You are on page 1of 81

Case Frontlines

Squo Solves

President Obama pushes to overcome obstacles to closing the Guantanamo Bay prison
Associated Press, November 18, 2013 (
President Barack Obama is pushing to overcome obstacles to closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, an elusive
goal which has frustrated him since he took office. That is setting the White House on a collision course with
Congress in its bid to loosen restrictions for moving out detainees. Administration officials say a Senate defense
policy bill, coming up for debate within days, would allow them to move out prisoners who have long been cleared
for transfer overseas but are still held, in part because of a complicated Pentagon certification process. The bill
would ease those restrictions and lift a ban on bringing suspected terrorist prisoners from Guantanamo to the
United States for detention, trial or emergency medical treatment. The White House effort faces dogged
resistances, with opponents pointing out that some former detainees have joined terrorist efforts after being
released from the remote U.S. naval prison in Cuba.
Obama pushing for Gitmo closure
WUSA, 13 (President Obama Reiterates Need To Close Guantanamo Bay, 2:25 PM, Apr 30, 2013, Online,, accessed 7/23/13) PE
President Obama said on Tuesday that his administration would reengage Congress on closing the U.S. military
run detention center at Guantanamo Bay. "It needs to be closed," Obama said at a White House news
conference. "I'm going to go back at this." Obama's comments come with reports that as many as 100 prisoners at
Guantanamo are in the midst of a hunger strike. Obama had vowed in his 2008 campaign to close Guantanamo,
but failed to get it done in his first term. "It' is not a surprise to me that we are having problems at Guantanamo."
Obama called Guantanamo unsafe, expensive, and said it lessens cooperation with U.S. allies. He noted that
Congress has legislatively blocked him from closing Guantanamo, but offered no solution to getting around that
hurdle. "I am going to go back at this," said Obama, "I am going to reengage with Congress that this is not in the
best interest of the American people." Obama said Guantanamo might have been seen as necessary after the
Sept. 11 attacks, but the president says the time to close the prison for high-value terror suspects who were
captured on foreign soil is now. "This is a lingering problem that is not going to get better," Obama says. "It's going
to get worse." Obama also appeared to defend the Defense Department's decision to force feed the striking
prisoners."I don't want these individuals to die," he said.

No law stops Obama from closing Gitmo
Posner, 2013 (Eric Posner, Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is a co-author of The
Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic and Climate Change Justice, President Obama Can Shut
Guantanamo Whenever He Wants, Slate, 5/2/13,
In his press conference Tuesday, President Obama repeated that he wanted to shut Guantanamo Bay but blamed
Congress for stopping him. They would not let us close it, he said. But thats wrong. President Obama can
lawfully release the detainees if he wants to. Congress has made it difficult, but not impossible. Whatever hes
saying, the president does not want to close the detention centerat least not yet. The relevant law is the
National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). This statute confirms the presidents power to wage war
against al-Qaida and its associates, which was initially given to him in the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(AUMF) passed shortly after 9/11. The NDAA also authorizes the president to detain enemy combatants, and bans
him from transferring Guantanamo detainees to American soil. The NDAA does not, however, ban the president
from releasing detainees. Section 1028 authorizes him to release them to foreign countries that will accept
themthe problem is that most countries wont, and others, like Yemen, where about 90 of the 166 detainees are
from, cant guarantee that they will maintain control over detainees, as required by the law. There is another
section of the NDAA, however, which has been overlooked. In section 1021(a), Congress affirms the authority of
the U.S. armed forces under the AUMF to detain members of al-Qaida and affiliated groups pending disposition
under the law of war. Section 1021(c)(1) further provides that disposition under the law of war includes
Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the AUMF. Thus,
when hostilities end, the detainees may be released.
The president has the power to end the hostilities with al-Qaidasimply by declaring their end. This is not a
controversial sort of power. Numerous presidents have ended hostilities without any legislative action from
Congressthis happened with the Vietnam War, the Korean War, World War II, and World War I. The Supreme
Court has confirmed that the president has this authority.

Obama pushing to close Gitmo
Dougherty, 2013 (Jill Dougherty, the foreign affairs correspondent for CNN. Based in the networks Washington,
D.C., bureau, Dougherty covers U.S. foreign policy. In addition to reporting on news developments from the State
Department, she provides analysis on international issues across multiple CNN platforms and has traveled widely
with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Europe, Asia and the Middle East. She has reported from more than 50
countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq and North Korea, Obama to name D.C. lawyer to lead Guantanamo Bay
closure, CNN, 6/17/13,
(CNN) President Barack Obama will appoint Washington, D.C. lawyer Clifford Sloan to re-open the State
Department's Office of Guantanamo Closure, according to a senior administration official. The administrations
efforts to shut down the detention facility have been stalled since January, when the State Department
shuttered the office tasked with handling the closure, and reassigned its special envoy. A formal announcement
is expected Monday. Obama said in a national security speech last month that detention facility puts U.S.
interests at risk, saying some allies are reluctant to cooperate on investigations with the United States if a
suspect might land at the controversial detention center "The original premise for opening Gitmo - that
detainees would not be able to challenge their detention - was found unconstitutional five years ago," he said. "In
the meantime, Gitmo has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law." That's not
to mention the economic implications, the president said. The country spends $150 million annually to imprison
166 suspects, and the Defense Department estimates that keeping Gitmo open may cost another $200 million
"at a time when we are cutting investments in education and research here at home," he said. Explaining that no
prisoner has ever escaped a supermax or military facility - and noting U.S. courts have had no issue prosecuting
terrorists, some more dangerous than those at Guantanamo - Obama said he would push again to close the
detention center and appoint State and Defense department envoys to make sure the detainees are transferred
to other countries.

Biopower Advantage
Closing Fails
No solvency even after released from Gitmo, people are still reduced to bare life were
cogs in a machine
Colatrella, 11 (Steven, taught at Bard College, the New School and the American University of Rome, Fulbright
scholar, Chair of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at John Cabot University in Rome and President of
the Iowa Sociological Association, Nothing Exceptional: Against Agamben, Journal for Critical Education Policy
Studies, vol.9. no.1, page 107-108, November 2011, Online,, accessed
7/23/13) PE
Finally, Agamben, in his understanding of homo sacer seems to miss the most obvious point imaginable, at least
to anyone familiar with the work of either Karl Marx or Karl Polanyi11, namely, that a human being reduced to
bare life, to the mere physical existence without rights or guarantees, far from being a marginal figure, a canary in
a coal mine, is instead the human condition of the majority of the population under capitalism. Here is where it is
clear why I have stressed the autonomy of the political as a way of understanding the world that is counter-
productive: it takes work to describe humanity reduced to bare life and then fail to see it all around one in the form
of the proletarian majority of every society, North and South. Political deracination is clearly related to economic
deracination, or to use the, in my view clearer Marxian terminology, expropriation and enclosure, or
proletarianization. In what way is Agambens homo sacer any different than the rightless and free proletarian
that has always existed under capitalism? Hasnt it always been allowable to live and let die without remorse
those unable to make a living, keep a job or income, provide for themselves or family members, keep up rent or
mortgage payments, pay for a meal? Shouldnt we see this as violence, as Zizek in his book Violence12 argues, the
daily, systemic economic violence of market relations and the propertylessness of the majority in capitalist
society? Isnt this exactly the non-state of emergency, non-exceptional violence, that kills millions annually, that
Agamben, like Arendt before him, ignores? Further, doesnt his lack of attention to the normal process of
proletarianization, of expropriation and enclosure, lead to his failure to see these on a grand scale with the
maximum possible state violence in the colonial world, in the neocolonial world, in slavery and the slave trade, in
the genocide of the Native Americans?
No solvency Gitmo isnt key Agamben ignores too much historical oppression
Colatrella, 11 (Steven, taught at Bard College, the New School and the American University of Rome, Fulbright
scholar, Chair of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at John Cabot University in Rome and President of
the Iowa Sociological Association, Nothing Exceptional: Against Agamben, Journal for Critical Education Policy
Studies, vol.9. no.1, page 106, November 2011, Online,, accessed
7/23/13) PE
The second omission, more difficult to explain by Agambens geographical origins, is any reference at all to the
history of colonialism, or to conditions in the ex-colonial world of the Global South. Arendt, despite numerous
failings of analysis and history some of which I discuss below, nevertheless to her credit makes the relationship
between imperialism and racism in the colonies and totalitarianism in Europe a central part of her analysis in the
Origins of Totalitarianism10. Yet there is no discussion of this relationship in Agamben. In this sense, Agamben
represents an analytical step backwards from Arendt, not a further development of her insights. The rest of the
world has dropped off the mental map. This is not just a question of priorities, of the brevity of books that cant
cover everything, nor even of Eurocentrism though it certainly is in part that. It is rather a serious failure of
analysis and historical imagination that, as we will see below, makes Agambens theoretical discussion less useful
and reduces dramatically its explanatory power. For many decades, in country after country, continent after
continent, European and other colonial powers could act with impunity and without regard to the life of, let alone
legally recognized rights of the colonized people. The Belgian Congo, and the horrors of slavery; the repeated
experience of mass famine in India (done away with since Independence and the establishment of democratic
government); the labeling of resistance against expropriation and foreign rule Mau Mau to define it as an atavistic
throwback to savagery to enable the British rulers to destroy it militarily; over a million dead in the Algerian
struggle for Independence against the French; the near-genocide in Libya by the Italians, the list could go on for
pages. None of it relevant, presumably, either to states of exception, in which sovereigns are unconstrained by
any legal or customary limit in their actions, nor in understanding the reduction of person from members of
communities with either customary or legal rights to bare life, dependent on the self-restraint at whim of others
for their survival.
Alt Causes to State of Exception
No solvency sovereignty means the state of exception is inevitable
Colatrella, 11 (Steven, taught at Bard College, the New School and the American University of Rome, Fulbright
scholar, Chair of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at John Cabot University in Rome and President of
the Iowa Sociological Association, Nothing Exceptional: Against Agamben, Journal for Critical Education Policy
Studies, vol.9. no.1, page 99, November 2011, Online,, accessed 7/23/13)
The Sovereign wrote Nazi lawyer and political theorist Carl Schmitt, is he who decides on a state of exception2.
The state of exception, or state of emergency, is that moment in which all constitutional and legal limits can be
superseded or done away with, annulled or set aside, ultimately at the whim or dictate of the sovereign. The
latters power in any case was never really limited by these legal restraints, even if this sovereign for their own
reasons abided by such formal limits for a time. In this case Schmitts sovereign is Hobbes Leviathan on steroids,
though the line of ancestry is clear, since once sovereignty is given over by people in a state of Hobbesian nature
(where a war of all against all predominates and life is nasty, brutish and short) Hobbes Leviathan state power
likewise has no limits or legal restraints other than those that it sees fit to impose. Further, the state of exception
is the basis of all law in the first place, in that it is only under conditions of a state of exception that law itself can
be created and constitutions imposed. In other words, law is not a product of law, for either Schmitt or for
Hobbes, but of a state where there is not law. The difference is important however. For Hobbes it is the lawless
state presumably a one-time affair at least ontologically if not historically that leads to the creation of law
which is the product of the sovereign. For Schmitt, that power is always in a position to set aside all law and
create new law. But creating new law is by definition an exceptional moment, one that is an exercise of power and
that steps over the bounds of all previously existing (and by implication illusory) legal limits.
No solvency too many alt causes to the state of exception anything that expropriates
Colatrella, 11 (Steven, taught at Bard College, the New School and the American University of Rome, Fulbright
scholar, Chair of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at John Cabot University in Rome and President of
the Iowa Sociological Association, Nothing Exceptional: Against Agamben, Journal for Critical Education Policy
Studies, vol.9. no.1, page 110-111, November 2011, Online,, accessed
7/23/13) PE
My argument is that states of exception and the reduction of part or all of the population governed by state
power to bare life are based upon attempts to expropriate all or part of a population from their land, their access
to resources, subsistence and the means of production; or upon the imposition of neoliberal policies
accomplishing analogous acts of primitive accumulation (privatization of resources or public goods, elimination of
limits on exploitation and market forces, freeing of the power of employers over workers, freeing of capital from
regulations or limitations on its actions and movements). The case of Nazi Germany, the paradigmatic case for
Agamben and one of the paradigmatic cases for Arendts study of totalitarianism, far from making the argument
for autonomy of the political, instead supports the argument that political repression is based on economic
expropriation and exploitation, and that rights and liberties, in turn are based on economic democracy, on either
widespread or common ownership of resources, or on economic class organization by workers and the gains made
using democracy to sustain economic conditions.

Turn GITMO Focus Bad
Turn their focus on states of exception in Gitmo is a critical misreading we lose political
willpower to solve other instances of domination
Huysmans, 8 (Jef, Professor of Security Studies (Politics & International Studies) in the Faculty of Social Sciences
at the University of Kent, The Jargon of ExceptionOn Schmitt, Agamben and the Absence of Political Society,
International Political Sociology (2008) 2, 165183, Online,, accessed 7/23/13) PE
Fleur Johns observed in her analysis of Guantanamo Bay that events taking on the affect of exceptionalism soak
up critical energies with considerable effect in liberal societies. *I+t is the exception that rings liberal alarm bells
(Johns 2005). The liberal critique of current policy developments tends to define stakes and solutions in terms of
exceptionalism, that is, a conflict between rule of law and executive, arbitrary government and or the direct
exercise of governing power over biologically, in contrast to politically, defined life. Johns is uneasy about such a
development but does not develop why we should take exception to exceptionalism. This article introduces one of
the main reasons for sending out a distress signal about the rise in the idiom of exception. When exceptionalism
soaks up critical energ[y]ies in liberal societies, it risks suppressing a political reading of the societal. By reading
the concept of exception through two of the most popular political theorists of the exception, Schmitt and
Agamben, the article shows that structuring politics around exceptionalist readings of political power tends to
politically neutralize the societal as a realm of multi-faceted, historically structured political mediations and
mobilizations. Or, in other words, deploying the exception as a diagram of the political marginalizes the societal as
a political realm. In doing so, it eliminates one of the constituting categories of modern politics (Balibar 1997;
Dyzenhaus 1997), hence producing an impoverished and ultimately illusionary understanding of the processes of
political contestation and domination (Neal 2006; Neocleous 2006). Fleur Johns observed in her analysis of
Guantanamo Bay that events taking on the affect of exceptionalism soak up critical energies with considerable
effect in liberal societies. *I+t is the exception that rings liberal alarm bells (Johns 2005). The liberal critique of
current policy developments tends to define stakes and solutions in terms of exceptionalism, that is, a conflict
between rule of law and executive, arbitrary government and or the direct exercise of governing power over
biologically, in contrast to politically, defined life. Johns is uneasy about such a development but does not develop
why we should take exception to exceptionalism.

No spillover solvency Agambens theories dont answer key questions solving just in the
instance of Gitmo doesnt give us tools to solve the harms elsewhere
Colatrella, 11 (Steven, taught at Bard College, the New School and the American University of Rome, Fulbright
scholar, Chair of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at John Cabot University in Rome and President of
the Iowa Sociological Association, Nothing Exceptional: Against Agamben, Journal for Critical Education Policy
Studies, vol.9. no.1, page 102-103, November 2011, Online,, accessed
7/23/13) PE
Agamben therefore seeks to explain the present danger to civil liberties, the risk of special powers being taken
over by governments declaring states of emergency, the increasingly common turn to delegated democracy
through authoritarian methods by only formally elected leaders and the risk of physical repression by state power
even in liberal democratic countries. Despite its insight, however, I think that this way of understanding is
disastrously mistaken. For the test of theories of this sort should be simple and twofold: 1) does the theory tell us
why this is happening when it does and where it does? 2) And does it tell us what to do about it? I think
Agambens analysis fails utterly on both counts and therein lies the danger in its growing influence as a way of
understanding the undoubted rise in political repression and authoritarianism around the world. Part of the appeal
of a theory like Agambens to radical intellectuals is its sophistication. That Agemben is erudite is undoubted, as his
extensive knowledge of arcane facts of Roman legal history indicate. But while he has added dimensions that no
less talented thinker, certainly myself included, could have come up with, originality, despite its undoubted
academic virtues, is not a reason for a theory or explanation to be convincing to others. Rather an explanation of
historical or political phenomena must address the first question I pose: why? Why now and not later or before?
Why in this place and not the other? Why the differences in degree between places or times? Why is this group
under attack and not another one?

A2: Biopower Impact
Their Impacts rely on a flawed, totalizing amount of biopower
Dickinson 2004 (Edward Ross, University of Cincinnati, Central European History, v37, n1, p.34-36)
The need to theorize the place of the democratic welfare state in biopolitical, social-engineering modernity is, however, obvious. This is a
state form that - in local variations - was built in the course of the 1950s and 1960s in almost every European country in
which people had meaningful political choices, virtually regardless of which political party was in government, and has
survived~ever since without a single major political upheaval, and certainly without significant episodes of
internal violence. (The only modern regime form that comes remotely close - and not very close, for that matter - to this record is the
liberal parliamentary regime form installed in much of Europe in the last third of the nineteenth century.) The German case offers perhaps the
most extraordinary example of the almost monolithic stability of this political system. It hardly needs to be said that the Third Reich, in
contrast, survived for twelve years, and was effectively dead after eight. I want to stress that my point here is not that the
democratic welfare state is a "good" thing. There is plenty about it that is reprehensible and frightening. It does wonderful things - the things it
was built to do - for people; but it also coerces, cajoles, massages, and incentivizes its citizens into behaving in certain ways. It "engineers" their
lives, so to speak. It aims at achieving national power (now more often defined in economic rather than military terms, a discourse on skilled
labor rather than on cannonfodder); it pathologizes difference; it disciplines the individual in myriad ways; it is driven by a "scientistic" and
medicalizing approach to social problems; it is a creature of instrumental rationality. And it is, of course, embedded in a broader discursive
complex (institutions, professions, fields of social, medical, and psychological expertise) that pursues these same aims in often even more
effective and inescapable ways.89 In short, the continuities between early twentieth-century biopolitical discourse and
the practices of the welfare state in our own time are unmistakeable. Both are instances of the "disciplinary society"
and of biopolitical, regulatory, social-engineering modernity, and they share that genealogy with more author- - itarian states, including
the National Socialist state, but also fascist Italy, for example. And it is certainly fruitful to view them from this very broad per- spective. But
that analysis can easily become superficial and misleading because it obfuscates the profoundly different
strategic and local dynamics of power in the two kinds of regimes. Clearly the democratic welfare state is ot only
formally but also substantively quite different from totalitarianism. Above all, again, it has nowhere developed the
fateful, radicalizing dynamic that characterized National Socialism (or for that matter Stalinism), the psychotic logic
that leads from economistic population management to mass murder. Again, there is always the potential for
such a discursive regime to generate coercive policies. In those cases in which the regime of rights does not successfully produce
"health," such a system can -and historically does create compulsory pro- grams to enforce it. But again, there are political and
policy potentials and con- straints such as structuring of biopolitics that are very different from those of National
Socialist Germany. Democratic biopolitical regimes require, enable, and incite a degree of self-direction and
participation that is functionally incompatible with authoritarian or totalitarian structures. And this pursuit of
biopolitical ends through a regime of democratic citizenship does appear, his- torically, to have imposed narrow limits on
coercive policies, and to have generated a "1ogic"or imperative'of increasing liberalization. Despite lim- itations
imposed by political context and the slow pace of discursive change, I think this is the unmistakable message of the really very impressive waves
of legi slative and welfare reforms in the 1920s or the 1970s in Germany.90 Of course it is not yet clear whether this is an irreversible dynamic
of such systems. Nevertheless, such regimes are characterized by sufficient degrees of autonomv, (.and of the potential for its
expansion) for sufficient numbers of peo- ple that I think it becomes useful to conceive of the mass productive of a
strate- gic configuration of power relations that might fruitfully be analyzed as a condition of "liberty just as
much as they are productive of constraint, oppression, or manipulation. At the very least, totalitarianism cannot be the
sole orientation point for our understanding of biopolitics, the only end point of the logic of social engineering 34-36

Biopower doesnt culminate in genocide
Ojakangas 2005 (Mika, Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, Finland, FOUCAULT STUDIES, May, v2, p.26-27)
For Foucault, the coexistence in political structures of large destructive mechanisms and institutions oriented toward the care of individual life
was something puzzling: "It is one of the central antinomies of our political reason." However, it was an antinomy precisely because in principle
the sovereign power and bio-power are mutually exclusive. How is it possible that the care of individual life paves the way for mass slaughters?
Although Foucault could never give a satisfactory answer to this question, he was convinced that mass slaughters are not the effect or
the logical conclusion of bio-political rationality. 1 am also convinced about that. To be sure, it can be argued that sovereign power
and bio-power are reconciled within the modern state, which legitimates killing by biopolitical arguments. Especially, it can be argued that
these powers are reconciled in the Third Reich in which they seemed to "coincide exactly". To my mind, however, neither the modern
state nor the Third Reich - in which the monstrosity of the modem state is crystallized - are the syntheses of the sovereign
power and biopower. but, rather the institutional loci of their irreconcilable tension. This is, I believe, what Foucault
meant when he wrote about their "demonic combination". In fact, the history of modern Western societies would be quite
incomprehensible without taking into account that there exists a form of power which refrains from killing but
which nevertheless is capable of directing peoples lives. The effectiveness of biopower can be seen lying precisely in that it
refrains and withdraws before every demand of killing, even though these demands would derive from the demand of justice. In biopolitical
societies, according to Foucault, capital punishment could not be maintained except by invoking less the enormity of the crime itself than the
monstrosity of the criminal: "One had the right to kill those who represented a kind of biological danger to others." However, given that the
"right to kill" is precisely a sovereign right, it can be argued that the biopolitical societies analyzed by Foucault were not entirely biopolitical.
Perhaps, there neither has been nor can be a society that is entirely biopolitical. Nevertheless, the fact is that present-dav European
societies have abolished capital punishment. In them, there are no longer exceptions. It is the very right to kill" that has
been called into question. However, it is not called into question because of enlightened moral sentiments, but rather
because of the deplovment of bio-political thinking and practice.

