generation of weapons. Russia is continuing its military modernization—which started after Moscow’s forces reached a low point in 2008. The less than stellar performance of the Russian army in Georgia served as a wake-up call in Moscow that something needed to be done—and urgently—to stem the post-Soviet decline of its military. Since 2008, Russia has massively increased military funding and revamped its training programs, Pukhov noted. Flying hours increased for the Russian air force and the number of days at sea increased for the Russian navy. There was also a massive increase in the number of exercises. Additionally, the scale and scope of those exercises expanded greatly. “In 2014, the Russian Armed Forces held approximately 3,000 exercises and drills, of which 30 were bi-/multinational,” Pukhov noted. Whether Moscow can sustain its current level of military spending into the future—given Russia’s current economic fortunes and the low price of oil—is an open question. But Russia’s goal is to equip seventy percent of its armed forces with “state-of-the-art” weapons by 2020, Pukhov stated. Indeed, Russia has appropriate roughly $300 billion towards that end thus far.

Ukraine patrols have overstretched Russia’s airpower, which takes out expansion effortsMatthew Bodner, Staff Writer, August 26, ’15, Military analyst at IMR, “Russia’s Military Is a Paper Tiger in the Baltic,” THE INSTITUTE OF MODERN RUSSIA (NJ), http://imrussia.org/en/analysis/world/2389-russias-military-is-a-paper-tiger-in-the-baltic, Accessed 2-28-2016

Still, the age and quality of Russia’s aircraft is an important calculation in assessing Russia’s true military strength in a Baltic war scenario, since air power is the military arm used to launch campaigns in modern warfare. Since the beginning of June, Russia’s air force has experienced an astonishing eight airplane crashes as a result of technical failures or pilot error—a trend that analysts attribute to the higher rate of patrols since the start of the Ukraine crisis. While Russia could leverage its proximity to the Baltics and

initial numerical advantage to achieve an early victory in the region, likely pushing out the small NATO presence that is permanently stationed there, it would have a hard time holding onto these gains.

No military threat—A2: Recent improvementsRussian economy is bottoming out—that takes out recent improvementsKenneth Rapoza, Staff Writer, February 18, 2016, “Barclays Hints That Russia's Economy May Have Finally Bottomed,” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/02/18/barclays-hints-that-russia-economy-may-have-finally-bottomed/#573576c19ab3, Accessed 2-28-2016

It’s as close to a bottom call on Russia’s two-year economic crisis as any. London-based Daniel Hewitt of Barclays said Thursday that Russian growth indicators now point to a “bottoming out of the recession.” It’s been a while. Oil and sanctions have hammered Russia’s economy, with oil being the biggest problem. Russians have been resilient. Momentum is improving, but only insofar as they are mostly less negative as they were a year ago in most indicators. Industrial production, retail sales, and real wages all improved and for the most part more than expected. For instance, industrial production in Russia is still bad. It’s down 2.7% annually compared to 4.5% in December. It’s worse than consensus forecasts that had it contracting last month by 2.5%. Retail sales are nasty, but better than consensus. January retail sales fell 7.3% from a year ago compared to a whopping 15.3% drop in December. Consensus had retail slipping by 8.2%. Russia’s economic data is not going to woo investors to Van Eck Global’s Market Vectors Russia (RSX) exchange traded fund. But for those who think emerging markets should be bankrupt by now given all the money that’s been flowing out of there since 2013, the fact that Russia has not fallen off a cliff is a reason to revisit that negative view. There are a few standouts in the data today. Unemployment is flat at 5.8% compared to an expected increase. Wage growth grew 4% year-over-year from around 3% in the fourth. Inflation is coming down, which will give the Russian central bank room to be more pro-growth by cutting interest rates. Hewitt says that Russia’s economy “appears to be adjusting to lower oil prices.” GDP has dropped to a lower level, but is maintaining this level rather than falling further. The bank expects Russian GDP to end the year in the red, but less red than 2015. If oil prices stabilize or go above $40 a barrel, then negative IP and retail numbers should finally turn positive this year. But if there is another drop in oil prices, then the positive momentum improvements Hewitt notes today will reverse. In other words, Russia has finally bottomed, but only if oil has too.