A2: State of Exception Answers
Their state of exception impacts are totalizing and wrong
Neilson 2004 (Brett, University of Western Sydney, "Potenza Nuda? Sovereignty, Biopolitics, Capitalism,"
Contretemps, December 5, p. 70)

Negri's ruse in this review is to suggest that the permanent state of exception specified by the first Agamben describes the new condition
of global Empire. But he counters Agamben on his own terms, charging that it is inaccurate to fix everything that happens, in
the world today "onto a static and totalitarian horizon, as under Nazism." Such an equation, for Negri, is anachronistic
and inaccurate, since it conflates the fascist rule of the twentieth century with contemporary modes of
decentralized global control. With implicit reference to the first chapter of Stato di Eccezione, where Agamben describes the
current world situation as 'global civil war' (a term initially used by both Carl Schmitt and Hannah Arendt), Negri questions the notion of a
sovereign ban that renders constituent and constituted power indistinct: But things are different-if we live in a state of exception
it is because we live through a ferocious and permanent "civil war," where the positive and negative their
antagonistic power can in no way be flattened onto indifference.

Claims of a permanent state of exception undermine criticism of biopower
Andrew 2005 (Neal, PhD candidate, School of Politics, Philosophy and International Relations at Keele
University, "Review of the literature on the ccstate of exception)) and the application of this
concept to contemporary politics," March 3,
If, as has been suggested, terminology is the properly poetic moment of thought, then terminological choices can
never be neutral. In this sense, the choice of the term state of exception implies a position taken on both the
nature of the phenomenon we seek to investigate and the logic most useful for understanding it. [51]
There is a final criticism to be made about Agambens treatment of the idea of the state of exception. Thus far, we have made a
sustained critical-theoretical investigation into the usefulness and insight of that concept. In this sense, we must agree with Agambens
suggestion that the choice of a term implies a position on the nature of the phenomenon and the logic most useful
for understanding it. The state of exception is, therefore, a way of understanding both the operation of canonical Western political
discourses/structures at their limits and a positioning of contemporary political practices at those limits. As well as capturing the logic
of a political phenomenon, the term state of exception implies a political judgement on contemporary political practices - that they
are exceptional and therefore perhaps bad, wrong, or more likely interesting, revealing and symptomatic. For these same reasons,
however, we find that the usefulness and insight of the concept of the state of exception is undermined by Agambens frequent
invocation of the idea of a permanent state of exception. For the most part, the logical operation the term state of exception is taken
to mean a limit condition, a constitutive threshold that dwells within the city as sovereign potentiality. It is the potential for
sovereignty to make itself actual by withdrawing the protection of the law, abandoning the subject to a state of lawlessness and
violence: the sovereign is the one with respect to whom all men are potentially homines sacri, and homo sacer is the one with
respect to whom all men act as sovereigns. [52] The value of Agambens work resides in a sustained investigation
into the political dialectics in operation at the thresholds of law and politically-qualified life. Yet the analytical
and political value of this very timely logic is undermined by the invocation of a permanent state of
exception. For example, in Homo Sacer: the juridically empty space of the state of exception...has transgressed its
spatiotemporal boundaries and now, overflowing outside them, is starting to coincide with the normal order, in which everything
again becomes possible. [53] And similarly in State of Exception: the state of exception has by now become the rule. [54] These
statements do not fit with the complex logic of relationality that Agamben attributes to sovereignty and the state of exception. To
invoke a permanent state of exception is to collapse the relational dialectic of norm/exception. Although in
Homo Sacerthese comments are somewhat throwaway, in State of Exception Agamben weaves this thesis more fully into his analysis.
This is in fact grounded both theoretically and empirically. As such, Agamben invokes Benjamins eighth thesis from his Theses on the
Philosophy of History, which partly reads, *t+he tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the state of exception in which we live is
the rule. We must attain to a concept of history that accords with this fact. Then we will clearly see that it is our task to bring about the
real state of exception, and this will improve our position in the struggle against fascism. *55+ The real state of exception of which
Benjamin speaks is some kind of revolution, post-dialectical epoch, or new messianic age. In historical terms Benjamin is of course
right that fascism existed under the permanent declaration of a state of exception. In addition to this theoretical invocation, Agamben
provides an extended note on the empirical history of the state of exception. In this, he illustrates that the exceptional delegation of
powers from parliament to the executive - establishing executive rule by decree - became normal practice for all European
democracies during, and then frequently after, the First World War. He argues that the passage to executive rule is underway to
varying degrees in all the Western democracies, with parliaments becoming only secondary actors in the legislative process. Even more
pertinently, he maintains that the tendency in all of the Western democracies, is that the declaration of the state of exception has
gradually been replaced by an unprecedented generalization of the paradigm of security as the normal technique of government. [56]
While we have no quibble with Agambens historical details or interpretation, what he is really saying here is that the current norm
was once exceptional, and that it developed from an earlier state of exception or is coming to resemble what was once considered
exceptional. It may also be that todays exception will become tomorrows norm. These are no doubt acute political problems and may
well be the case historically, but the consequence is that the treatise becomes no longer an enquiry into the
state of exception, but an enquiry into the state of the norm. It also implies a political position on the current norm, in
that it attempts to label it as exceptional.

CMR Advantage
CMR High
Non-UQ CMR high and stable recent confirmation
Feaver, 7/18 (Peter, American professor of political science and public policy at Duke University. He is a leading
scholar in civil-military relations, Grill, Then Confirm General Dempsey, Foreign Policy, Thursday, July 18, 2013,
Online,, accessed 7/23/13) PE
From the point of view of American civil-military relations, today's confirmation hearing for Gen. Martin Dempsey,
whom President Barack Obama nominated for a customary second tour as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the second-most
important hearing of the year. The first was Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's confirmation hearing earlier in the year. Hagel's hearing was
a train wreck, but he won grudging confirmation. I hope and expect Dempsey's to go much more smoothly, and I hope and
expect him to win an even more enthusiastic affirmative vote. Hagel has performed better than his dismal performance in the confirmation
hearing would have predicted. While I thought at the time that there were better choices for secretary of defense, I also thought that there was
not a strong enough case against him to overcome the presumption that elections have consequences and one of them is that presidents
should get the appointees they want. The confirmation hearings should not be a rubber stamp, and it is always possible that the vetting process
was inadequate. However, the burden of proof should be on those seeking to reject, rather than on the president. The case for Dempsey
strikes me as much stronger than was the case for Hagel, notwithstanding the sharp critiques from my friend and Shadow Government
colleague Kori Schake (who has made her skepticism plain here, here, and here). By all means, I hope the Senate uses the confirmation hearing
to raise the tough questions that deserve to be asked of the administration's national security policy, which, as I argued before, appears to be in
free-fall. However, it is obvious that these problems derive from decisions above Dempsey's pay grade and that those elected and appointed
officials responsible at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. do not appear before confirmation hearings, or any oversight hearings. So this is the moment to
ask those questions of an administration official obliged to answer them. It is also fair game to ask Dempsey the tough questions
that belong at his level: How does he explain the evolution in his advice on Syria? Why does he believe that the United States has established
credible coercive diplomacy vis--vis Iran? What will he recommend if, as seems probable, the sequester will not be fixed? And so on. Dempsey
must provide compelling accounts of the many issues he will manage if he is confirmed to a second tour, ranging from sexual harassment policy
to pay and compensation to rebalancing the force as it returns from war to barracks. But I think he deserves that second tour. I admit to a
certain bias here because Dempsey cares deeply about an issue that I think is vitally important: the health of civil-military
relations. (Yes, I acknowledge another possible conflict of interest: Dempsey is a Duke alum with a graduate degree in English, which speaks
well of his breadth of education. I also taught his son in class.) Dempsey has made educating the force about the do's and don'ts of healthy civil-
military relations a high priority in his first term. In this regard, he was responding to the same warning signs that motivated
his predecessor, Adm. Mike Mullen, and his earlier boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, to likewise make civil-military relations a
point of emphasis. Dempsey has spoken out persuasively about the dangers of senior retired military getting involved in high-stakes
partisan politics, and he has spoken compellingly about the need for better communication between civilian and military institutions. Both
civilians and the military share responsibility for preserving healthy civil-military relations, but it is simply a fact that civilian
political leaders are too distracted to pay the matter adequate attention, and the rest of civilian society is even more inclined to ignore the
relationship. If military leaders do not make it a priority, no one in positions of influence will. Dempsey understands this
fundamentally important fact, and for that reason -- and barring a black-swan surprise revelation in the hearings -- he deserves to be
questioned closely and then confirmed.

Civil Military relations is not in crisis
Exum 12 (Andrew is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and teaches a course in low-
intensity conflict at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. He holds a doctorate in war
studies from the University of London. Abu Muqawama: No Crisis in Wartime U.S. Civil-Military Relations World
Politics Review 04 Jul 2012

As Eliot Cohen ably demonstrates in Supreme Command (2002), however, civilians do sometimes stick their
noses into the tactical and operational affairs of the military -- and often to positive effect. Choosing historical
examples ranging from Abraham Lincoln to David Ben-Gurion, Cohen demonstrates why it is sometimes necessary
for politicians to get their hands dirty running a war. After all, war is fundamentally a political affair -- and it really
is sometimes too important to be left to the generals. A statesman who ignores military affairs can be as much of a
menace as a statesman who fancies himself a better tactician than his generals. U.S. military officers, as a whole,
dislike Cohen's arguments for reasons that should be obvious to all. These officers reflexively resent what they see
as "interference" in their affairs. What those officers perhaps miss is that among Cohen's intended audience was a
certain former governor of Texas who Cohen feared was not as interested in military affairs as he needed to be
having become president. Indeed, George W. Bush learned the hard way -- and at the cost of much U.S. blood and
treasure -- that even though the U.S. military will insist as an institution that its general officers are equally able,
that is not always the case. Some officers are better than others, and one of the more important decisions a
president can make is in his selection of commander. To the chagrin of military officers, then, the division of labor
between civilian officials and military officers in wartime is not fixed. Civilians have long reserved the right to
interfere in military affairs. Lincoln and Ben-Gurion did this to positive effect. Adolf Hitler, among others, did so in
such a way that his meddling hamstrung his generals. What is rigidly fixed in the U.S. system of government,
however, is civilian supremacy over the military. Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. Congress the sole
right to declare war, while Article II establishes the president as the commander-in-chief. Remarkably, the civilian
leadership of the United States has never faced a serious threat by the military to usurp powers reserved for
civilian authorities. Only MacArthur mounted a serious challenge -- a series of challenges, really -- to civilian
authorities, and even he was eventually put in his place. Those who fear that civil-military relations in the United
States are in crisis -- and these fears reached an apex in 2009 -- lack both comparative and historical perspective.
The 82nd Airborne Division might not have done the best job in Iraqs al-Anbar province in 2003, but unlike its
French counterparts, it has never threatened to jump onto the Washington mall and overthrow the government.
And despite the fears of many pundits in 2009 that high-profile general officers such as David Petraeus and
Stanley McChrystal harbored secret ambitions to undermine a young Democratic president, both men now happily
and humbly serve as civilians in that same president's administration.

Alt Causes
Cant solve barriers to CMR narrow recruitment
Cohen, 97 (Eliot A., Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies, CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS, Orbis, Spring 1997, page 86, Online,, accessed 7/23/13) PE
The gap between the military and society is exacerbated by the militarys increasing tendency to recruit from
narrower segments of the population. One conference participant reported that some 25 percent of new entrants
into the military now come from military families. Of greater concern, in the view of some, is the increased role of
the military academies as providers of officer candidates. Whereas West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force
Academy produced only 10 percent of new officers during the Cold War, today they produce roughly one-
quarter. In the view of many, the services would be happy not only to restrict as much officer intake as possible to
the service academies but to force new officers to serve for extended periods of time. The demands of efficiency, in
particular the desire to reduce training expenses and turnover, lead the military to press for long-term service
Cant solve barriers to CMR the military thinks its better than us
Cohen, 97 (Eliot A., Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies, CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS, Orbis, Spring 1997, page 86-87, Online,, accessed 7/23/13) PE
Increasingly, some military leaders also see a growing gap between military and societal values. The U.S. Marine
Corps, perhaps the least civilianized of all the armed services, has changed its basic training programs to instill
values in recruits that it believes American society has failed to provide. Military leaders routinely remark, with
more than a little complacency, that the military has coped with problems that still bedevil the rest of American
society: drug and alcohol abuse, and even in large measure race relations. As sociologist Charles Moskos has put
it, the army is the only institution in which black men routinely give white men orders and no one thinks twice
about it. The armys success on issues involving the sexes is less clear. The military has struggled, with varying
success, to open to women careers that traditionally embodied masculine qualities. Still, that the military has
come to see itself as an organization with better values and more functional social behavior than civil society
marks yet another departure from the past, when the armed forces saw themselves more as a reflection of
society and less as its superior.

Knowledge Inaccurate
We dont have the knowledge to make true predictions of CMR
Angstrom 13
Jan is the Director of Conflict Studies at Uppsala University with a PhD from Kings College, London The changing
norms of civil and military and civil-military relations theory Department of Peace and Conflict Research at
Uppsala University , 30 Apr 2013, SM
Despite its obvious importance, there are several shortcomings in our knowledge of how civil and military are
constituted and relate to each other. Far too often relations between civil and military are treated by scholars as
well as policymakers as a technical matter of more or less coordination. Instead, it relates to fundamental political
norms of how societies should be organized. Similarly, the recent literature on security sector reform far too often
treats democratic control of the military as a binary dichotomy (either there is control or there isnt), thus failing to
recognize the great diversity of democratic orders. Furthermore, the study of civil military relations has, with few
exceptions,5 been dominated by case studies of the contemporary US, Great Britain, or after the Cold War post-
Communist states in Eastern Europe.6 The selection of empirical cases is thus quite limited. Surely, if for example
Peter Feaver is right in suggesting that civil military relations has been an issue since Antiquity, we should be
able to include a wider range of cases in our studies.7 Similarly, the way we currently understand the distinction
of civil and military in the West is often taken for granted and assumed to be of universal validity. The latter
tendency is abundant in the burgeoning literature on civil victimization in war. Modern strategic thought,
moreover, seems not only to think of civil and military as important, but also presumes the existence of such
categories and the boundaries between them. What if civil and military can be understood differently? An
empirical strategy to research civil military relations, however, is hampered by the lack of categorizations that
cover the full width of diversity of potential civil military relations. Instead, the typical theories of civil military
relations focus on the more narrow control of the military and devise different strategies and theories for this
control.10 Not even huge data gathering programs on democracy such as POLITY include measures for civil
military relations.

Military Effectiveness Inevitable
Expert says CMR can never have an impact
Betts 07
Richard K. is the Arnold Saltzman Professor of War and Peace Studies in the Department of Political Science, the
director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies, and the director of the International Security Policy Program in
the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations. He received his AB, AM, and PhD in government from Harvard University. He has also served on the
Harvard faculty as lecturer in government ARE AMERICAN CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS STILL A PROBLEM?
Saltzman Working Paper No. 1 September 2007

The main critique of objective control barely mentions this, the alternative that Huntington poses, and does not
fully engage what Huntington meant. For example, Cohen quotes Huntington's line that in World War II, " 'So far
as the major decisions in policy and strategy were concerned, the military ran the war,' " but adds mistakenly,
"And a good thing too, he seems to add." Looking at the page in The Soldier and the State where the quoted line
appears, one actually finds it followed by Huntington's lament that the military accomplished this dominance
through fusion, "only by sacrificing their military outlook" and becoming one with the liberal society, with bad
effects on the peace that followed the war.49 How should the dialogue be made equal? Clausewitz
recommended that the top commander be in the cabinet, to ensure that policymakers understood the limitations
of military options and the ramifications of their choices at each point.50 U.S. practice does not go that far; the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a statutory advisor, but not an official member, of the National Security
Council. This is good enough, as long as he and the chiefs are as free as the regular members to discuss their
views. It is also only realistic to expect presidents to pay some attention to whether top military appointees have
views that are minimally compatible with their own aims. Having Curtis LeMay as a member of the JCS under
Kennedy and Johnson served no one's interests. But this does not mean looking for clones, and it means exerting
close control of military appointments at the four-star, or occasionally the three-star, level not the vetting of all
general officer promotions, as Rumsfeld was said to do. 49 Cohen, Supreme Command, p. 229; Huntington,
Soldier and the State, pp. 315-317. 50 As the editors clarify, "Clausewitz emphasizes the cabinet's participation in
military decisions, not the soldier's participation in political decisions." Carl von Clausewitz, On War, Michael
Howard and Peter Paret, eds. and trans. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), p. 608 and 608n1. 3738
A better way to balance the equation is desirable, but probably not achievable. The principle endorsed by
Cohen the "unequal dialogue" is not literally apt. Inequality of authority between civilian and military
executives is as it should be, and if checks on executive authority are a problem, blame the Founders. But the
proper inequality of authority makes it all the more important for the dialogue between the camps to be equal.
Subjective control that keeps bruising dialogue limited to the bureaucratic level within the Defense Department,
by appointing accommodating officers at the top has not served the functional imperative. Equality in strategic
discussion does not compromise the civilians' ultimate primacy. Presidents have the right to be wrong in the end,
but generals should have every chance to prevent error before they get to the end. In The Soldier and the State
Huntington posed two stark ideal types of civilian control, and endorses one. In The Common Defense, which
covered a much broader set of problems, he presented a more complex and richer set of ways to understand
military policy. That second book made clear that the genius of the American system was not its consistent
adherence to singular courses of action, but its robust ways of muddling through, thereby implying how civil-
military relations might work satisfactorily without always embodying the pure form of objective control. He ends
The Common Defense by describing Fisher Ames' 1795 address in the House of Representatives: A monarchy or
despotism, Ames suggested, is like a full-rigged sailing ship. It moves swiftly and efficiently. It is beautiful to
behold. It responds sharply to the helm. But in troubled waters, when it strikes a rock, its shell is pierced, and it
quickly sinks to the bottom. A republic, however, is like a raft: slow, ungainly, impossible to steer, no place from
which to control events, and yet endurable and safe. It will not sink, but one's feet are always wet.51 In
American civil-military relations the water never gets chin-deep. In the worst of times it splashes up toward
knee level. Our feet are always wet, but the water rarely gets above our ankles.

Studies prove CMR has no correlation to effectiveness
Murdie 11
Amanda Ph.D. Kansas State University Department of Political Science
The Bad, the Good, and the Ugly: The Curvilinear Effects of Civil-Military Conflict on International Crisis
Outcome KSU 2011
Do civil-military relations impact crisis outcome? The results shown here indicate that civil-military conflict has
a non-monotonic relationship with crisis success. Like Goldilocks and porridge, conflict can be either too hot
or too cold. However, mid-level civil-military friction does appear to improve the likelihood of crisis
bargaining success. This project thus serves as a reminder of the importance of both halves of Feaver's
problematique: the military has to be both under the control of the civilian leadership but still emboldened in
its mission directive. Unlike Feaver but very similar to Huntington, I argue that a military too complacent to the
civilian leadership limits military effectiveness by diminishing military fighting and limiting the information both
the civilian leadership and the adversary has in a crisis bargaining situation.61 I test this argument using a new
and somewhat novel events-dataset. Though publicly available data has limited the focus of this project to just
the years 1990 to 2004, perhaps future coding projects could extend this approach to cover a longer time series.
Additionally, future work could focus on the impact of civil-military conflict on other measures of military
effectiveness or crisis outcomes. Nonetheless, the take-away message of this paper for civilian leaders and
international observers is a powerful one: the impact of civil-military relations on crisis outcomes is more
complex than just ensuring civilian control. Some leeway has to be provided to the military in order to
maximize their role in creating successful crisis outcomes.

Empirically denied CMR collapse during Clinton
Cohen, 97 (Eliot A., Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies, CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS, Orbis, Spring 1997, Online,, accessed 7/23/13) PEz
As one participant put it, when hearing military officers speak about President Bill Clinton, he felt tempted to turn
Voltaires apocryphal defense of free speech on its head: I agree with everything that you say and am appalled
by the fact that you say it. The first two years of the Clinton administration were marked by an extraordinary
display of open disdain and hostility by the military for the new president. The ill-advised nature of his manpower
policies (particularly his effort to lift the ban on homosexuals serving in uniform), the general disregard for things
military that characterized junior staffers in the White House, a proclivity to see the military as a tool of domestic
and international social work rather than strategic action, and the presidents own evasion of the Vietnam-era draft
explained this behavior on the part of officers but in no way made it acceptable. On many occasions senior military
officers not only tolerated their subordinates making contemptuous remarks about the commander in chief
itself an offense subject to court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justicebut amplified and reinforced
such comments. Military officers also were increasingly willing to announce their political affiliation (almost
invariably with the Republican Party) or to display their political beliefs in such ways as driving cars with anti-
Clinton bumper stickers onto military bases, in defiance of tradition and the norms of military service.

Africa Impact D
No risk of great power conflict over Africa
Robert Barrett, PhD student Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary, June 1, 2005,

Westerners eager to promote democracy must be wary of African politicians who promise democratic reform
without sincere commitment to the process. Offering money to corrupt leaders in exchange for their taking
small steps away from autocracy may in fact be a way of pushing countries into anocracy. As such, world
financial lenders and interventionists who wield leverage and influence must take responsibility in considering
the ramifications of African nations who adopt democracy in order to maintain elite political privileges. The
obvious reason for this, aside from the potential costs in human life should conflict arise from hastily
constructed democratic reforms, is the fact that Western donors, in the face of intrastate war would then be
faced with channeling funds and resources away from democratization efforts and toward conflict intervention
based on issues of human security. This is a problem, as Western nations may be increasingly wary of
intervening in Africa hotspots after experiencing firsthand the unpredictable and unforgiving nature of societal
warfare in both Somalia and Rwanda. On a costbenefit basis, the West continues to be somewhat reluctant to
get to get involved in Africas dirty wars, evidenced by its political hesitation when discussing ongoing
sanguinary grassroots conflicts in Africa. Even as the world apologizes for bearing witness to the Rwandan
genocide without having intervened, the United States, recently using the label genocide in the context of
the Sudanese conflict (in September of 2004), has only proclaimed sanctions against Sudan, while dismissing
any suggestions at actual intervention (Giry, 2005). Part of the problem is that traditional military and
diplomatic approaches at separating combatants and enforcing ceasefires have yielded little in Africa. No
powerful nations want to get embroiled in conflicts they cannot win especially those conflicts in which the
intervening nation has very little interest.

International multilateral action solves the impact to African instability
Theo Neethling, Chair of the Subject Group Political Science (Mil) in the School for Security and Africa Studies at
the Faculty of Military Science, Stellenbosch University, 2005, No. 1, African Journal of Conflict Resolution,, p. 57-58

Be that as it may, it is evident that a range of international reforms throughout the international system has taken place to
facilitate peacebuilding endeavours. Much was indeed done to facilitate a fundamental overhaul of the UN
system, while major aid agencies established conflict prevention and peacebuilding units. Also, some Western
governments aligned their foreign, security and development policies and programmes to respond to the conflict
prevention and peacebuilding agenda and challenges of the contemporary international community. This means supporting
policies, activities, programmes and projects which facilitate war-prone, war-torn or post-war countries to recover from conflict in order to
address longer-term developmental and security goals. All in all, it could be argued that this has led to a better understanding of the
political economy of armed conflicts, as well as a drive towards applying appropriate strategies and priorities to deal with
developmental and security challenges in responses to violent conflict and civil war. Obviously, this is of great
importance from an African perspective given the acute need to apply relevant and constructive measures and strategies in the
search for sustainable development and long-term security on the continent.

Their nuclear escalation claim is empirically denied by dozens of African conflicts
Tim Docking, African Affairs Specialist with the United States Institute of Peace, 2007, Taking Sides Clashing
Views on African Issues, p. 372

Nowhere was the scope and intensity of violence during the 1990s as great as in Africa. While the general trend
of armed conflict in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and the Middle East fell during the 1989-99 period, the 1990s
witnessed an increase in the number of conflicts on the African continent. During this period, 16 UN
peacekeeping missions were sent to Africa. (Three countries-Somalia, Sierra Leone, and Angola-were visited by
multiple missions during this time.) Furthermore, this period saw internal and interstate violence in a total of
30 sub-Saharan states. In 1999 alone, the continent was plagued by 16 armed conflicts, seven of which were
wars with more than 1,000 battle-related deaths (Journal of Peace Research, 37:5, 2000, p. 638). In 2000, the
situation continued to deteriorate: renewed heavy fighting between Eritrea and Ethiopia claimed tens of
thousands of lives in the lead-up to a June ceasefire and ultimately the signing of a peace accord in December;
continued violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Sierra Leone, Burundi, Angola, Sudan, Uganda,
and Nigeria as well as the outbreak of new violence between Guinea and Liberia, in Zimbabwe, and in the Ivory
Coast have brought new hardship and bloodshed to the continent.

HR Cred Advantage
Alt Cause
Drone Strikes Alt Cause to Human Rights/International Law
Roberts 13(Dan, reporter for the Guardian, 5-24-2013, The Guardian, Obama drone oversight proposal prompts concern over 'kill

Human-rights groups and peace groups opposed to the CIA-operated targeted-killing programme, which remains officially classified, said
the administration had already rejected international law in pursuing its drone operations. "To say they are rewriting
the rulebook implies that there isn't already a rulebook" said Jameel Jaffer, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's
Center for Democracy. "But what they are already doing is rejecting a rulebook of international law that has been in place since
[the second world war]." He said the news was "frustrating", because it relied on "self-serving sources". The New York Times piece was written
by one of the journalists who first exposed the existence of a White House "kill list", in May. The ACLU is currently involved in a legal
battle with the US government over the legal memo underlying the controversial targeted killing programme,
the basis for drone strikes that have killed American citizens and the process by which individuals are placed on
the kill list. Jaffer said it was impossible to make a judgement about whether the "rulebook" being discussed, according to the Times, was
legal or illegal. "It is frustrating how we are reliant on self-serving leaks" said Jaffer. "We are left with interpreting shadows cast on the wall. The
terms that are being used by these officials are undefined, malleable and without definition. It is impossible to know whether they are talking
about something lawful or unlawful.

Moving Doesnt Solve
Moving detainees to the US doesnt give them any additional right
Spencer et al. 5 (Jack, Jack Spencer oversees Heritage Foundation research on a wide range of domestic
economic issues as director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. Those topics include federal spending,
taxes, energy and environment, regulation and retirement savings., Senior Research Fellow for Russian and
Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International
Studies Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies Ariel Cohen brings firsthand knowledge of the
former Soviet Union and the Middle East through a wide range of studies, covering issues such as economic
development and political reform in the former Soviet republics, U.S. energy security, the global War on Terrorism
and the continuing conflict in the Middle East., James Phillips is the Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern
Affairs at the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. He has
written extensively on Middle Eastern issues and international terrorism since 1978., Analyst Heritage Foundation -
> Defense and National Security, No Good Reason To Close Gitmo, The Heritage Foundation, June 14, 2005, SS
Moving the detainees within the continental United States will not give them additional rights because
Guantanamo Bay is already considered sufficiently under U.S. control to provide rights to them.[6] After the
Rasul opinion, the detainees and the U.S. government will have the same legal advantages and disadvantages
within the U.S. as they do at Guantanamo Bay. There are no compelling legal reasons to move the detainees and
close Guantanamo Bay.

ILaw Doesnt Solve
Humans rights treaties dont solve in repressive regimes
HAFNER-BURTON, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and Department of Politics,
Princeton University and TSUTSUI, prof @ University of Michigan 2007 (Emilie M. and Kiyoteru, Justice Lost!
The Failure of International Human Rights Law To Matter Where Needed Most Journal of peace research vol. 44
num 4)

Despite recent skepticism, scholars of international relations, law, and sociology have long argued that laws can make a
difference, and hope for improvement is common (Landman, 2005; see Hafner-Burton & Ron, 2006). Many politicians and
nongovernmental activists also believe that human rights laws initiate processes and dialogues that involve learning
over time and, through learning, the eventual change in belief about rational or appropriate actions (Abbott & Snidal, 2000). They provide
rules and organizational structures that constrain national sovereignty, serving as justification and a forum for action that can shape
governments political interests and belief about appropriate actions (Chayes & Chayes, 1998; Franck, 1988; Lutz & Sikkink, 2000). And
persuasive accounts argue that governments ratify human rights treaties, not always as symbolic acts, but also as expressions of preference for
reform (Simmons, 2006). By almost all such accounts, if human rights laws matter for political reform, they will take time to be of importance,
as belief change and capacity-building for implementation are unlikely to be easy or immediate and may well happen in fits and starts (Chayes
& Chayes, 1993). Theories of compliance, however, are to some extent divorced from research. Current findings
largely emphasize that treaties work in some cases democracies. But these studies largely ignore the dynamics
of compliance. This is troubling because the human rights regime was created precisely to stop outbreaks of
extreme violence among the worlds worst abusers, and its founders knew this process would take time. Perhaps researchers are
finding that treaties matter most on the margins because studies are not taking the dynamics of compliance seriously. Maybe repressive
autocrats simply need more time to come under the sway of international laws and build capacity than other, more democratic, states.

Imperialism Advantage
US Imperialism Inevitable- History shows
Khodaee 11 (Esfandiar, American Studies at Tehran University, Is imperialism Inevitable for America? July 19,

Imperialism takes root from human nature. In history we see whenever a country had the power to expand its
domination, it never hesitated. Historical examples are: Roman, Persian, Ottoman, Japanese, Chinese, French, Spanish, English, Portugal and Mongol
Empires. Today American Empire is a live example having all the common features of previous Empires. Some common
features of all Empires are: All these Empires have a clear date for emergence and a final date of weakness or even vanishing. For Example the Soviet Union Empire
was born in the beginning of the twentieth century and collapsed in the end of the same century in 1991. All above mentioned Empires expanded to
the point they could afford, and then declined. The balance of power theory presents a good perception. It
reveals the fact that an imperialist power goes forward to the point that domestic and foreign pressure stops or
remove it. Some of these Imperialist powers like the Soviet Union and America besides their realistic interests in Imperialism, have also
ideological bases. The Soviet Union tried to expand Communism; America is trying to expand Capitalism. Today the United States of America both in realistic
and idealistic point of view has chosen an Imperialistic way of dealing other countries. From the realistic point of view, America needs new markets to help its
economy proceed, also for the sake of security America resorts to intervention in four corners of the world. In idealistic point of view American decision makers
believe Capitalism through democracy is the best way for governing human societies. They sometimes use this ideology as a pretext for their realistic benefits. They
know that any capitalist democracy in any corner of the world meets their interest and they have fewer problems with democracies around the world. For example
Japan, Germany and Italy are no longer a threat to American security. So are India, Pakistan and South Africa. But countries like Iran, Venezuela and Sudan which are
not in the realm of their alleged democracy will never meet their security standards. After the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001, US found concrete security
excuses to militarily intervening Afghanistan and Iraq. Imperialism is inevitable for America because it roots in American history
and culture. From its early days of being English colonies America has never stopped expanding. The first victims were
native Indians who lost their lands. Then the French colonies in America, then the Britain Kingdom and then the Mexico which lost Texas, Arizona and New Mexico.
From 1850s to 1890s because of civil war between the two systems of Capitalism and Slavery and then the Reconstruction, American expansion came to a halt. In
1898 America emerged in a full imperialistic appearance to defeat the frustrated Spain and gain Filipinas in Far East Asia. During the twentieth century the United
States in an average of less than a year (nearly every 10 month) has intervened a country. You cant find a country in the world which America hasnt attacked,
intervened or at least performed a quota. Imagine an Iraqi citizen living in 1607 in Baghdad accidently learns about the establishment of a new English colony in
thousands of kilometers far west. He never could believe four hundred years later (in 2003) the same colony as a superpower would change the fate of his country
and remove his president (Saddam). America will never give up its Imperialism nature, unless the balance of power blocks
it. Today, after the cold war and at the advent of globalization the A twinkle of hope is the multinational treaties between groups of countries. Through these
treaties may be in the future they can defend themselves.

Doesnt Solve
No solvency Guantanamo showcases U.S. imperialism, but closure doesnt overcome alt
Greenberg, 12 (Karen J., historian, professor, and author. She is Director of the Center on National Security at
Fordham University's School of Law, Imagining a world without Guantanamo, January 12, 2012, Online,
Washington Post Opinions,
guantanamo-bay-indefinite-detention, accessed 7/27/13) PE
Without Guantanamo, there would be no focal point that so readily called to mind the U.S. role in the war on
terror. There would be no one place that encapsulated the errant journey that the nation began in the wake of
9/11, the startling deviation from law and process, from the self-identity of America as law-abiding, confident and
fair. The absence of Guantanamo this one term that evokes so much would have meant that the United
States had not chosen the easy out. Had there been no Guantanamo, the nation would have had to confront the
issues that continue to haunt us: the ability of the Constitution to deal with 21st-century enemies; the strengths
and weaknesses of our intelligence services; the uncertainty of who is an enemy and who is not. Without
Guantanamo, the countrys leaders would have had to create aboveboard policies that would not have led us into
a state of perpetual limbo, now codified by Congress and supported by the president in the form of indefinite
detention and military detention for foreign terrorism suspects. With no Guantanamo, there would still be much
to trouble us: the war in Iraq and the lies that got us there, the losses in Afghanistan, the overstepping of the
security state into conversations, virtual and otherwise. But there wouldnt be a glaring badge of shame on the
United States. Nor would there be a ready symbol of the countrys willingness to allow national security to trump
the rule of law. Without Guantanamo, our moral compass wouldnt have been so visibly hijacked.

Cant solve protests against Guantanamo are political posturing its a symptom rather
than a cause of imperialism
ONeil, 6 (Brendon, columnist for the Big Issue, a blogger for the Telegraph, and a writer for the Spectator, Editor
of Spiked, Guantanamo Bay and the champagne anti-imperialists, March 10, 2006, Online, http://www.spiked-, accessed 7/28/13) PE
The Camp X-Ray prisons at Guantanamo Bay - where 500 men are being held in legal limbo, still unsure whether
they are prisoners of war, illegal combatants or what - are a common disgrace. They should be shut down,
dismantled, sold for scrap, and their inhabitants set free immediately. More to the point, we should challenge the
idea that these individuals pose a threat to civilisation and everything that America and the West hold dear, and
that they therefore must be locked up indefinitely and even have their toothbrushes sawn in half. That is the
beginning and the end of my political position on Guantanamo Bay. And that is why I wont be signing up any time
soon to the fashionable public campaign against Camp X-Ray. That campaign - whose adherents include[s]
everyone from the Archbishop of Canterbury, to every bicycle-riding liberals favourite bicycle-riding newsreader,
Jon Snow, to the not-especially principled publicity supremo Max Clifford (who reportedly scored high-profile
newspaper interviews for some of the Brits freed from Guantanamo) - is less about getting the prison shut down,
and even less about challenging the war on terror that sustains it, than it is about demonstrating the campaigners
own whiter-than-white credentials to the watching world. Wondering about the strange goings-on at
Guantanamo has become a kind of pornography for the chattering classes, and chastising Camp X-Ray a shortcut
to showing that you are a good and noble person. It is public protest as narcissistic preening, and anyone
interested in challenging the war on terror should steer well clear of it. Guantanamo Bay is everywhere. Even as
post-war Afghanistan remains a mess and post-war Iraq becomes an ever-more vacuous and violent state, virtually
the only big public debate about Bush and Blairs military shenanigans focuses on Camp X-Ray. That is weird for
two reasons. First, we know what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq but we are uncertain as to what is
happening in Camp X-Ray, which is a highly secretive and closed-off prison; second, Camp X-Ray is a byproduct of
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a symptom rather than the cause of American and British military
interventionism. In some ways, it is precisely the secretive nature of Camp X-Ray and the fact that it has become a
kind of separate entity, dislocated from its origins in the war on terror, that makes it attractive to the
campaigners: it allows them to indulge a sense of moral righteousness and outrage without having to think too
hard about hard facts or the messy political business of taking a public stand against Western interventionism.

US should reform GITMO-shutting it down doesnt solve
Sun Sentinel 6 (Sun Sentinel, The Sun Sentinel, owned by the Tribune Company, is the main daily newspaper of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, U.S., and all of
Broward County, but circulates throughout South Florida. It is the largest-circulation newspaper in South Florida. The publisher, since 2007, is Howard Greenberg.
The editor, since 2011, is Howard Saltz., The paper was awarded its first Pulitzer Prize on April 15, 2013, the Gold Medal in the category of Public Service Journalism,
for its investigative series about hundreds of off-duty police officers who regularly speed -- often at 120 or 130 mph -- without being punished. You can read the
series here, The newspaper has also been a finalist for a Pulitzer 13 times, including for its 2005 coverage of Hurricane Wil ma and an investigation into the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's mismanagement of hurricane aid. (The latter investigation was featured in the PBS documentary series Expos: America's
Investigative Reports in an episode entitled "Crisis Mismanagement.") It also produced a significant contribution to information graphics in the form of News
Illustrated, a weekly full-page graphic that has received more than 30 international awards. The photography department has been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize
twice in the Spot News category. It was nominated in 1982 for its coverage of a Haitian refugee boat disaster. It was nominated again in 1999 for its powerful
coverage of Hurricane Mitch in Central America. The Sun Sentinel publishes several websites, including,,,, and Its website has news video from two South Florida television stations: West Palm
Beach's CBS affiliate WPEC and WSFL-TV, the Miami and Fort Lauderdale CW affiliate. It also publishes a Spanish-language weekly, El Sentinel, and an alternative
weekly distributed for free throughout the region. Guantanamo, Sun Sentinel Articles, February 20, 2006,
02-20/news/0602190101_1_guantanamo-bay-prison-camp-fair-minded) SS
The U.S. prison camp for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay should not be closed. It serves a useful purpose.
Besides, there is something unseemly and hypocritical about an international agency populated by egregious human-
rights violators scolding the United States over alleged abuses of human rights, especially when the allegations
come largely from the prisoners themselves. This should not be taken to mean, though, that all is well at Guantanamo. The place has
richly earned a reputation that has harmed America's image in much of the world. The United States must
improve conditions there and treat the prisoners more fairly. Fairness starts with bringing detainees to trial in a
reasonable period of time. Isn't that the American way? The four-year period that has elapsed since many were brought to Guantanamo already
qualifies as unreasonable. The United States should conduct trials not because anti-American operatives at the United Nations say so. It should do so because it's
the right thing to do, and because America cannot expect to be regarded as the international model for the rule of law if it
ignores the rule of law itself, even in so just a cause as the war on terror. No one should shed a tear for the true terrorists at
Guantanamo. But many detainees were picked up in sweeps that cast a very wide net amid the fog of war in
Afghanistan. They aren't necessarily terrorists. The war on terror, as defined by the Bush administration, is open-ended and may not end in
our lifetimes. No fair-minded person should accept the notion that it's all right to imprison people in perpetuity
when they may not be guilty of anything. No fair-minded country should think that way either. BOTTOM LINE: The
camp should not be closed, but the U.S. must treat prisoners better and bring them to trial promptly.