Economy is Weak

Russian economy will last for 15 yearsDaily Shabah, Staff Writer, Feb. 16, 2016, “Russian economy cannot wake up from nightmare,” (Turkey), http://www.dailysabah.com/economy/2016/02/17/russian-economy-cannot-wake-up-from-nightmare, Accessed 2-28-2016

According to another Russian daily, Vedemosti, the Russian Finance Ministry predicts that the recession in the country's economy might persist at least over the next 15 years if the required reforms are not realized and oil prices do not increase. Predictions suggest that the Russian economy is expected to shrink 0.8 percent this year and re-achieve a growth trend again in 2017. This being the case, Russia will only be able to achieve the gross domestic product (GDP) level of 2014 once again in 2020. It is estimated that real wages, which have dropped by nearly 13 percent since last year, can reach the 2014 levels only in 2025.

Russia is in a recession: low oil prices, sanction & massive capital flightJohn Thornhill, August 17, 2015, “Fear Vladimir Putin’s weakness not his strength,” Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8b034ac-44ca-11e5-b3b2-1672f710807b.html#axzz40dEofqMm, Accessed 2-28-2016

It is not only Mr Putin’s political model that looks outdated. Russia’s economy appears equally threadbare. Under the strains of lower energy prices, western sanctions and massive capital flight, Russia’s economy contracted 4.6 per cent in the second quarter of 2015 compared with the same period the previous year. Real incomes are falling for the first time in Mr Putin’s rule. The Soviet Union once vied with the US for economic supremacy; now, America’s gross domestic product using purchasing power parity is five times larger than Russia’s. If, as some suggest, we have reached “peak demand” for oil then Russia’s economy looks vulnerable given its failure to diversify. It has no new model for growth.

The Russian economy is crashing. At best, reforms can only prevent further slideStrafor.com, Staff Writer, February 5, 2016, “Russia Has Few Options for Turning Its Economy Around,”

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/russia-has-few-options-turning-its-economy-around, Accessed 2-29-2016

Low oil prices have thrown a wrench in many of the world's economies, but perhaps nowhere more so than Russia. Depressed energy prices have sent the value of the Russian ruble tumbling and inflation soaring, and much of the Russian population is struggling to make ends meet. The Central Bank of Russia, under pressure to find a solution to the country's deepening economic crisis, is exploring all of the monetary policy options at its disposal. But the bank will find that its primary tool for combating the inflation wreaking havoc on the Russian economy — adjusting the country's key interest rate — may be

difficult to actually use under the current circumstances. As a result, bank officials will likely be forced to turn to secondary, less effective measures to keep the Russian economy from sliding even further into disrepair.

Weak Russia TurnRussia is headed for a collapseEurasiaNet, Staff Writer, February 8th, 2016, “Russia: Raising A Red Flag About Imperial Overreach,” http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/02/russia-imperialism/, Accessed 2-28-2016

Some experts in Russia are cautioning that the Kremlin’s unwillingness to address problems connected with the country’s imperial features is starting to pose a risk to the state’s territorial integrity.

Time and again in Russian history, a major economic crisis has assumed a geographic dimension. This happens because of Russia’s multiethnic identity, as well as because of the specific organization of the state’s structure. The political system has tended to be overcentralized and, thus, when it comes under economic stress, it has proven brittle. In bad times, when the Kremlin cannot simply buy loyalty, the regions have become restive. This phenomenon led to tumult in 1917 and 1991, and now a Moscow-based think-tank is finding evidence that a similar pattern is developing.

A weak Russia is a bigger threat than a strong one John Thornhill, Staff Writer, August 17, 2015, “Fear Vladimir Putin’s weakness not his strength,” Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8b034ac-44ca-11e5-b3b2-1672f710807b.html#axzz40dEofqMm, Accessed 2-28-2016

For the moment, Mr Putin may convey the impression of being the master of all he surveys, leading a resurgent Russia and intimidating her former Soviet neighbours. If anything, western debates about Russia tend to exaggerate the country’s cycles and its politicians are shivering at the prospect of a new cold war. But before long, Russia may have slipped again into a cyclical downturn, leaving the west to fret about the dangers of economic and social chaos, virulent nationalism and nuclear proliferation. A weak Russia may be even more worrying than a strong one.