Imperialism Good

American imperialism should be embraced it has been the greatest force for good in the
Boot, 2003 (Max, Olin senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, "American Imperialism? No Need to Run
Away from Label," 5-18-2003,

The greatest danger is that we won't use all of our power for fear of the ''I'' word -- imperialism. When asked on April
28 on al-Jazeera whether the United States was ''empire building,'' Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reacted as if he'd been asked
whether he wears women's underwear. ''We don't seek empires,'' he replied huffily. ''We're not imperialistic. We never have been.'' That's a
fine answer for public consumption. The problem is that it isn't true. The United States has been an empire since at least 1803, when Thomas
Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory. Throughout the 19th century, what Jefferson called the ''empire of liberty'' expanded across the
continent. When U.S. power stretched from ''sea to shining sea,'' the American empire moved abroad, acquiring colonies ranging from Puerto
Rico and the Philippines to Hawaii and Alaska. While the formal empire mostly disappeared after World War II, the United States set out on
another bout of imperialism in Germany and Japan. Oh, sorry -- that wasn't imperialism; it was ''occupation.'' But when Americans are running
foreign governments, it's a distinction without a difference. Likewise, recent ''nation-building'' experiments in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo
and Afghanistan (news - web sites) are imperialism under another name. Mind you, this is not meant as a condemnation. The history of
American imperialism is hardly one of unadorned good doing; there have been plenty of shameful episodes, such
as the mistreatment of the Indians. But, on the whole, U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the
world during the past century. It has defeated the monstrous evils of communism and Nazism and lesser evils
such as the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing. Along the way, it has helped spread liberal institutions to
countries as diverse as South Korea (news - web sites) and Panama. Yet, while generally successful as imperialists, Americans have been loath
to confirm that's what they were doing. That's OK. Given the historical baggage that ''imperialism'' carries, there's no need for the U.S.
government to embrace the term. But it should definitely embrace the practice. That doesn't mean looting Iraq of its natural
resources; nothing could be more destructive of our goal of building a stable government in Baghdad. It means imposing the rule of law,
property rights, free speech and other guarantees, at gunpoint if need be. This will require selecting a new ruler who is committed to pluralism
and then backing him or her to the hilt. Iran and other neighboring states won't hesitate to impose their despotic views on Iraq; we shouldn't
hesitate to impose our democratic views. The indications are mixed as to whether the United States is prepared to embrace its imperial role
unapologetically. Rumsfeld has said that an Iranian-style theocracy ''isn't going to happen,'' and President Bush (news - web sites) has pledged
to keep U.S. troops in Iraq as long as necessary to ''build a peaceful and representative government.'' After allowing a temporary power vacuum
to develop, U.S. troops now are moving aggressively to put down challenges to their authority by, for example, arresting the self-declared
''mayor'' of Baghdad. That's all for the good. But there are also some worrisome signs. Bush asked for only $2.5 billion from Congress for
rebuilding Iraq, even though a study from the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy estimates that
$25 billion to $100 billion will be needed. Iraq's oil revenues and contributions from allies won't cover the entire shortfall. The president should
be doing more to prepare the U.S. public and Congress for a costly commitment. Otherwise, Iraqis quickly could become disillusioned about the
benefits of liberation. The cost of our commitment will be measured not only in money but also in troops. While Bush and Rumsfeld have
wisely eschewed any talk of an early ''exit strategy,'' they still seem to think that U.S. forces won't need to stay more than two years. Rumsfeld
even denied a report that the U.S. armed forces are planning to open permanent bases in Iraq. If they're not, they should be. That's the only
way to ensure the security of a nascent democracy in such a rough neighborhood. Does the administration really imagine that Iraq will have
turned into Switzerland in two years' time? Allied rule lasted four years in Germany and seven years in Japan. American troops remain
stationed in both places more than 50 years later. That's why these two countries have become paragons of liberal democracy. It is crazy to
think that Iraq -- which has less of a democratic tradition than either Germany or Japan had in 1945 -- could make the leap overnight. The
record of nation-building during the past decade is clear: The United States failed in Somalia and Haiti, where it pulled out troops prematurely.
Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan show more promise because U.S. troops remain stationed there. Afghanistan would be making even more
progress if the United States and its allies had made a bigger commitment to secure the countryside, not just Kabul. If we want Iraq to
avoid becoming a Somalia on steroids, we'd better get used to U.S. troops being deployed there for years,
possibly decades, to come. If that raises hackles about American imperialism, so be it. We're going to be called
an empire whatever we do. We might as well be a successful empire.

Criticizing Western imperialism obscures more insidious practices by regional powers
Shaw, 2 (Martin Shaw, professor of international relations at University of Sussex, Uses and Abuses of Anti-
Imperialism in the Global Era, 4-7-2002,

It is fashionable in some circles, among which we must clearly include the organizers of this conference, to argue that the global era is seeing 'a
new imperialism' - that can be blamed for the problem of 'failed states' (probably among many others). Different contributors to this strand of
thought name this imperialism in different ways, but novelty is clearly a critical issue. The logic of using the term imperialism is actually to
establish continuity between contemporary forms of Western world power and older forms first so named by Marxist and other theorists a
century ago. The last thing that critics of a new imperialism wish to allow is that Western power has changed sufficiently to invalidate the very
application of this critical concept. Nor have many considered the possibility that if the concept of imperialism has a relevance
today, it applies to certain aggressive, authoritarian regimes of the non-Western world rather than to the
contemporary West. In this paper I fully accept that there is a concentration of much world power - economic, cultural, political and
military - in the hands of Western elites. In my recent book, Theory of the Global State, I discuss the development of a 'global-Western state
conglomerate' (Shaw 2000). I argue that 'global' ideas and institutions, whose significance characterizes the new political era that has opened
with the end of the Cold War, depend largely - but not solely - on Western power. I hold no brief and intend no apology for official Western
ideas and behaviour. And yet I propose that the idea of a new imperialism is a profoundly misleading, indeed ideological
concept that obscures the realities of power and especially of empire in the twenty-first century. This notion is an
obstacle to understanding the significance, extent and limits of contemporary Western power. It simultaneously serves to obscure
many real causes of oppression, suffering and struggle for transformation against the quasi-imperial power of
many regional states. I argue that in the global era, this separation has finally become critical. This is for two related reasons. On the one
hand, Western power has moved into new territory, largely uncharted -- and I argue unchartable -- with the critical tools of anti-imperialism. On
the other hand, the politics of empire remain all too real, in classic forms that recall both modern imperialism and earlier empires, in many non-
Western states, and they are revived in many political struggles today. Thus the concept of a 'new imperialism' fails to deal with
both key post-imperial features of Western power and the quasi-imperial character of many non-Western
states. The concept overstates Western power and understates the dangers posed by other, more authoritarian
and imperial centres of power. Politically it identifies the West as the principal enemy of the world's people, when
for many of them there are far more real and dangerous enemies closer to home. I shall return to these political issues at
the end of this paper.

Imperialism is good: the defeat of Nazism and the promotion of democracy are proof.
Boot, 2003 (Max, Olin senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, "American Imperialism? No Need to Run
Away from Label," 5-18-2003,

Mind you, this is not meant as a condemnation. The history of American imperialism is hardly one of unadorned good doing; there have been
plenty of shameful episodes, such as the mistreatment of the Indians. But, on the whole, U.S. imperialism has been the greatest
force for good in the world during the past century. It has defeated the monstrous evils of communism and
Nazism and lesser evils such as the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing. Along the way, it has helped spread liberal institutions
to countries as diverse as South Korea (news - web sites) and Panama. Yet, while generally successful as imperialists,
Americans have been loath to confirm that's what they were doing. That's OK. Given the historical baggage that ''imperialism''
carries, there's no need for the U.S. government to embrace the term. But it should definitely embrace the
practice. That doesn't mean looting Iraq of its natural resources; nothing could be more destructive of our goal of building a stable
government in Baghdad. It means imposing the rule of law, property rights, free speech and other guarantees, at
gunpoint if need be. This will require selecting a new ruler who is committed to pluralism and then backing him
or her to the hilt. Iran and other neighboring states won't hesitate to impose their despotic views on Iraq; we
shouldn't hesitate to impose our democratic views.

Criticizing benevolent action on the grounds of imperialism undermines liberation of
oppressed people imperialism is justified in some instances.
Shaw, 2 (Martin Shaw, professor of international relations at University of Sussex, Uses and Abuses of Anti-
Imperialism in the Global Era, 4-7-2002, AFM)

Conclusion: The abuses of anti-imperialism It is worth asking how the politics of anti-imperialism distorts Western leftists'
responses to global struggles for justice. John Pilger, for example, consistently seeks to minimise the crimes of Milosevic in Kosovo,
and to deny their genocidal character - purely because these crimes formed part of the rationale for Western intervention against Serbia. He
never attempted to minimise the crimes of the pro-Western Suharto regime in the same way. The crimes of quasi-imperial regimes are similar
in cases like Yugoslavia and Indonesia, but the West's attitudes towards them are undeniably uneven and inconsistent. To take as the criterion
of one's politics opposition to Western policy, rather than the demands for justice of the victims of oppression as such, distorts our responses
to the victims and our commitment to justice. We need to support the victims regardless of whether Western
governments take up their cause or not; we need to judge Western power not according to a general
assumption of 'new imperialism' but according to its actual role in relation to the victims. The task for civil
society in the West is not, therefore to oppose Western state policies as a matter of course, la Cold War, but to
mobilise solidarity with democratic oppositions and repressed peoples, against authoritarian, quasi-imperial states. It is to
demand more effective global political, legal and military institutions that genuinely and consistently defend the
interests of the most threatened groups. It is to grasp the contradictions among and within Western elites, conditionally allying
themselves with internationalising elements in global institutions and Western governments, against nationalist and reactionary elements. The
arrival in power of George Bush II makes this discrimination all the more urgent. In the long run, we need to develop a larger politics
of global social democracy and an ethic of global responsibility that address the profound economic, political and
cultural inequalities between Western and non-Western worlds. We will not move far in these directions, however, unless we
grasp the life-and-death struggles between many oppressed peoples and the new local imperialisms, rather than subsuming all
regional contradictions into the false synthesis of a new Western imperialism.

US imperialism is necessary to prevent war and genocide - their criticism thwarts the more
important task of humanizing the imperial order from within
David Rieff, Volume XVI, No2, SUMMER 1999. A New Age of Liberal Imperialism?
But the implications of not doing anything are equally clear. Those who fear American power are-this is absolutely certain-
condemning other people to death. Had the U.S. armed forces not set up the air bridge to eastern Zaire in the
wake of the Rwandan genocide, hundreds of thousands of people would have perished, rather than the tens of
thousands who did die. This does not excuse the Clinton administration for failing to act to stop the genocide militarily; but it is a fact.
And analogous situations were found in Bosnia and even, for all its failings, in the operation in Somalia. <CONTINUED.> Is thisproposal
tantamount-to calling for decolonization of part of the world? Would such a system make the United States even more powerful than it is
already? Clearly it is, and clearly it would. But what are the alternatives? Kosovo demonstrates how little stomach the United States has for the
kind of military action mat its moral ambitions impel it to undertake. And there will be many more Kosovos in the coming
decades. With the victory of capitalism nearly absolute, the choice is not between systems but about what kind of capitalist system we are
going to have and what kind of world order that system requires. However controversial it may be to say this our choice at the
millennium seems to boil down to imperialism or barbarism. Half-measures of the type we have seen in various humanitarian
interventions and in Kosovo represent the worst of both worlds. Better to grasp the nettle and accept that liberal imperialism
may be the best we are going to do in these callous and sentimental times. Indeed, the real task for people who
reject both realism and the Utopian nihilism of a left that would prefer to see genocide in Bosnia and the mass
deportation of the Kosovars rather than strengthen, however marginally, the hegemony of the United States, is to trv to
humanize this new imperial order-assuming it can come into being-and to curb the excesses that it will doubtless produce. The
alternative is not liberation, or the triumph of some global consensus of conscience, but to paraphrase Che Guevara,
one, two, three, many Kosovos.

International Law Advantage
Alt Cause
Impact Non-UniqueUS will always refuse to comply with IL
Global Policy Forum 12 (an independent publication that monitors UN and global political activity, US
Opposition to the International Criminal Court, Global Policy Forum,

The United States government has consistently opposed an international court that could hold US military and
political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice. The Clinton administration participated actively in
negotiations towards the International Criminal Court treaty, seeking Security Council screening of cases. If
adopted, this would have enabled the US to veto any dockets it opposed. When other countries refused to agree
to such an unequal standard of justice, the US campaigned to weaken and undermine the court. The Bush
administration, coming into office in 2001 as the Court neared implementation, adopted an extremely active
opposition. Washington began to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, insuring immunity of US
nationals from prosecution by the Court. As leverage, Washington threatened termination of economic aid,
withdrawal of military assistance, and other painful measures. The Obama administration has so far made
greater efforts to engage with the Court. It is participating with the Court's governing bodies and it is providing
support for the Court's ongoing prosecutions. Washington, however, has no intention to join the ICC, due to its
concern about possible charges against US nationals.

International law fails, GITMO not a key instance; and, focus on laws of war trades off with
environmental, economic issues
Guzman 01 (Andrew T., Professor of Law and Associate Dean, International and Graduate Programs, University
of California, Berkeley Law

Third, it is demonstrated that international law is most likely to affect outcomes when there are many repeated
interactions and each of those interactions involves relatively small stakes. Although this claim is not new, it
leads to the conclusion that the topics which have traditionally held center stage in international law -- such as
the laws of war, neutrality, arms control, and so on -- are precisely the topics in which international law is least
likely to be relevant. This conclusion has two lessons for international law scholarship. The first is that
international law scholarship may be unduly focused on these topics. The fact they are arguably the most
important issues in international relations does not imply that they should form the centerpiece of international
law because international law will often be unable to affect outcomes. Scholars may have a greater impact on
human well-being if they devote more energy to areas in which international law can alter outcomes more
reliably. These include a range of important areas including economic issues, environmental issues, labor issues,
and so on. The second, somewhat more subtle, lesson is that the study of these issues, and the design of
international institutions should proceed with an understanding of the limits of international law. International
law can play a role in encouraging cooperation, but can only do so if obligations are structured in a fashion that
reduces the importance of each compliance decision. For example, an arms treaty, by itself may have little success
but a treaty that provides for periodic inspections by a neutral third party may stand a much greater chance of
achieving the goal of arms control.

Closing GITMO cant solvecritical investigation key to regain credibility
Tolbert 13 (David, President of the International Center for Transitional Justice, former registrar for United
Nations, United States Must Ensure Accountability For War on Terror Abuses, International Center for
Transnational Justice, 4/29,

This posture, if maintained, runs contrary to the US governments repeated assertions of its commitment to
human rights as well as its obligations under law, including as a signatory of the United Nations Convention against
Torture. To regain its credibility in the eyes of the world, the government must take steps to acknowledge and
address past violations and provide redress to victims of US-sanctioned abuses. This is the minimum that
international law demands. Decades of American discourse in support of human rights ring hollow in the silence
of US inaction on these abuses. The International Center for Transitional justice, through its Accountability Project,
and other human rights groups have consistently advocated for an official inquiry into allegations of US-sanctioned
torture. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, of Vermont, proposed the establishment of a truth commission to examine
allegations of detainee abuse following the September 11 attacks as far back as February 2009; but Congress,
shamefully, has failed to act. Moreover, no senior figure has been brought to the bar of justice for acts in
violation of international and national law. While the commendable Constitution Projects report has shone a
light on serious and credible evidence of abuses, it is no substitute for government action to get to the truth, hold
perpetrators accountable, and provide redress to victims. ICTJs global experience, including in the United States,
points to the necessity of addressing legacies of serious human rights abuses. A society that prides itself on
respecting the rule of law cannot look the other way when abuses are sanctioned in its midst. The rule of law
cannot be applied a la carte, with governments picking and choosing when the law should or should not be
applied, and to whom. Closing the door on serious crimes such as torture and arbitrary detention is an illusion.
Americans have learned this the hard way; one need only think of Japanese internment during World War II,
and the long delayed apology and compensation. It is a lesson not to be forgotten. Many other countries have
actively addressed their history of government use of torture and other serious crimes, while solidifying, rather
than sacrificing, a commitment to democratic and human rights values. Those countries initially faced arguments
against accountability similar to those now made in the United States: that the facts were known, that actions
were justified, that looking into abuses would be politically divisive, and that the focus should be on moving
forward. Yet, transformative leaders in places as diverse as Latin America, South Africa, and Eastern Europe have
realized that change would not be possible without first looking back and taking steps toward accountability. In
many instances, these countries did so with the encouragement and support of the United States.

International Law bad, undermines state sovereignty
Feith et al, 6-18 (Douglas J. Director, Center for National Security Strategies, Senior Fellow Hudson Institute,
Washington, D.C. Headquarters, The War of Law: How New International Law Undermines Democratic
Sovereignty, Hudson Institute, 2013,

Transnationalists argue that in the interest of promoting "global governance," U.S. officials should bring the
Constitution and American law into conformity with "global norms," thus effectively elevating those norms
above the Constitution. They want the United States to adopt what they deem progressive rules -- for example,
gun control, the banning of the death penalty, and new laws of war. But they want to do so through judicial
decisions, a method that allows them to circumvent resistant legislatures and effectively smuggle new
restrictions into U.S. law. As becomes clear from even a cursory reading of leading American law journals and
official communiqus of the European Union, transnationalism is an influential school of thought in academic and
official circles in the United States and throughout the developed world. A key proponent of the movement is
Harold Koh, the former dean of Yale Law School who served four years as the State Department's legal adviser in
the Obama administration. Koh has been a compelling advocate of what he calls "the transnational legal
process," whereby "transnational private actors" blend domestic and international legal processes to
incorporate or internalize so-called global legal norms into domestic law. "Key agents in promoting this process
of internalization include transnational norm entrepreneurs, governmental norm sponsors, transnational issue
networks, and interpretive communities," he wrote in a 2006 Penn State International Law Review article. "In this
story, one of these agents triggers an interaction at the international level, works together with other agents of
internalization to force an interpretation of the international legal norm in an interpretive forum, and then
continues to work with those agents to persuade a resisting nation-state to internalize that interpretation into
domestic law." In the same law journal article, Koh wrote about the way international law can be "downloaded"
into U.S. law. These ideas no doubt appeal to those who support the progressive policies at issue. But they are
disrespectful toward the U.S. Constitution and dismissive of the idea that the American people should be able to
elect -- and eject -- the officials who make their laws. The transnationalists challenge not merely the
technicalities of lawmaking but the very essence of democratic accountability. Transnationalists do not have
grandiose plans for one-world government, but they do want to give various rules the force of law without having
to win majorities for those rules in democratically elected legislatures. This is not the way lawmaking is supposed
to work under the U.S. Constitution.

US Not Key
Other countries solve the impactUS not key
Benvenisti 8 Professor of Law, Tel Aviv University (Eval, Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic Uses Of Foreign
And International Law By National Courts, 102 A.J.I.L. 241,

It wasnt so long ago that the overwhelming majority of courts in democratic countries shared a reluctance to refer to foreign and international
law. These courts conformed to a policy of avoiding any application of foreign sources of law that would clash with the position of their
domestic governments. For many jurists, recourse to foreign and international law is inappropriate.1 But even the supporters of the reference
to external sources of law share the thus-unexplored assumption that reliance on foreign and international law is inevitably in tension with the
value of national sovereignty. Hence the scholarly debate is framed along the lines of the well-known broader debate on the counter-
majoritarian difficulty.2 This Article questions this assumption of tension. It argues that for courts in most democratic countries
even if not for U.S. courts at present referring to foreign and international law has become an effective
instrument for empowering the domestic democratic processes by shielding them from external economic,
political and even legal pressures. Citing international law, therefore, actually bolsters domestic democratic processes and reclaims
national sovereignty from the diverse forces of globalization. Stated differently, most national courts, seeking to maintain the vitality of
their national political institutions and to safeguard their own domestic status vis--vis the political branches, cannot afford to ignore
foreign and international law. In recent years, courts in several democracies have begun to engage quite seriously
in the interpretation and application of international law and to heed the constitutional jurisprudence of other
national courts.

Other countries fill in
Pederson 8 (Ole, Professor @ Newcastle,
us-supreme-court/, AD: 7/10/10) jl
It appears that it is not only the EU whose authority is fading. Todays NY Times has a very interesting story on the influence of the US
Supreme Court, which is well worth a read. The article states that the number of citations of US Supreme Court cases in
other jurisdictions is in decline compared to just ten years ago. There are many reasons for this, according to, inter alia,
Thomas Ginsburg of University of Chicago and Aharon Barak, former president of the Israeli Supreme Court. One reason is the
rise in the numbers of constitutional courts elsewhere, which has, through time, created a rich jurisprudence
on constitutional law rendering the need to cite US cases less essential. Additionally, US foreign policy may play a
part in the diminishing influence of the oldest constitutional court in world. Finally, the reluctance of the US Supreme Court
itself to cite foreign law when adjudicating may play a role. This final point is perhaps the most interesting. Whereas
European (including the ECJ and the ECtHR), Australian and Canadian courts do not shy away from referring to
foreign law, it has always been a sensitive topic in the US where many scholars favour leaving aside foreign law. This
approach has its clear democratic justification but as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said in 2006 in an address to the South African
Constitutional Court:
*F+oreign opinions are not authoritative; they set no binding precedent for the U.S. judge. But they can add
to the store of knowledge relevant to the solution of trying questions. Yes, we should approach foreign legal materials with sensitivity
to our differences, deficiencies, and imperfect understanding, but imperfection, I believe, should not lead us to abandon the effort to
learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey.

Other countries support international law now
Benvenisti 8 (Eyal, Professor of Law, Tel Aviv University, 102 A.J.I.L. 241, lexis) jl
In recent years, courts in several democracies have begun to engage seriously in the interpretation and
application of international law and to heed the constitutional jurisprudence of other national courts. Most
recently, this new tendency has been demonstrated by the judicial [*242] responses to the global
counterterrorism effort since the events of September 11, 2001: national courts have been challenging
executive unilateralism in what could perhaps be a globally coordinated move. In this article I describe and
explain this shift, arguing that the chief motivation of the national courts is not to promote global justice,
for they continue to regard themselves first and foremost as national agents. Rather, the new
jurisprudence is part of a reaction to the forces of globalization, which are placing increasing pressure on
the different domestic branches of government to conform to global standards. This reaction seeks to
expand the space for domestic deliberation, to strengthen the ability of national governments to withstand
the pressure brought to bear by interest groups and powerful foreign governments, and to insulate the
national courts from intergovernmental pressures. For this strategy to succeed, courts need to forge a
united judicial front, which entails coordinating their policies with equally positioned courts in other
countries by developing common communication tools consisting of international law and comparative
constitutional law. The analysis also explains why the U.S. Supreme Court, which does not need to protect
the domestic political or judicial processes from external pressure, has still not joined this collective effort.
3 On the basis of this insight into the driving force behind reliance on foreign law, the article proposes
another outlook for assessing the legitimacy of national courts' resort to foreign and international legal
sources. It asserts that recourse to these sources is perfectly legitimate from a democratic theory
perspective, as it aims at reclaiming democracy from the debilitating grip of globalization.

Relations Advantage

Turn Guantanamo Base is a necessary jumping off point for relations
Iglesias 12
Commander Carlos of the United States Navy The U.S. Army War College is accredited by the Commission on
Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools United States Security Policy -
Implications of a Post-Fidel Cuba US Army War College 2012
Going forward, there are several areas of ongoing security cooperation between the neighboring countries that
show promise. The first of these has been recurring meetings between military officers from both countries.
Initiated by the commander of the Guantanamo base, General John Sheehan, the military-to-military fence-line
talks initially provided a venue for both sides to workout practical common concerns surrounding the base. 64
Since his retirement, General Sheehan and other retired U.S. military officers expanded the bilateral cooperation
to include visits to Havana for discussions on migration, drug trafficking, operating procedures at the U.S.
Naval Base Guantnamo Bay, U.S. military maneuvers, and other regular threats. The talks reached a surprising
high-water mark in 2002 when Cuban military officers advocated for and Ral Castro pronounced that any Al
Qaeda detainees that escaped into Cuba would be returned to the base. 65 In the absence of any formal
diplomatic ties between the countries, these cordial mil-to-mil engagements have proven a form of quiet
diplomacy and continue to lay the groundwork for future cooperation and more peaceful transitions in the
U.S.-Cuban relations.

Alt Causes
Multiple barriers to US-Cuban relations now Dry Foot, Alan Gross, Terrorism List, Arms
Riechmann 07/17
Deb The Associated Press won the Merriman Smith Award 06, 13.Cuba And U.S. Discuss Migration Issues To
Better Relations AP 13

WASHINGTON -- Migration issues headlined talks on Wednesday between the U.S. and Cuba, yet long-standing
disputes threaten efforts to thaw relations between the Cold War enemies. In the one-day talks, Cuba repeated
its opposition to the United States' so-called wet-foot, dry-foot policy in which Cuban refugees reaching
American soil are allowed to stay while those stopped at sea are sent home. Cuba says the policy urges its citizens
to try to flee the island. "Alien smuggling could not be eradicated nor a legal, safe and orderly migration between
the two countries could be achieved as long as the wet-foot, dry-foot policy and the Cuban Adjustment Act, which
encourage illegal migration and irregular entries of Cuban citizens into the United States, remain in force," the
delegation said in a statement. The act lets islanders who reach the United States stay and fast-tracks them for
residency. American officials reiterated their call for the immediate release of a US Agency for International
Development worker, Alan Gross, imprisoned in Cuba since Dec. 3, 2009. Gross was working on a USAID
democracy-building program when he was arrested. Washington has said repeatedly that no major improvement
in relations can occur until he is released. The migration talks were announced last month after Havana and
Washington wrapped up separate negotiations aimed at restarting direct mail service, which has been suspended
since 1963. Discussions about migration and mail along with the relaxation of travel and remittance rules for
Cuban Americans appeared to signal a thaw in chilly relations. But two recent events Cuba's backing of
National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden's bid for asylum and the interception of weapons hidden on a
ship that had sailed out of Cuba bound for North Korea now pose new setbacks to warming relations. Earlier
this month, Cuban President Raul Castro threw his support behind other Latin American governments willing to
give asylum to Snowden, who has since sought temporary asylum in Russia. Castro made no reference as to
whether Cuba itself would offer him refuge or safe passage. Snowden's simplest route to Latin America might be
one of five direct flights that Russian carrier Aeroflot operates to Havana each week. From there Snowden could fly
to Venezuela, Bolivia or Nicaragua, all possible destinations for him. On Tuesday Panamanian authorities seized a
14,000-ton ship with a cargo of missiles and other arms hidden under sacks of sugar. Cuba claimed the military
equipment was obsolete weaponry from the mid-20th century that it was sending to North Korea for repair. The
incident underscored concerns about Cuba's relationship with North Korea, which is in a standoff with the U.S. and
its allies for continuing to develop nuclear weapons. Cuba's delegation to the migration talks said the discussion
took place in a "climate of respect" and said it was willing to hold more exchanges in the future. The delegation
said Cuba used the meeting to announce that the government of Cuba had ratified international protocols on
migrant smuggling and human trafficking. Marie Harf, deputy spokeswoman at the State Department, said the
discussion focused on the implementation of the 1994 and 1995 U.S.-Cuba migration accords. The talks are
intended to monitor adherence to a 16-year-old agreement under which the U.S. issues 20,000 visas to Cubans
each year. Wednesday marked the first time since January 2011 that the periodic talks have been held. "The U.S.
delegation highlighted areas of successful cooperation in migration, including advances in aviation safety and visa
processing, while also identifying actions needed to ensure that the goals of the accords are fully met, especially
those having to do with safeguarding the lives of intending immigrants," Harf said. Cuba, however, remains on
the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, another sticking point in the migration talks. Havana denies any links
to terrorism and contends its inclusion on the list is a political vendetta. Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the shipment of weapons a "grave violation" of international treaties
and called on the Obama administration to submit the case to the U.N. Security Council for review. Rep. Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican from Florida who is staunchly opposed to the Raul Castro government, urged the State
Department to call for U.N. Sanctions Committee inspectors to go to Panama and investigate whether North
Korea and Cuba have violated U.N. resolutions

Soft Power Advantage
Soft Power High
US Soft Power Strong Nowand non-Gitmo reasons for Decline
Wallin 13(Robert, writer for the American Security Project, 4-29-2013, War of the Soft Powers,

Despite the ebb and flow of American Soft power since the turn of the century, it remains overall fairly strong. Nye contends that much
of Americas soft power is produced by civil society everything from universities and foundations to Hollywood
and pop culture not from the government. While this is arguably true, I would not remove government as a major variable in the soft power
equation. Much of what Hollywood, academia, and civil society are able to do is enabled directly by our principles
of government. Certainly, what can only be described as dysfunction in the American government right nowespecially in regards to
the fiscal situationhas an eroding effect on U.S. soft power. Though internal bickering may result in an inability to pass a budget, no amount of
cooperation gives Congress the ability pass a measure to requisition more soft power, or contract a company to design it. But it can pass legislation that frees it to
grow on its own. Rather than trying to use more soft power, Russia and China must first act to earn it. Moral leadership, technological leadership, financial
leadership, and foreign policy leadership and setting standards for individual rights are all factors that can help to increase soft power. In the case of Russia and
China, making more deliberate efforts to resolve issues on the international scene could make a difference. Russia should distance itself from its support of the
Assad regime in Syria. China should pursue diplomacy to resolve disputes in the South China Sea. Both countries should work to increase freedom of the individual
within their borders. Thats how you increase your soft power. For America, technological and scientific leadership have long been a
strong factor in its soft power reserve. Yet we are at risk of losing this. For example, recent cuts in fusion energy
researchone of Americas most challenging, yet promising research fieldsmay cause this country to lag behind. Explaining the harm this can
cause, ASPs Nick Cunningham and Theodore MacDonald recently wrote in AOL Energy today: As other countries invest more heavily in fusion power, Americas
leadership in this field will soon come to an end. Ceding a new high-tech industry to competitors will result in a decline in Americas competitive edge, and its best
and brightest scientists will be lured by more advanced facilities abroad. If America wants to maintain its competitive edge in soft
power, it needs to take the action necessary to do it. That means continuing to make those scientific
breakthroughs that so many admire this nation for. That means continuing to uphold the principles enshrined in
our founding documents. Thus, it is in our interest to attract the best and brightest from overseas. Historically, those minds have contributed greatly to
all aspects of American society. And is it their contribution to building this country through their intellect and hard work in a framework of economic and cultural
freedom that forms the basis of American soft power. Are we in danger of losing our soft power edge to Russia and China? At this point, the answer is no. Should we
be frightened by their efforts to augment and enhance their soft power? The answer is also no. Soft power is not a zero-sum gameone country cannot attack and
weaken anothers soft power. The only way America risks losing its soft power edge is by pursuing negative actions and
neglecting the very things that make it so strong.

Soft power is inevitable solves for relations and overseas development
Janice Bially Mattern (Associate professor of I/R Lehigh University), 07-15-09, Millennium Journal of
International Studies, Why Soft Power Isnt So Soft,
Since 9/11, the Bush administration has consciously refashioned the American role in world politics from that of benign hegemon
to that of neo-imperialist. It has abandoned the soft power politics of constructive engagement and multilateralism in
favour of the hard power politics of the war on terrorism. But as the increasingly unpopular Iraq war runs headlong into rising
expenses and American causalities it is seen inevitable and for many, preferable that the US war on terrorism will
eventually have to rely much more on soft power political strategies. Understood as the ability to achieve desired
outcomes through attraction rather than coercion, soft power can, advocates claim, make allies out of Islamists, repair US
relationships with its disenchanted allies, and even put third world states on the right path toward development. In
this way, soft power promises to be a means to success in world politics. Indeed, soft power is touted not just as a tool for the US to use in its
effort to right its relations, but as a tool that can be used by any country or any actor in world politics to achieve a
greater degree of influence over the dynamics of world politics

Global opinion of U.S. increasing now
Pew 13 (The Pew Research Centers Global Attitudes Project conducts public opinion surveys around the world on a broad
array of subjects ranging from peoples assessments of their own lives to their views about the current state of the world and
important issues of the day. Over 330,000 interviews in 60 countries have been conducted as part of the projects work.
Americas Global Image Remains More Positive than Chinas
However, Chinas increasing power has not led to more positive ratings for the Peoples Republic. Overall, the U.S. enjoys a
stronger global image than China. Across the nations surveyed, a median of 63% express a favorable opinion of the U.S.,
compared with 50% for China. Globally, people are more likely to consider the U.S. a partner to their country than to see
China in this way, although relatively few think of either nation as an enemy. America is also seen as somewhat more willing than
China to consider other countries interests. Still, both of these world powers are widely viewed as acting unilaterally in international affairs. And
the military power of both nations worries many. Chinas growing military strength is viewed with trepidation in neighboring Japan, South Korea, Australia and the
Philippines. Meanwhile, the Obama administrations use of drone strikes faces broad opposition half or more in 31 of 39 countries disapprove of U.S. drone
attacks against extremist groups. Respecting individual liberty remains the strong suit of Americas image. Even in many
nations where opposition to American foreign policy is widespread and overall ratings for the U.S. are low,
majorities or pluralities believe individual rights are respected in the U.S. Across the nations surveyed, a median of
70% say the American government respects the personal freedoms of its people. In contrast, a median of only 36% say this
about China. Balance of Power51Of course, attitudes toward the U.S. and China vary considerably across regions and countries. In Europe, the
U.S. gets mostly positive ratings. During the presidency of George W. Bush, anti-Americanism was common throughout much of Europe, but
President Barack Obama has been consistently popular among Europeans, and since he took office in 2009,
Obamas popularity has given Americas image a significant boost in the region. Currently, more than six-in-ten in
Italy, Poland, France and Spain have a favorable opinion of the U.S. European perceptions of China are much less positive
among the eight European Union nations polled, Greece is the only one in which a majority expresses a favorable view of China. Moreover,
ratings for China have declined significantly over the last two years in a number of EU countries, including Britain, France, Poland and Spain. As
has been the case in recent years, Americas image is the most negative in parts of the Muslim world, especially Pakistan (11% favorable),
Jordan (14%), Egypt (16%), and the Palestinian territories (16%). Only 21% of Turks see the U.S. positively, although this is actually a slight
improvement from last years 15%. But the Muslim world is hardly monolithic, and America receives largely positive ratings in
predominantly Muslim nations such as Senegal in West Africa and Indonesia and Malaysia in Southeast Asia.
Elsewhere in the Asia/Pacific region, the U.S. receives particularly favorable reviews in the Philippines, South Korea
and Japan, and a majority or plurality in all three countries say it is more important to have strong ties with the
U.S. than with China.

Squo Solves Perception
Progress is being made on giving trials out, negative perception from Islamists is not due to
military commissions
Meese 2012 (Edwin, the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and chairman of the Center for
Legal & Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. He served as the 75th attorney general of the United States
under President Reagan, Guantanamo Bay prison is necessary, CNN,

In the past, many Guantanamo detainees havent been given speedy trials. However, with President Obama
having finally re-authorized the military commission process, more progress toward bringing detainees to trial
will be made. That progress will illustrate Americas commitment to the rule of law and undercut negative
perceptions about Guantanamo. Contrary to popular opinion, anger toward Guantanamo amongst Islamic
populations is not driven by an inherent discomfort with military commissions, but rather by the perception that
Guantanamo is a black hole of permanent, un-reviewed detention.

Soft Power Alt Causes
Alt CauseUS not investing in Soft Power Efforts
Nye 13 (Joseph, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School
of Government, 3-27-2013, Challenges to US Soft Power)
The United States' most striking failure is the low priority and paucity of resources it has devoted to producing
soft power. The combined cost of the State Depart ment's public diplomacy programs and U.S. international
broadcasting is just over a billion dollars, about four percent FOREIGN AFFAIRS May/June2004 [19] This content
downloaded from on Sat, 27 Jul 2013 20:43:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and
ConditionsJoseph S. Nye, Jr. of the nation's international affairs budget. That total is about three percent of what
the United States spends on intelligence and a quarter of one percent of its military budget. If Washington
devoted just one percent of its military spending to public diplomacy-in the words of Newton Minow, former
head of the Federal Com munications Commission, "one dollar to launch ideas for every loo dollars we invest to
launch bombs"-it would mean almost quadrupling the current budget.

American Soft Power Already lost over PRISM- aff is nonunique
Arkedis 13 (Jim, Senior Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, DOD counter-terrorism analyst, PRISM is Bad
for American Soft Power June 19, 2013, The Atlantic,

In 1948, Harry Truman flip-flopped. After decades of holding racial biases, he decided to support the civil rights
movement against Jim Crow laws. Truman's shift was as much cold political calculation as anything else. The path
to 270 electoral college votes ran through northern cities with large African American populations and a few states
in the Deep South. The strategy worked. He carried Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas just as the Chicago
Daily Tribune went to press with "Dewey Defeats Truman." There was a foreign policy angle to Truman's civil rights
awakening, too. In the ideological battle pitting democracy against communism, the Soviet Union began to churn
out propaganda saying that Jim Crow proved America's inability to live up to its own fundamental values on
human rights. The argument was effective, argues Caley Robertson of Colby University: segregation was
frustrating the United States' attempts to export democracy during the Cold War. In other words, Jim Crow was
damaging America's soft power, defined by Harvard professor Joseph Nye as a country's ability to achieve its aims
through attraction rather than coercion. Which brings us to PRISM, the NSA program that collects meta-data
from Americans' telephone and online communications. I am a former Department of Defense intelligence
analyst. I have never used PRISM, and do not know if it existed during my tenure. However, I have used NSA
databases, and became aware of two ironclad truths about the agency: First, its data is a critical intelligence tool;
and second, that access to databases by non-NSA intelligence analysts is highly controlled. It's like buying drugs (so
I'm told): you need "a guy" on the inside who passes you the goods in the shadows, then disavows any connection
to you. In addition to being useful and tightly controlled, PRISM is, of course, legal by the letter of the law. Its
existence is primarily justified by the "business records" clause in the PATRIOT Act, and President Obama has
argued that the legislation has been authorized by "bipartisan majorities repeatedly," and that "it's important to
understand your duly elected representatives have been consistently informed on exactly what we're doing."
Salvation from excessive government snooping would seem to lie at the ballot box. Fair enough. But in the
immediate wake of September 11, Americans questioned little of what their government would do to keep them
safe. Just four months after the attacks in January 2002, Gallup reported that fully half of Americans would
support anti-terrorism measures even if they violated civil liberties. Times have changed. As soon as August 2003,
Gallup found just 29 percent of Americans were willing to sacrifice civil liberties for security. By 2009, a CBS poll
concluded only 41 percent of Americans had even heard or read about the PATRIOT Act, and 45 percent of those
believed the law endangered their civil liberties. A Washington Post poll from April 2013--after the Boston
marathon attacks but before PRISM's disclosure-- found 48 percent of Americans feared the government would
go too far in compromising constitutional rights to investigate terrorism. And following the Edward Snowden
leaks, 58 percent were against the government collecting phone records. Not a total reversal, but certainly
trending in one direction. This shift has existed in a vacuum of public debate. Prior to the PRISM leaks, the last
time domestic government surveillance made headlines was in very late 2005 and early 2006, following revelations
that the Bush administration was wiretapping Americans without a warrant. Despite the scandal, the PATRIOT Act
was quickly reauthorized by March 2006. The Bush administration did announce the end of warrantless
wiretapping in 2007, and he moved the program under jurisdiction of the FISA court , a panel of Supreme Court-
appointed judges who approve domestic surveillance requests. To call the FISA court a rubber stamp is an
understatement. This year, it has rejected a grand total of 11 warrant requests out of--wait for it--33,996
applications since the Carter administration. The PATRIOT Act's reauthorization wouldn't come up again until
2009. By then, public uproar over warrantless wiretapping had long since receded, and the year's debate played
out as a relatively quite inside-baseball scuffle between civil liberties groups and the Hill. When the law came up
for its next presidential signature in 2011, it was done quietly by autopen--a device that imitates Obama's John
Hancock--from France. Shifting attitudes and quiet reauthorization flies in the face of the standard the president
has set for himself. In a 2009 speech at the National Archives, Obama emphasized the importance of the consent
of the governed in security affairs, "I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we cannot keep this
country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values... My administration will make all
information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us
accountable." The president's inability to live up to this ideal is particularly jarring as he defends PRISM.
Following the leaks, he's said he is pushing the intelligence community to release what it can, and rightly insists
that the NSA is not listening in on Americans' phone calls. Those are helpful steps, but should have been raised
during the National Archives speech just months into his administration, not six months into his second term.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper continues to argue that disclosure of collection methods will give
America's enemies a "'playbook' to avoid detection." That's thin gruel. First, America's enemies are already aware
of the NSA's extensive electronic surveillance capabilities. That's why Osama Bin Laden and deceased al Qaeda in
Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi used a complex network of couriers rather than electronic communications. It's
typical operational security of truly dangerous operatives. Second, Obama stated as recently as late May that the
threat from al Qaeda's core operatives has decreased significantly, shifting to less deadly cells scattered
throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The lack of public debate, shifting attitudes towards civil liberties,
insufficient disclosure, and a decreasing terrorist threat demands that collecting Americans' phone and Internet
records must meet the absolute highest bar of public consent. It's a test the Obama administration is failing. This
brings us back to Harry Truman and Jim Crow. Even though PRISM is technically legal, the lack of recent public
debate and support for aggressive domestic collection is hurting America's soft power. The evidence is rolling in.
The China Daily, an English-language mouthpiece for the Communist Party, is having a field day, pointing out
America's hypocrisy as the Soviet Union did with Jim Crow. Chinese dissident artist Ai Wei Wei made the link
explicitly, saying "In the Soviet Union before, in China today, and even in the U.S., officials always think what
they do is necessary... but the lesson that people should learn from history is the need to limit state power."
Even America's allies are uneasy, at best. German Chancellor Angela Merkel grew up in the East German police
state and expressed diplomatic "surprise" at the NSA's activities. She vowed to raise the issue with Obama at this
week's G8 meetings. The Italian data protection commissioner said the program would "not be legal" in his
country. British Foreign Minister William Hague came under fire in Parliament for his government's
participation. If Americans supported these programs, our adversaries and allies would have no argument. As it is,
the next time the United States asks others for help in tracking terrorists, it's more likely than not that they will
question Washington's motives.