Weak Russia Ext. – Collapse UQ

Multiple factors put Russia on the brink of collapseJohn Thornhill, Staff Writer, August 17, 2015, “Fear Vladimir Putin’s weakness not his strength,” Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8b034ac-44ca-11e5-b3b2-1672f710807b.html#axzz40dEofqMm, Accessed 2-28-2016

Underlying this economic fragility is a demographic disaster. Russia’s population has fallen to 142m, smaller than that of Bangladesh. Many of its best brains are quitting the country, or are being forced to do so. A recent Russian report into the country’s demographic trends concluded: “If the situation does not improve the country can expect problems in the economy, international competitiveness and, in a long-term perspective, geopolitics too.” Abroad, Russia has few reliable allies. The Eurasian Union it has cobbled together to rival the EU is a palace built on sand. Moscow has made much of its partnership with China but the relationship is wildly lopsided and Beijing has been adept at exacting a high economic price for its political goodwill. In a pre-nuclear age, China would have surely annexed Siberia by now. Russia’s projection of soft power looks no more promising in spite of the expansion of state-backed English-language media outlets. A report published this month by the Pew Research Centre into the attitudes of 45,000 people in 40 countries found that Russia and Mr Putin were held in low regard around the world. “Favourable opinion of Russia trails that of the US by a significant margin in most regions of the world,” it found. A median of 58 per cent in each country outside Russia held a negative opinion of Mr Putin. Considering all these weaknesses, one liberal Russian friend compares Mr Putin to the monster cockroach in the children’s poem by Korney Chukovsky. For a while, the cockroach, with his ugly threats and fearsome moustache, throws all the larger animals on a picnic into a panic. “Into the fields and woods they dash — Terrorised by the Roach’s moustache!” But then a sparrow swoops down and snaps up the cockroach, leaving the animals to wonder why they were ever afraid in the first place.

U.S. Military Readiness

Readiness is low now

Newest budget will tank military readinessTom Cotton, U.S. senator from Arkansas and a Republican, Intelligence Committee, and the Armed Services Committee, February 9, 2016, “Congress Must Stop the Decline of Our Military Readiness,” Defense One, http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/02/congress-must-stop-decline-our-military-readiness/125818/, Accessed 3-1-16

In an ideal world we could protect and defend ourselves at safe distance from our enemies. But the reality is our soldiers will sometimes find themselves in close range to our targets. We should ensure these soldiers are equipped to carry out their missions by recommitting to the Army’s Future of Vertical Lift program and developing a true vision for the future of armored warfare. The Army must also prioritize infantry combat by buying and fielding small arms suitable to the contemporary battlefield and eliminating acquisition paradigms that only solidify or expand the defense bureaucracy while increasing costs to taxpayers. For instance, it makes little sense that a $350 polymer pistol currently takes years to get into the hands of our troops. The simple truth is that the American military has always been the best and the brightest. We were our enemies’ worst nightmare and our allies’ favorite friend. Unfortunately, the impact of President Obama’s budgets and policies over that last seven years on military readiness means that is no longer the case. And this budget is no different. We cannot afford to waste time debating base defense funds versus overseas contingency operations, we need to ensure our military is prepared to stop our enemies and protect our national security.

Obama has gutted military readinessInvestors’ Business Daily, Editorial, February 3, 2016, “Obama Plays Catch-Up On Military Readiness,” http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-plays-catch-up-on-military-readiness/, Accessed 3-1-16

Military leaders, such as outgoing Gen. Ray Odierno last year, have warned that the main threats the U.S. faced were Russia, China, North Korea and the Islamic State, but they were not obviously heeded by the White House. The White House in fact was creating this strategic situation by focusing on global warming as America’s top threat and engaging in various social engineering projects such as women in combat and integrating transsexuals into the troop ranks, even as some generals warned that they could hurt troop readiness. He got rid of important defense programs such as the Tomahawk cruise missile and, for a time, the A10 Warthog fighter jet, and dismissed Russia itself as an unimportant “regional power” in March 2014, an undiplomatic remark that reportedly rankled President Vladimir Putin.