Drone Strikes are an Alt CausePakistan
Afzal 13(Madiha, nonresident fellow Brookings Institute, 2-7-2013, Brookings Institute, Drone Strikes and Anti-Americanism in Pakistan,

What is getting overlooked in the debate is that drone strikes are infuriating the more moderate and liberal segments of Pakistani society,
those who have traditionally been more sympathetic toward the United States. Imagine a group of well-educated people, many of whom attended English-language
schools, are widely exposed to American and Western media, and like and embrace many aspects of American culture. These peopl e have probably had some sort of personal interaction with the West, through tourism, attending college abroad, or through family members or friends who
live in the U.S. What bothers this group about U.S. drone strikes, more than the attack on Pakistans sovereignty, is the
perceived American hypocrisy toward the importance of Pakistani lives and deaths. Following the horrific school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in
December, a piece in the U.K. newspaper The Guardian titled In the U.S., mass child killings are tragedies. In Pakistan, mere bug splats went viral among educated Pakistanis. In addition, coverage of a recent report on drone
strikes in Pakistan by researchers at NYU and Stanford law schools, which recounts the daily terror facing those
who live in areas where drones strike, gained wide circulation in Pakistan. Few cared to note that this report had been written by an advocacy group and that some of its
statistics were suspect. While the New America Foundation, the Long War Journal, and the London Bureau of Investigative Journalism all compile statistics on drone strikes, the numbers differ, and it bothers this liberal, educated
group of Pakistanis that the U.S. government does not release its own data on drone strikes. One of the only public acknowledgments on this
issue was in a 2012 speech by John Brennan when he stated that there were barely any civilian deaths as a consequence of these strikes. This struck many as implausible, further angering Pakistanis. Why does anger against America
from this group of liberal, educated Pakistanis matter? After all, it is highly unlikely that any of these people will turn radical. These people matter because
they form the heart of an active civil society in Pakistan, which the U.S. counts on to serve as a counterweight to
the radical segments of Pakistani society. They work in the Pakistani government, media and business sectors,
and drone strikes are driving these people toward a constant distrust of the U.S. and hardening their attitudes
against America. It undermines all the positive work the United States is doing in Pakistan, all the aid dollars it
spends there, and drastically undercuts U.S. soft power in the region. If America loses these hearts and minds, it will lose the battle for Pakistan. Where does this
group of Pakistanis get its information? It buys into the only narrative out there, offered up by the outspokenly anti-American Pakistani media, which argues that drone
strikes are callously undertaken without any regard for civilian casualties. This view overinflates the number of civilians killed by drone strikes, especially women and
children, and underreports the number of militants killed. And without an official account of events fromthe U.S. government, this narrative can easily be exploited and promoted. Lets take a look at some empirical evidence for the above statements. According to
the 2011 Pew Global Attitudes poll, a representative survey of almost 2,000 Pakistanis, 55 percent of respondents had heard (a lot or a little) about drone attacks, up from 36 percent in 2010. A simple cross-tabulation of education and knowledge of
drone strikes reveals that the percentage of Pakistanis with some knowledge about drone strikes increases by education. In particular, more than 80 percent of the highly educated with graduate or post-graduate degrees say they have heard about drone strikes. Also according to the Pew
2011 poll, ofthose Pakistanis with some knowledge about drone strikes, 95 percent think that drones are a bad or very
bad thing. In addition, 69 percent of these respondents disagree that drone strikes are necessary to defend Pakistan fromextremist groups, and 91 percent agree with the statement that they kill too many innocent people.

U.S. soft power low now- Presidential opinions, Drone strikes and anti-terror efforts prove
Pew 12 (The Pew Research Centers Global Attitudes Project conducts public opinion surveys around the world on a broad
array of subjects ranging from peoples assessments of their own lives to their views about the current state of the world and
important issues of the day. Over 330,000 interviews in 60 countries have been conducted as part of the projects work. Global
Opinion of Obama Slips, International Policies Faulted
international-policies-faulted/) SJH
Global approval of President Barack Obamas policies has declined significantly since he first took office, while
overall confidence in him and attitudes toward the U.S. have slipped modestly as a consequence. Europeans and Japanese remain
largely confident in Obama, albeit somewhat less so than in 2009, while Muslim publics remain largely critical. A similar pattern characterizes overall ratings for the
U.S. in the EU and Japan, views are still positive, but the U.S. remains unpopular in nations such as Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and
Pakistan. Meanwhile, support for Obama has waned significantly in China. Since 2009, confidence in the American president has declined
by 24 percentage points and approval of his policies has fallen 30 points. Mexicans have also soured on his policies, and many fewer
express confidence in him today. The Obama era has coincided with major changes in international perceptions of American power especially U.S. economic
power. The global financial crisis and the steady rise of China have led many to declare China the worlds economic leader, and this trend is especially strong among
some of Americas major European allies. Today, solid majorities in Germany (62%), Britain (58%), France (57%) and Spain (57%) name China as the worlds top
economic power. Even though many think American economic clout is in relative decline, publics around the world continue to worry about how the U.S. uses its
power in particular its military power in international affairs. There remains a widespread perception that the U.S. acts unilaterally
and does not consider the interests of other countries. In predominantly Muslim nations, American anti-terrorism
efforts are still widely unpopular. And in nearly all countries, there is considerable opposition to a major
component of the Obama administrations anti-terrorism policy: drone strikes. In 17 of 20 countries, more than
half disapprove of U.S. drone attacks targeting extremist leaders and groups in nations such as Pakistan, Yemen
and Somalia.
American soft power in decline
Neu 13 (Richard Neu- B.S. in economics, California Institute of Technology; Ph.D. in economics, Harvard University; M.A. in
economics, Harvard University U.S. 'Soft Power' Abroad Is Losing Its Punch
The way America flexes it economic muscle around the world is changing dramaticallyand not necessarily for the
better. In 1997, facing a wave of sovereign debt defaults, the International Monetary Fund asked its member states to pledge lines of credit to support Fund
rescue efforts. The United States and other nations did as asked. In 2009, the United States responded again to a call for expanded credit lines. When the Fund
sought yet another expansion of these credit lines last April, 39 countries, including China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, India, and Saudi Arabia, stepped up. Even cash-
strapped Italy and Spain pledged support. But the United States was conspicuously absent. A pledge from the United States requires congressional authorization. In
the midst of last spring's contentious debate over U.S. government deficits and debts, support for an international body was a political nonstarter. Where the
United States had previously demonstrated international leadership, other countriessome of them America's rivals for international influencenow make the
running. This is a small example of what may be a troubling trend: America's fiscal predicament and the seeming inability of its
political system to resolve these matters may be taking a toll on the instruments of U.S. soft power and on the
country's ability to shape international developments in ways that serve American interests. The most potent
instrument of U.S. soft power is probably the simple size of the U.S. economy. As the biggest economy in the
world, America has a lot to say about how the world works. But the economics profession is beginning to understand that high levels of
public debt can slow economic growth, especially when gross general government debt rises above 85 or 90 percent of GDP.The United States crossed
that threshold in 2009, and the negative effects are probably mostly out in the future. These will come at a bad
time. The U.S. share of global economic output has been falling since 1999by nearly 5 percentage points as of
2011. As America's GDP share declined, so did its share of world trade, which may reduce U.S. influence in setting
the rules for international trade.And it's not just the debt itself that may be slowing GDP growth. Economists at Stanford
and the University of Chicago have demonstrated that uncertainty about economic policyon the rise as a result of political squabbling over U.S. fiscal policy
typically foreshadows slower economic growth.

GITMO Doesnt Solve
Multiple Factors Account for Loss of US Soft PowerGitmo Not enough
Nye 13 (Joseph, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, 3-27-2013,
Challenges to US Soft Power)

Autocratic regimes in the Middle East have eradicated their liberal opposition, and radical Islamists are in most cases the only dissenters
left. They feed on anger toward corrupt regimes, opposition to U.S. policies, and popular fears of modernization.
Liberal democracy, as they portray it, is full of corruption, sex, and violence-an impression reinforced by
American movies and television and often exacerbated by the extreme statements of some especially virulent
Christian preachers in the United States. Nonetheless, the situation is not hopeless. Although modernization and American values
can be disruptive, they also bring education, jobs, better health care, and a range of new opportunities. Indeed, polls show that much of the
Middle East craves the benefits of trade, globalization, and improved communications. American technology is widely admired, and American
culture is often more attractive than U .S. policies. Given such widespread (albeit ambivalent) moderate views, there is still a chance of isolating
the extremists. Democracy, however, cannot be imposed by force. The outcome in Iraq will be of crucial importance, but success
will also depend on policies that open regional economies, reduce bureaucratic controls, speed economic
growth, improve educational systems, and encourage the types of gradual political changes currently taking
place in small countries such as Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, and Morocco. The development of intellectuals, social
groups ,and, eventually, countries that show that liberal democracy is not inconsistent with Muslim culture will
have a beneficial effect like that of Japan and South Korea, which showed that democracy could coexist with indigenous Asian values. But
this demonstration effect will take time-and the skillful deployment of soft-power resources by the United
States in concert with other democracies, nongovernmental organizations, and the United Nations.

Soft Power Fails
American Soft Power Fails- Multiple Warrants
JOFFE 2006 (JOSEF is also the Marc and Anita Abramowitz Fellow in International Relations at the Hoover
Institution and a courtesy professor of political science at Stanford University. Since 1999, he has been an associate
of the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. The Perils of Soft
Power SJH

In recent years, a number of American thinkers, led by Joseph S. Nye Jr. of Harvard, have argued that the United States should rely more on what he calls its "soft
power" the contagious appeal of its ideas, its culture and its way of life and so rely less on the "hard power" of its stealth bombers and aircraft carriers. There
is one problem with this argument: soft power does not necessarily increase the world's love for America. It is still power,
and it can still make enemies. America's soft power isn't just pop and schlock; its cultural clout is both high and
low. It is grunge and Google, Madonna and MoMA, Hollywood and Harvard. If two-thirds of the movie marquees carry an American title in Europe (even in
France), dominance is even greater when it comes to translated books. The figure for Germany in 2003 was 419 versus 3,732; that is, for every German book
translated into English, nine English-language books were translated into German. It used to be the other way around. A hundred years ago, Humboldt University in
Berlin was the model for the rest of the world. Tokyo, Johns Hopkins, Stanford and the University of Chicago were founded in conscious imitation of the German
university and its novel fusion of teaching and research. Today Europe's universities have lost their luster, and as they talk reform, they talk American. Indeed,
America is one huge global "demonstration effect," as the sociologists call it. The Soviet Union's cultural presence in Prague, Budapest and Warsaw vanished into
thin air the moment the last Russian soldier departed. American culture, however, needs no gun to travel. There may be little or
no relationship between America's ubiquity and its actual influence. Hundreds of millions of people around the
world wear, listen, eat, drink, watch and dance American, but they do not identify these accouterments of their
daily lives with America. A Yankees cap is the epitome of things American, but it hardly signifies knowledge of,
let alone affection for, the team from New York or America as such. The same is true for American films, foods
or songs. Of the 250 top-grossing movies around the world, only four are foreign-made: "The Full Monty" (U.K.), "Life Is Beautiful" (Italy) and "Spirited Away"
and "Howl's Moving Castle" (Japan); the rest are American, including a number of co-productions. But these American products shape images, not sympathies, and
there is little, if any, relationship between artifact and affection. If the relationship is not neutral, it is one of repulsion rather than
attraction the dark side of the "soft power" coin. The European student movement of the late 1960's took its
cue from the Berkeley free-speech movement of 1964, the inspiration for all post-1964 Western student revolts.
But it quickly turned anti-American; America was reviled while it was copied. Now shift forward to the Cannes Film Festival of
2004, where hundreds of protesters denounced America's intervention in Iraq until the police dispersed them. The makers of the movie "Shrek 2" had placed large
bags of green Shrek ears along the Croisette, the main drag along the beach. As the demonstrators scattered, many of them put on free Shrek ears. "They were
attracted," noted an observer in this magazine, "by the ears' goofiness and sheer recognizability." And so the enormous pull of American imagery went hand in hand
with the country's, or at least its government's, condemnation. Between Vietnam and Iraq, America's cultural presence has
expanded into ubiquity, and so has the resentment of America's soft power. In some cases, like the French one, these
feelings harden into governmental policy. And so the French have passed the Toubon law, which prohibits on pain of penalty the use of English
words make that D.J. into a disque-tourneur. In 1993, the French coaxed the European Union into adding a "cultural exception" clause to its commercial treaties
exempting cultural products, high or low, from normal free-trade rules. Other European nations impose informal quotas on American TV fare*+PG2There
is a moral in this tale of two critics: the curse of soft power. In the affairs of nations, too much hard power ends up
breeding not submission but resistance. Likewise, great soft power does not bend hearts; it twists minds in
resentment and rage. And the target of Europe's cultural guardians is not just America, the Great Seductress. It is also all those "little people," a million in
all, many of whom showed up in the wee hours to snag an admissions ticket to MoMA's Berlin exhibit. By yielding to America-the-beguiling, they committed cultural
treason and worse: they ignored the stern verdict of their own priesthood. So America's soft power is not only seductive but also

Soft Power Not Key
Soft Power Not Key
(Gideon, correspondent Financial Times, 6-1-2009,
Mr Obama is also running up against the limits of soft power elsewhere. Closing the prison camp at Guantnamo
was meant to be the ultimate tribute to soft power over hard power. The Obama team argued consistently that the damage
that Guantnamo did to Americas image in the world outweighed any security gains from holding al-Qaeda prisoners there. Yet, faced with
the backlash against releasing the remaining 240 prisoners or imprisoning them in the US, the Obama
administration has back-tracked. It is not clear whether Guantnamo will be closed on schedule or what will happen
to the riskier-sounding prisoners, who may still be held indefinitely. The much-criticised military trials are likely to be revived. In
Afghanistan, Mr Obama is trying a mixture of hard and soft power. There will be a military surge but also a civilian surge,
designed to build up civil society and governance in Afghanistan. Old hands in Washington are beginning to
shake their heads and mutter about Vietnam. Mr Obamas preferred tools of diplomacy, engagement and charm
do not seem to be of much use with Kim Jong-il of North Korea, either. The North Koreans have just tested a nuclear weapon
leaving the Obama administration scratching its head about what to do. The presidents charisma and rhetorical skill are real diplomatic assets.
If Mr Obama can deploy them to improve Americas image and influence around the world, that is all to the good. There is nothing wrong with
trying to re-build American soft power. The danger is more subtle. It is that President Yes-we-can has raised exaggerated
hopes about the pay-off from engagement and diplomacy. In the coming months it will become increasingly
obvious that soft power also has its limits.

A2: Middle Peace Impact
International pressure means Israel has to engage in talks, but wont work for a solution
Vick 7-25 (Karl, Jerusalem Bureau Chief for Time, The Illusion of Progress: 9 Reasons Why Israeli-Palestinian Talks
Might Fail, Time World, 2013,

5. Wheres the buy-in? For both sides, the incentives to talk are far more apparent than any appetite to reach a
solution. For Israel, even nonproductive talks serve to keep at bay the pressure of world opinion, which in the
absence of formal negotiations tends to focus on Israels creeping takeover of the West Bank with its
settlements, which is the kind of attention Israel dislikes. The same day Kerry announced a framework for talks,
the European Union published rules barring EU funding to Israeli entities operating in the settlements. More
alarming, September brings the annual convocation at the United Nations, where the Palestinians were
preparing to exercise diplomatic and legal options aimed at dragging Israel before the International Criminal
Court. If Kerry does not come up with something that really meets our minimum, then we will move from
negotiation strategy to confrontation strategy, Shtayyeh, the close adviser to Abbas, told me last month. I dont
mean military, he added, and pointed instead toward the UN, where Palestinian statehood was recognized last
year. Thats where our next confrontation with Israel is, I think. Netanyahu insists his motives for talks are driven
by the real need for peace. And a deal would have him remembered for something besides serving longer as prime
minster than anyone since Israels founder, David Ben Gurion. But skeptics note that Netanyahus partys charter
calls for Israel to keep the West Bank, not make it part of a Palestinian state. Netanyahu knows that without
negotiations you cant maintain the status quo, says liberal parliamentarian Merav Michaeli, of the Labor Party.
What he wants is negotiations that dont go anywhere and dont change reality as we know it. Michaeli spoke
in late April, when the new Secretary of State had only been to the region a couple of times, trying to coax both
sides into talks that neither seemed to wanta situation she called dangerous, give the letdown that usually
follows a collapse. Its better not to start another round of hopelessness, she said. Palestinian liberals
understand the problem. What happened is it looks like the peace process is a substitute for peace, says
Mustafa Bargouthi, a Ramallah physician and activist. Thats not what we want. We need something that
produces results.
Torture Advantage
Torture Low/Decreasing
Status quo solves conditions are now humanitarian
Pearlstein, 12 (Deb, assistant professor of international and constitutional law at Cardozo Law School in New
York. She was part of the first group of human rights monitors granted access in 2004 to observe military
commission proceedings at Guantnamo Bay, The Situation Is Better Than It Was, JANUARY 9, 2012, 6:33 PM,
NYT Room For Debate, Online,
later/guantanamo-better-than-it-was, accessed 7/23/13) PE
For all that remains deplorable about the continuing operation of the Guantnamo prison, it is wrong to suggest,
as some have, that the situation now is no different than it was a decade ago. But the reasons many of our most
distinguished military leaders have called for the facilitys closure remain valid. In 2002, detention conditions at the
base were often abusive, and for some, torturous. Today, prisoners are generally housed in conditions that meet
international standards, and the prison operates under an executive order that appears to have succeeded in
prohibiting torture and cruelty. In 2002, the U.S. president asserted exclusive control over the prison, denying the
applicability of fundamental laws that would afford its residents even the most basic humanitarian and procedural
protections, and rejecting the notion that the courts had any power to constrain executive discretion. Today, all
three branches of government are engaged in applying the laws that recognize legal rights in the detainees.
Guantnamo once housed close to 800 prisoners, and most outside observers were barred from the base. Today,
it holds 171, and independent lawyers, among others, have met with most detainees many times.

Obamas Executive Order restricts CIAs torture
Isikoff 9 Michael, a national investigative correspondent for NBC News. Between 1994 and 2010, he was a
correspondent in Newsweek's Washington bureau where he covered U.S. politics as well as national security and
law enforcement issues, including the Oklahoma City bombing. He is the author of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin,
Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War (co-written with David Corn) and Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter's Story,
The End of Torture, Newsweek, The Daily Beast, 1/21/2009,

In the first sign of friction within his new administration, President Obama overruled the pleas of senior U.S.
intelligence officials and signed a new executive order that bars the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods
beyond those permitted by the U.S. military.

Harsh treatment used on approximately 30% of detainees-Torture Tactics mythical, Media
blowing things out of proportion
Rodriguez 12 (Jose A., Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr, of Puerto Rican descent, was the Director of the National
Clandestine Service (D/NCS) of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He was the last CIA Deputy
Director for Operations (DDO) before that position was expanded to D/NCS in December 2004., Harsh terror
interrogations were necessary, legal and effective, Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., May
10, 2012, SS

As I detail in my new book: "Hard Measures, How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives," there
are many myths surrounding the detention of a relatively small number of top terrorists at CIA-run "black sites"
from 2002 until they were sent to Guantanamo Bay in 2006. The biggest myth is that the detainees were
"tortured." Some of the stories coming out of Gitmo this past weekend simply state that as a fact. There is no
"allegedly" attached to the allegation in these stories. About 30 out of the 100 or so detainees that the CIA held
were subjected to some harsh treatment. But the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice assured us
in writing that the treatment was specifically not torture. Arraignment for 9/11 suspects chaotic Many of the
techniques were essentially bluffs -- designed to get the attention of a detainee and perhaps scare him -- but to
cause no physical harm. Some of the stories this weekend talked of "years" of abusive treatment these
detainees endured. In fact, the enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) that CIA used were applied at most for
only 30 days. On average, it was much less. Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee subjected to EITs, received them for
less than three weeks. Mohammed's period of harsh -- but legal and necessary -- treatment was even less. The
public impression, aided and abetted by the media, is that the practice of waterboarding was rampant. In fact,
only three detainees: Mohammed, Zubaydah and one other were ever waterboarded, the last one more than nine
years ago. Many of the stories this weekend repeated the assertion that Mohammed was waterboarded 183
times. But 183 is a count of the number of pours of water from a plastic water bottle. Mohammed told the
International Committee of the Red Cross in 2007 that he had been waterboarded five times. If his story has now
changed, it is only to match the media narrative. Some will say it doesn't matter how many times Mohammed was
waterboarded -- the practice is brutal and must never be used. What goes unacknowledged is that in addition to
the three terrorists, the United States has waterboarded tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel. If the
practice is torture for the al Qaeda operative who masterminded the killing of three thousand Americans, why
weren't there court-martials in the cases of those thousands of servicemen similarly treated as part of their
training? There is no doubt that the detainees will try to use the legal proceedings as a soapbox to spout their
contempt for America -- a contempt already indelibly displayed by such acts as ordering passenger jets to fly into
iconic buildings or, in the case of Mohammed, personally beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. In
my book, I detail the critical information we obtained from al Qaeda terrorists after they became compliant
following a short period of enhanced interrogation. I have no doubt that that interrogation was legal, necessary
and saved lives. It is good that these terrorists are now facing justice, but in the reporting of the case, it would be
helpful if the media didn't help them with their propaganda mission by unquestioningly repeating false
information about their detention.

Closing Worse
Guantanamos closing would lead to far worst conditions
Posner 13 (Eric, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is the co-author of "Terror in the Balance:
Security, Liberty and the Courts.", The U.S needs Guantanamo, The New York Times,

If Guantnamo were closed, the U.S. military would need to hold those prisoners someplace else. As long as the
U.S. uses military force in foreign countries and on the high seas, Guantnamo is necessary. To be sure, there
are other options. Detainees could be placed in prison camps on foreign territory controlled by the U.S. military,
where they lack access to U.S. courts and security is less certain. More than a thousand detainees are currently
held at Bagram, in Afghanistan. Detainees could be turned over to foreign governments, where they are likely to
be tortured. The Clinton administration took this approach. Or suspected terrorists could be killed with drone
strikes rather than captured which seems to be the de facto tactic of the Obama administration. For
those who care about human rights, these options are hardly preferable to Guantnamo Bay.

Cant solve detainees just get transferred somewhere even worse
Posner, 13 (Eric, professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is the co-author of "Terror in the Balance:
Security, Liberty and the Courts.", The U.S. Needs Guantnamo, JUNE 7, 2013, 12:03 PM, NYT Room For Debate,,
accessed 7/23/13) PE
There is nothing wrong with Guantnamo. The United States is almost continuously at war with other countries
and groups like Al Qaeda, and it needs some place to house prisoners picked up on the battlefield. If
Guantnamo were closed, the U.S. military would need to hold those prisoners someplace else. As long as the
U.S. uses military force in foreign countries and on the high seas, Guantnamo is necessary. To be sure, there are
other options. Detainees could be placed in prison camps on foreign territory controlled by the U.S. military,
where they lack access to U.S. courts and security is less certain. More than a thousand detainees are currently
held at Bagram, in Afghanistan. Detainees could be turned over to foreign governments, where they are likely to
be tortured. The Clinton administration took this approach. Or suspected terrorists could be killed with drone
strikes rather than captured which seems to be the de facto tactic of the Obama administration. For those who
care about human rights, these options are hardly preferable to Guantnamo Bay.

Doesnt Solve

Closing GITMO wont solve legal status or torture its inevitable.
Berenson 05(Bradford, lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office, Why Guantanamo Bay
Should Stay Open, NPR, 6/10/2005,

INSKEEP: We've heard plenty of arguments for closing the Guantanamo detention center. What is the argument for keeping it open? Mr.
BERENSON: Guantanamo has become a symbol for a set of practices in the war on terror that people object to. But it's really not Guantanamo
that people have a problem with. It's the practices involving detainees at Guantanamo that are the fodder for the critics. So closing
Guantanamo really will have only symbolic value. The things that we are doing at Guantanamo Bay will still have
to take place somewhere and Guantanamo is in many ways the ideal location to have prison camps of this kind. It is completely secure,
so there are no risks to American civilian populations, no risks of escape, yet it is close to the United States so that policy-makers, lawyers,
journalists, can have ready access, but it is not within the United States. In that sense, Guantanamo's somewhat unique. INSKEEP: Forgive me,
are you saying that the practices that have been widely criticized in the way that US has treated detainees are going to continue no matter
what? Mr. BERENSON: No, I don't mean that the abuses or the violations of US policy that have occurred from time to time are going to take
place elsewhere or anyway. But those things are not really what are stimulating the criticism. The critics of Guantanamo Bay and the
critics of the administration's detainee policy don't like the fact that we are holding people as enemy
combatants in a war on terror and that we are keeping them outside of the criminal justice system. That won't

War on Terror Advantage
Cant Solve Symbol
Guantanamos replacement will inevitably serve as symbolic oppression and place Americans
at risk
Gonzales 13 (United States attorney general under and counsel to President George W. Bush, QUICKTAKE:
Former Bush Official Says No Viable Alternative to Guantanamo, Middle East Voices, 05/21/2013,

Gonzales: Well, I think some people have said, Gosh, what about the security of the guards, the security of the
other prisoners? I think that we have the capability to provide for the safety of these individuals and to provide
for the safety of the surrounding communities. But the truth of the matter is that if you move them to one facility
like supermax, the supermax will become the next symbol of American oppression. Because I think the enemy
has shown that it will use anything that we do as a recruiting tool, as a way to criticize the United States. The
other concern is of course that once you bring them into the United States, they very well may have additional
constitutional plans against this country, and I talked to you earlier about the very real possibility that these
terrorists will put the United States on trial in connection with any kind of subsequent criminal proceedings.

Their solvency is impossible Self-reflection on base methodology is vital prerequisite to
critical analysis
Bunyavejchewin 10 (bone-yah-vetch-kah-vin)
Poowin BA (Hons) (Thammasat), MA (Hull) taught comparative and international politics in the Regional Studies
Program at Walailak University in Thailand from 2012 to 2013. He received his MA in International Politics from the
University of Hull The Orthodox and the Critical Approach toward Terrorism: An overview University of Hull
December 2010
In contrast to the orthodox approach, the critical approach casts doubt on the inherent trustworthiness of a statistical language since statistics
can easily be manipulated to serve a particular purpose. As a result of the epistemological positions it uses, the critical approach aims
to utilize its interdisciplinary methodologies to produce more conclusive explanations. For example, Foucauldian
genealogy has been adopted by the critical approach,22 in order to reflect an existing understanding of terrorism, since this
method analyse(s) the conditions under which we might consider certain utterances or propositions to be agreed to be
true... [and] the condition under which we, as individuals, exist and what causes us to exist in the way that we
do. From this point of view, self-reflexivity is a vital methodological notion in the methodologies of the critical
approach. Last but not least, it is not only the orthodox approach that can be revised by self-reflexive methodologies. The critical approach
can also benefit by carefully examining itself.

Discourse Not Key
Terrorist ideology is the root cause, not languageonly the war on terror solves.
Epstein 05 (Alex, analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, BA in Philosophy from Duke University, Fight the Root of
Terrorism With Bombs, Not Bread, San Fransisco Chronicle, 8/14,

In light of the recent suicide bombings in London, and the general inability of the West to prevent terrorist attacks, there is much talk
about fighting the "root cause" of terrorism. The most popular argument is that terrorism is caused by poverty. The United Nations
and our European and Arab "allies" repeatedly tell us to minimize our military operations and instead dole out more foreign aid to poor
countries--to put down our guns and pick up our checkbook. Only by fighting poverty, the refrain goes, can we address the "root cause" of
terrorism. The pernicious idea that poverty causes terrorism has been a popular claim since the attacks of September 11. U.N. Secretary
General Kofi Annan has repeatedly asked wealthy nations to double their foreign aid, naming as a cause of terrorism "that far too many people
are condemned to lives of extreme poverty and degradation." Former Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees: "We have to put hope back in the
hearts of people. We have to show people who might move in the direction of terrorism that there is a better way." Businessman Ted Turner
also concurs: "The reason that the World Trade Center got hit is because there are a lot of people living in abject poverty out there who don't
have any hope for a better life." Indeed, the argument that poverty causes terrorism has been central to Americas botched war in Iraq--which
has focused, not on quickly ending any threat the country posed and moving on to other crucial targets, but on bringing the good life to the
Iraqi people. Eliminating the root of terrorism is indeed a valid goal--but properly targeted military action, not
welfare handouts, is the means of doing so. Terrorism is not caused by poverty. The terrorists of September 11
did not attack America in order to make the Middle East richer. To the contrary, their stated goal was to repel any penetration of the
prosperous culture of the industrialized "infidels" into their world. The wealthy Osama bin Laden was not using his millions to
build electric power plants or irrigation canals. If he and his terrorist minions wanted prosperity, they would seek to emulate the United States--
not to destroy it. More fundamental, poverty as such cannot determine anyone's code of morality. It is the ideas that individuals
choose to adopt which make them pursue certain goals and values. A desire to destroy wealth and to slaughter
innocent, productive human beings cannot be explained by a lack of money or a poor quality of life--only by
anti-wealth, anti-life ideas. These terrorists are motivated by the ideology of Islamic Fundamentalism. This other-
worldly, authoritarian doctrine views America's freedom, prosperity, and pursuit of worldly pleasures as the height of
depravity. Its adherents resent America's success, along with the appeal its culture has to many Middle Eastern youths. To the
fundamentalists, Americans are "infidels" who should be killed. As a former Taliban official said, "The Americans are fighting so
they can live and enjoy the material things in life. But we are fighting so we can die in the cause of God." The terrorists hate us
because of their ideology--a fact that filling up the coffers of Third World governments will do nothing to
change. What then, can our government do? It cannot directly eradicate the deepest, philosophical roots of
terrorism; but by using military force, it can eliminate the only "root cause" relevant in a political context: state
sponsorship of terrorism. The fundamentalists' hostility toward America can translate into international terrorism
only via the governments that employ, finance, train, and provide refuge to terrorist networks. Such assistance
is the cause of the terrorist threat--and America has the military might to remove that cause. It is precisely in the
name of fighting terrorism at its root that America must extend its fist, not its hand. Whatever other areas of the world may require U.S. troops
to stop terrorist operations, we must above all go after the single main source of the threat--Iran. This theocratic nation is both the birthplace
of the Islamic Fundamentalist revolution and, as a consequence, a leading sponsor of terrorism. Removing that government from power would
be a potent blow against Islamic terrorism. It would destroy the political embodiment of the terrorists' cause. It would declare America's
intolerance of support for terrorists. It would be an unequivocal lesson, showing what will happen to other countries if they fail to crack down
on terrorists within their borders. And it would acknowledge the fact that dropping bombs, not food packages, is the only way
for our government to attack terrorism at its root.

Label of Terrorist Key
Labeling terrorist as such is key to fighting the war on terror.
Ganor, 01 (Boaz, Director of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism Defining Terrorism,, May 16)

We face an essential need to reach a definition of terrorism that will enjoy wide international agreement, thus
enabling international operations against terrorist organizations. A definition of this type must rely on the same principles
already agreed upon regarding conventional wars (between states), and extrapolate from them regarding non-conventional wars (betweean
organization and a state). The definition of terrorism will be the basis and the operational tool for expanding the
international communitys ability to combat terrorism. It will enable legislation and specific punishments against
those perpetrating, involved in, or supporting terrorism, and will allow the formulation of a codex of laws and
international conventions against terrorism, terrorist organizations, states sponsoring terrorism, and economic
firms trading with them. At the same time, the definition of terrorism will hamper the attempts of terrorist
organizations to obtain public legitimacy, and will erode support among those segments of the population
willing to assist them (as opposed to guerrilla activities). Finally, the operative use of the definition of terrorism could
motivate terrorist organizations, due to moral or utilitarian considerations, to shift from terrorist activities to
alternative courses (such as guerrilla warfare) in order to attain their aims, thus reducing the scope of international
terrorism. The struggle to define terrorism is sometimes as hard as the struggle against terrorism itself. The present view, claiming it is
unnecessary and well-nigh impossible to agree on an objective definition of terrorism, has long established itself as the politically correct one.
It is the aim of this paper, however, to demonstrate that an objective, internationally accepted definition of terrorism is a feasible goal, and
that an effective struggle against terrorism requires such a definition. The sooner the nations of the world come
to this realization, the better.

GITMO Safest
GITMO most secure place for detainees, if shut down detainees moved to Illinois-threatens
US safety
Bellinger et. Al 10 (John B. Bellinger III, Adjunct Senior Fellow for International and National Security Law, CFR;
former legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Shayana Kadidal, Senior Managing Attorney,
Guantanamo Global Justice Initiative, Center for Constitutional Rights Clifford D. May, President, Foundation for
Defense of Democracies William Yeomans, Fellow in Law and Government, Washington College of Law, American
University; former Chief Counsel to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Senate Judiciary Committee, Should
Guantanamo Bay Be Closed?, Council on Foreign Relations, January 21, 2010,
rights/should-guantanamo-bay-closed/p21247). SS

On January 22, 2009, President Obama ordered the controversial prison camp at Guantanamo Bay closed within a year. But much has changed since the president set this self-imposed
deadline. In December, the Obama administration proposed moving some of the remaining Guantanamo inmates to a
rural state prison in Illinois. Earlier this month, the president reiterated his vow to close the camp, despite ordering a suspension of transfers to Yemen following evidence
that the suspect in the Christmas Day airliner bombing plot received al-Qaeda training there. Roughly ninety of the remaining 198 prisoners are Yemeni nationals. Now, as Obama's twelve-
month milestone comes due, legal experts are refining their arguments on the future of Guantanamo Bay. Clifford May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argues that
2009 changed everything, and Obama should acknowledge he "cannot close Guantanamo anytime soon." CFR Adjunct Fellow John B.
Bellinger III counters that the prison remains a stain on U.S. values and must be closed. Constitutional Rights attorney Shayana Kadidal writes that refusing to release men who have already
been cleared "is absolutely unconscionable." And William Yeomans, a former legal adviser to the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, suggests not only should Guantanamo be shuttered, it
should be converted into a "base for Haitian relief and development." -- Greg Bruno, Staff Writer, John B. Bellinger III, Adjunct Senior Fellow for International and National Security
Law, CFR; former legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice President Obama has not only missed his self-imposed one-year deadline to close Guantanamo but will likely not be able
to shutter the prison in 2010, and possibly not even during the next three years. Politically gun-shy Democratic majorities are unlikely to vote to move the Guantanamo detainees into the
United States during an election year, and may be unwilling to do so at all. But this does not mean that President Obama should not continue his efforts to close the prison. If the
United States is going to detain a large number of al-Qaeda and Taliban members for a long period of time
(which is both probable and necessary), it is certainly true that Guantanamo is a good place to do it.
Guantanamo's initial operational problems have long been worked out, and the prison is now expertly run by
the military in a humane way that is consistent with international legal standards. The detainees would likely be
worse off if moved to a Supermax prison. Moreover, although it is unlikely that detainees would be able to escape from a mainland prison or that such a facility
could be attacked by other al-Qaeda terrorists, holding the detainees on an island in the Caribbean is certainly the most physically
secure option. On balance, Guantanamo does the American people more harm than good. It has come to symbolize abuse of Muslim prisoners and serves as a powerful recruiting
tool for al-Qaeda. Then why close the prison? On balance, Guantanamo does the American people more harm than good. It has come to symbolize abuse of Muslim prisoners and serves as a
powerful recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. It also undermines vital counterterrorism cooperation from our Western allies, who view the prison as inconsistent with their own and U.S. values. It has
proved impossible to shake these unfair perceptions. It is unlikely that the United States will want to keep Guantanamo open for another fifty to sixty years (even if it holds some detainees
that long), and President Obama should instead continue to press Congress and our allies to help close it in an orderly way. Shayana Kadidal, Senior Managing Attorney, Guantanamo Global
Justice Initiative, Center for Constitutional Rights Both presidential candidates in 2008 promised to close Guantanamo. They did so because, as President Obama has repeatedly reaffirmed,
doing so will make our nation safer. As former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate, "the first and second [leading] causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq--as judged by
their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat--are, respectively, the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo." None of that changed with the attempted bombing of Flight
253. The Nigerian student bomber had allegedly trained in Yemen, supposedly with a group that included two released Saudi Guantanamo detainees. But the Saudis had been released by the
Bush administration, not by court order or after the sort of cautious, formal assessment that President Obama's Inter-Agency Task Force is undertaking now, but based purely on political and
diplomatic expediency. Opportunistic calls to keep Guantanamo open into its ninth year (or simply move it onshore) will do nothing to make America safer. One of them had already turned
himself in months ago, and told the BBC from custody that he joined the group because of horrific abuse he suffered at Bagram and Guantanamo. Perhaps the Nigerian student--by all accounts
from a secular, educated, well-off family--was motivated by these stories as well. Ironically, the intelligence agencies' failure to follow up specific leads that could have averted the Christmas
bombing has led to calls for more of the same counterproductive policies--assigning guilt and suspicion by religion and nationality--that will ensure that foreigners perceive the United States as
their enemy and that good leads will be buried in a haystack of bad leads generated by over-broad profiling. Guantanamo was filled by just such failed policies. Most of the detainees were not
captured by our military on any battlefield, but seized in broad profiling sweeps and sold to the United States in exchange for substantial bounties. The vast majority should never have been
detained in the first place. To refuse to release men who have already been cleared by the task force or the courts is absolutely unconscionable. Opportunistic calls to keep Guantanamo open
into its ninth year (or simply move it onshore) will do nothing to make America safer. Clifford D. May, President, Foundation for Defense of Democracies No doubt, al-Qaeda does utilize
Guantanamo as a recruiting tool. However, al-Qaeda was recruiting terrorists long before there was a Gitmo--the attacks of 9/11/01 represent only the most lethal example. More to the point:
Whatever public diplomacy advantage may be achieved by closing the facility would be offset by the damage done to national security. Of the 198 detainees remaining at Guantanamo, 91 are
from Yemen, where al-Qaeda has been active, not least training terrorists to blow up American passenger jets. President Obama has rightly decided not to send additional detainees from
Gitmo to Yemen. Where else can they go? Not to any country where they might face summary execution or torture. And none of our Democratic allies are eager to have these individuals
arrive on their shores. President Obama cannot close Guantanamo anytime soon. He should acknowledge that reality. The option of bringing them to the United States also is unappealing. For
one, they would immediately be granted the same constitutional rights as any American citizen. For another, setting up a new facility for them would be costly, not to mention a waste of the
investment made at Gitmo. Indeed, if anyone wants to bet that Congress, in an election year, will appropriate funds to bring terrorists to America, my money is on the table. In other words,
President Obama cannot close Guantanamo anytime soon. He should acknowledge that reality. He should explain that his top priority is to protect American citizens. He should add that, under
current management, Guantanamo is superior to any comparable facility anywhere in the world. Its primary purpose is to keep enemy combatants off
the battlefield. It achieves that--while providing healthy food, superb medical care, and clean housing to
individuals who will slaughter Americans by the thousands if they ever get the chance. If al-Qaeda wants to use that for its
recruitment drives, let them. William Yeomans, Fellow in Law and Government, Washington College of Law, American University; former Chief Counsel to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Senate
Judiciary Committee President Obama must fulfill his commitment to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Indeed, he should convert the facility from a symbol of America's lawless
abuse of detainees into a beacon of humanitarian compassion by embracing its use as a base for Haitian relief and development. The justification for closing Guantanamo remains
undiminished. The facility was established as an extra-legal black hole for Muslim men, some of whom were dangerous, but most of whom had simply been in the wrong place or were turned
over for bounty. Men disappeared into Guantanamo and were denied all access to justice until determined advocates convinced courts to recognize their rights. Guantanamo damaged our
national security by tarnishing America's standing in the world and serving as a powerful recruiting tool for terrorists. President Obama correctly recognized that restoring America's strength
required eliminating this blight on our ideals. His retraction of that promise would be calamitous. President Obama correctly recognized that restoring America's strength required eliminating
this blight on our ideals. His retraction of that promise would be calamitous. The president's recognition that Yemen is a breeding ground for terrorists should not affect his commitment to
close Guantanamo. The temporary moratorium on returning detainees to Yemen will simply require moving to the mainland some additional detainees who are already considered sufficiently
non-threatening to be released. Whether detainees are in Guantanamo or Illinois, the administration will face the same decisions on whether and how to try them. Congress should support
the president's instruction to obtain and outfit the corrections center in Thomson, Illinois. Maximum security federal facilities have long housed terrorists without incident. These facilities are
secure from escape from within and penetration from without. The president must not falter, and Congress must not again succumb to the
politics of fear. Together, they should act quickly to turn a stain on our national soul into a vibrant symbol of
hope and renewal.

Key to Regional Security
Guantanamo key to regional security
Berrigan, 2008 (Frida Berrigan, Senior Research Associate at the World Policy Institutes Arms Trade Resource
Center. A graduate of Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, Frida spent six months as an editorial intern
at the Nation magazine before joining the World Policy Institute in early 1999, Guantanamo: The Bigger Picture,
New America Foundation, March 17, 2008,

Navy Commander Jeffery D. Gordon explains that the U.S. presence at Guantanamo serves "a vital role in
Caribbean regional security, protection from narco-trafficking and terrorism and safeguards against mass
migration attempts in unseaworthy craft." The Navys Atlantic fleet is based there and the base is described as
being "on the front lines of the battle for regional security."

New Facilities Turn
Plan is irrelevant- Two reasons
A. Closing Guantanamo only leads to more facilities like it
Cohen et al. 2005 (Jack Spencer; Director, Roe Institute, Ariel Cohen, Ph.D.; Senior Research Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies
and International Energy Policy, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, James Phillips; Senior Research Fellow
for Middle Eastern Affairs, and Alane Kochems; Policy Analyst, National Security, The Heritage Founda tion, No Good Reason To Close Gitmo
The function of Guantanamo Bay will be served somewhere. Closing Guantanamo will not relieve the United
States from needing a facility to house and interrogate suspected terrorists. Should Guantanamo close, the
government would have to relocate these functions. If there are problems with the detainment center, those
problems should be transparently addressed. The Pentagon has taken great pains to ensure that all appropriate domestic and
international agencies have adequate access to the facilities and has been responsive to credible allegations of abuse. Unlike in the
tyrannical or regimes of North Korea or China, for example, alleged abuses of prisoners are investigated and
those found guilty are held responsible. Moreover, there are established avenues by which Congress, the
International Committee of the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and the media exercise differing degrees of oversight in
Guantanamo. Changing locations now would lead to a transition period during which these organizations would
have less access than they do today.

B. There is no legal difference in the facilities
Cohen et al. 2005 (Jack Spencer; Director, Roe Institute, Ariel Cohen, Ph.D.; Senior Research Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies
and International Energy Policy, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, James Phillips; Senior Research Fellow
for Middle Eastern Affairs, and Alane Kochems; Policy Analyst, National Security, The Heritage Founda tion, No Good Reason To Close Gitmo
Changing the physical location of the detainees is not legally significant. Neither the detainees nor the United
States stand to gain significantly in the legal arena if the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is closed. The
"illegal enemy combatants" held at the facility have access to U.S. courts (as held by the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush[5]).
Detainees have been making much use of their access to legal counsel, as evidenced, for example, by a November 2004 District Court opinion
holding that the Bush Administration had overstepped its authority in several areas. Moving the detainees within the continental
United States will not give them additional rights because Guantanamo Bay is already considered sufficiently
under U.S. control to provide rights to them.[6] After the Rasul opinion, the detainees and the U.S. government will have the same legal
advantages and disadvantages within the U.S. as they do at Guantanamo Bay. There are no compelling legal reasons to move the
detainees and close Guantanamo Bay.

Ext. Legal Status
Closing Guantanamo won't change the legal situation of the detainees
Nemish 2009 (Mark C., A major in the US airforce. To Close or Not to Close: Guantanamo Bay April 2009.
Another concern for the anti-Guantanamo Bay protesters is the legal rights and due process afforded the
detainees. These people believe that in order to give detainees a fair trial using untainted evidence, all legal
processed must occur in the U.S. judicial system. In actuality, Guantanamo Bay will not gain any more legal
sufficiency by moving to the U.S. than it currently has. As reviewed earlier, there were errors executive decision making throughout
the history of Guantanamo Bay with regard to detainee classification and military tribunals. Those issues indeed require correction. However,
correcting the legal complications does not require the detainees to move anywhere. Once revamped, the
detainees can enjoy their due process in the U.S. legal system while remaining detained at Guantanamo Bay. The government can
simply transport the detainee to any trial appearances on an as-needed basis. Moving the detainees will not necessarily give
them more rights

Obama bought prison in Illinois for transferring Gitmo inmates
Fox News, 2012 (Fox News, Lawmakers claim administration opening door to Gitmo transfer with Illinois prison
buy, Fox News, 10/2/12,
The Obama administration plans to buy an Illinois prison that at one point was considered for housing
Guantanamo prisoners -- with Republican lawmakers now claiming the purchase would open the door for
ultimately carrying out the Guantanamo transfer. Administration officials, though, denied that they were looking
for a new home for Guantanamo inmates. They insisted the decision to buy Thomson Correctional Center, an
under-used state prison 150 miles west of Chicago, was a move to alleviate overcrowding and create jobs in the
process. "This is about public safety and 50 percent overcrowding in high-security prisons," one Justice
Department official said. Officials insisted Guantanamo detainees would not be coming to Illinois. But Virginia
Republican Rep. Frank Wolf, among the lawmakers who opposed the federal purchase of the prison, claimed
Tuesday that the Obama administration could still carry out its plan -- perhaps by moving prisoners from another
federal prison to Thomson, and then using that prison to house Guantanamo detainees. "The president says his
goal is to shut down Guantanamo Bay and move the prisoners here," Wolf told Fox News, accusing the
administration of circumventing Congress. "This gives him a great opportunity to do it, particularly right after
the election." Wolf chairs a key House subcommittee overseeing the sale. He was referring to Obama's pledge
immediately after taking office that he would shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison camp -- a pledge that
stands as one of the president's most glaring unfulfilled promises to his base. The move to transfer prisoners
stateside, though, was met with a fierce backlash among some lawmakers, who worried it would pose a security
risk. The Obama administration and Federal Bureau of Prisons is now going ahead with the $165 million purchase
of the Illinois prison, strictly as a move to ease overcrowding, they say. The move was first announced by Illinois
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin and Gov. Pat Quinn. "This historic action will lead to the creation of hundreds of
construction jobs and over 1,000 permanent jobs at this federal facility," Durbin said in a statement. "After facing a
political standoff in the House of Representatives, I went directly to the president and asked him to take this
action." Quinn called it "excellent news." House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., warned
his committee would oppose the purchase. "The Obama administration has been trying for years to open
Thompson prison in order to transfer terrorists from Guantanamo Bay onto U.S. soil," Rogers said. "This back-
door move by the Obama administration to open Thompson and reject the will of Congress and the American
people is dangerously irresponsible and will be met with the full and unfettered opposition of the
Appropriations Committee." Thomson was built in 2001, but budget troubles kept it from fully opening. The
Associated Press contributed to this report.

Illinois prison would still hold inmates indefinitely
Slevin, 2009 (Peter Slevin, a national political correspondent for The Washington Post. He has spent the past six
years exploring politics and the themes and personalities that animate the national debate. In Chicago and on the
campaign trial, he helped chronicle the rise of Barack Obama and he has written extensively about the home front
of the Iraq and Afghan wars. Previously, Slevin covered foreign policy for The Post and spent seven years in Europe
for The Miami Herald covering the collapse of the Soviet empire, Illinois prison picked for detainees, Washington
Post, 12/16/09,
CHICAGO -- President Obama, determined to change U.S. detention policy and shut the prison at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, pointed Tuesday to a small town in Illinois as a big part of the answer. A state prison in rural
Thomson will be purchased and refitted to house dozens of terrorism suspects now held at Guantanamo Bay,
the administration announced. But Obama immediately drew criticism that revealed just how controversial the
issue remains. Republicans in Illinois and in Washington called the president's move risky and reminded the
administration that a congressional vote is required before detainees not facing trial can be held indefinitely on
U.S. soil. GOP members of the House will "seek every remedy at our disposal to stop this dangerous plan," vowed
Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). A vote is weeks or months away, Democrats said. Civil liberties groups,
while embracing the goal of closing Guantanamo Bay, said the administration would be wrong to move prisoners
to the heartland without charging them with a crime. "If Thomson will be used to facilitate their lawful
prosecution, then this is truly a positive step," said Joanne Mariner, counterterrorism director at Human Rights
Watch. If not, "President Obama will simply have moved Guantanamo to Illinois." White House officials did not
say how many inmates are likely to be transferred to the Thomson Correctional Center. Some detainees will be
held for trial by military commissions on the prison grounds, while others could be held without charges. "We
are trying to get to zero here with the detainees," one administration official said, referring to the prison in Cuba.
"If we have to detain any without trial, we will only do so as a last resort." The official said individual cases will be
subject to oversight by Congress and the federal courts. The Thomson decision alone will not get Obama to his goal
of shutting Guantanamo Bay, which became a symbol of what critics said was the Bush administration's willingness
to flout international conventions. But the plan is another piece of a puzzle that includes the prospective departure
of 116 detainees recommended for release by an interagency team led by Justice Department prosecutors. The
administration also announced last month that several suspects will be tried in New York federal court and others
by the military.

Even if Gitmo closes, new Gitmo would open in Illinois
Greenwald, 2012 (Glenn Greenwald, a former Constitutional and civil rights litigator and is the author of three
New York Times Bestselling books: two on the Bush administration's executive power and foreign policy abuses,
and his latest book, With Liberty and Justice for Some, an indictment of America's two-tiered system of justice.
Greenwald was named by The Atlantic as one of the 25 most influential political commentators in the nation. He is
the recipient of the first annual I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism, and is the winner of the 2010 Online
Journalism Association Award for his investigative work on the arrest and oppressive detention of Bradley
Manning, The Obama GITMO myth, Salon, 7/23/12,
The New York Times Editorial Page today denounced these new rules as spiteful, cited it as the Obama
administrations latest overuse of executive authority, and said the administration looks as if it is imperiously
punishing detainees for their temerity in bringing legal challenges to their detention and losing. Detainee lawyers
are refusing to submit to these new rules and are asking a federal court to rule that they violate the detainees
right to legal counsel. But every time the issue of ongoing injustices at Guantanamo is raised, one hears the same
apologia from the Presidents defenders: the President wanted and tried to end all of this, but Congress
including even liberals such as Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders overwhelming voted to deny him the funds
to close Guantanamo. While those claims, standing alone, are true, they omit crucial facts and thus paint a wildly
misleading picture about what Obama actually did and did not seek to do. What made Guantanamo
controversial was not its physical location: that it was located in the Caribbean Sea rather than on American soil
(thats especially true since the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that U.S. courts have jurisdiction over the camp).
What made Guantanamo such a travesty and what still makes it such is that it is a system of indefinite
detention whereby human beings are put in cages for years and years without ever being charged with a crime.
President Obamas so-called plan to close Guantanamo even if it had been approved in full by Congress
did not seek to end that core injustice. It sought to do the opposite: Obamas plan would have continued the
system of indefinite detention, but simply re-located it from Guantanamo Bay onto American soil. Long before,
and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the
indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. President Obama fully embraced
indefinite detention the defining injustice of Guantanamo as his own policy . In February, 2009, the Obama
DOJ told an appellate court it was embracing the Bush DOJs theory that Bagram detainees have no legal rights
whatsoever, an announcement that shocked the judges on the panel hearing the case. In May, 2009, President
Obama delivered a speech at the National Archives in front of the U.S. Constitution and, as his plan for
closing Guantanamo, proposed a system of preventative prolonged detention without trial inside the U.S.; The
New York Times in an article headlined Presidents Detention Plan Tests American Legal Tradition said
Obamas plan would be a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of
the government either face criminal charges or walk free. In January, 2010, the Obama administration
announced it would continue to imprison several dozen Guantanamo detainees without any charges or trials of
any kind, including even a military commission, on the ground that they were too difficult to prosecute but too
dangerous to release. That was all Obamas doing, completely independent of anything Congress did. When the
President finally unveiled his plan for closing Guantanamo, it became clear that it wasnt a plan to close the
camp as much as it was a plan simply to re-locate it import it onto American soil, at a newly purchased
federal prison in Thompson, Illinois . William Lynn, Obamas Deputy Defense Secretary, sent a letter to inquiring
Senators that expressly stated that the Obama administration intended to continue indefinitely to imprison some
of the detainees with no charges of any kind. The plan was classic Obama: a pretty, feel-good, empty symbolic
gesture (get rid of the symbolic face of Bush War on Terror excesses) while preserving the core abuses (the
powers of indefinite detention ), even strengthening and expanding those abuses by bringing them into the U.S.
Recall that the ACLU immediately condemned what it called the Presidents plan to create GITMO North. About
the Presidents so-called plan to close Guantanamo, Executive Director Anthony Romero said: The creation of a
Gitmo North in Illinois is hardly a meaningful step forward. Shutting down Guantnamo will be nothing more
than a symbolic gesture if we continue its lawless policies onshore. Alarmingly, all indications are that the
administration plans to continue its predecessors policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some
detainees, with only a change of location. Such a policy is completely at odds with our democratic commitment to
due process and human rights whether its occurring in Cuba or in Illinois. In fact, while the Obama administration
inherited the Guantnamo debacle, this current move is its own affirmative adoption of those policies. It is
unimaginable that the Obama administration is using the same justification as the Bush administration used to
undercut centuries of legal jurisprudence and the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the right to confront
ones accusers. . . . .The Obama administrations announcement today contradicts everything the president has
said about the need for America to return to leading with its values. In fact, Obamas close GITMO plan if it
had been adopted by Congress would have done something worse than merely continue the camps defining
injustice of indefinite detention. It would likely have expanded those powers by importing them into the U.S.
The day after President Obamas speech proposing a system of prolonged detention on U.S. soil, the ACLUs Ben
Wizner told me in an interview: It may to serve to enshrine into law the very departures from the law that the
Bush administration led us on, and that we all criticized so much. And Ill elaborate on that. But thats really my
initial reaction to it; that what President Obama was talking about yesterday is making permanent some of the
worst features of the Guantanamo regime. He may be shutting down the prison on that camp, but whats worse is
he may be importing some of those legal principles into our own legal system, where theyll do great harm for a
long time. So even if Congress had fully supported and funded Obamas plan to close Guantanamo, the core
injustices that made the camp such a travesty would remain. In fact, theyd not only remain, but would be in full
force within the U.S. Thats what makes the prime excuse offered for Obama he tried to end all of this but
couldnt so misleading. He only wanted to change the locale of these injustices, but sought fully to preserve

Yes War
War with China more likely miscommunication and accidental launch
Fisher 11 (Max Fisher, former writer and editor at The Atlantic. 5 Most Likely Ways the U.S. and China Could Spark Accidental Nuclear
War. The Atlantic 31 October 2011. Web.)
could-spark-accidental-nuclear-war/247616/ EW
After 10 years of close but unproductive talks, the U.S. and China still fail to understand one another's nuclear weapons
policies, according to a disturbing report by Global Security Newswire. In other words, neither the U.S. nor China knows when the
other will or will not use a nuclear weapon against the other. That's not due to hostility, secrecy, or deliberate foreign policy -
- it's a combination of mistrust between individual negotiators and poor communication; at times, something as simple
as a shoddy translation has prevented the two major powers from coming together. Though nuclear war between the U.S. and China is still
extremely unlikely, because the two countries do not fully understand when the other will and will not deploy nuclear weapons, the odds of
starting an accidental nuclear conflict are much higher. Neither the U.S. nor China has any interest in any kind of war with one
other, nuclear or non-nuclear. The greater risk is an accident. Here's how it would happen. First, an unforeseen event that
sparks a small conflict or threat of conflict. Second, a rapid escalation that moves too fast for either side to defuse.
And, third, a mutual misunderstanding of one another's intentions. This three-part process can move so quickly that the best
way to avert a nuclear war is for both sides to have absolute confidence that they understand when the other
will and will not use a nuclear weapon. Without this, U.S. and Chinese policy-makers would have to guess --
perhaps with only a few minutes -- if and when the other side would go nuclear. This is especially scary because both sides have good
reason to err on the side of assuming nuclear war. If you think there's a 50-50 chance that someone is about to
lob a nuclear bomb at you, your incentive is to launch a preventative strike, just to be safe. This is especially true
because you know the other side is thinking the exact same thing. In fact, even if you think the other side probably won't launch
an ICBM your way, they actually might if they fear that you're misreading their intentions or if they fear that you
might over-react; this means they have a greater incentive to launch a preemptive strike, which means that you have a greater
incentive to launch a preemptive strike, in turn raising their incentives, and on and on until one tiny kernel of doubt can lead
to a full-fledged war that nobody wants.

War likely now tensions over Iran and Syria
Global Research 12 (BREAKING: Real Danger of US Military Strike on Iran and Syria: Russian Security Council. Global Research 12
January 2012. Web.)
council/28624 EW
Russian Security Council secretary Nikolai Patrushev warned that military escalation is likely in Iran, with real danger of a
US strike, in an interview published Thursday. He added that Syria, which has refused to break its ties with Tehran, could
also be a target for Western intervention. There is a likelihood of military escalation of the conflict, and Israel is pushing the
Americans towards it, Patrushev said in an interview published on the website of the daily Kommersant. There is a real danger of
a US military strike on Iran, the senior Russian security official said. At present, the US sees Iran as its main problem. They
are trying to turn Tehran from an enemy into a supportive partner, and to achieve this, to change the current
regime by whatever means, he added.

MAD Fails
Jerivs 2 (Robert Jervis is the Adlai E. Stevenson professor of international politics at Columbia University. He was president of the American
Political Science Association in 2000-01. Mutual Assured Destruction. Foreign Policy December 2002.) EW
Critics like military strategists Herman Kahn and Colin Gray disagreed. They argued that nuclear warheads were immensely
destructive but not qualitatively different from previous weapons of warfare. Consequently, the traditional rules of
strategy applied: Security policy could only rest on credible threats (i.e., those that it made sense to carry out). The adoption
of a policy that involved throwing up your hands and destroying the world if war actually broke out was not only the height of irresponsibility;
MAD also failed to address the main strategic concern for the United States, which was to prevent the Soviets
from invading Western Europe. The stability that MAD was supposed to provide actually would have allowed
U.S. adversaries to use force below the nuclear level whenever it was to their advantage to do so. If the United States
could not have threatened to escalate a conflict by using nuclear weapons, then the Soviets would have had free rein to
fight and win a conventional war in Europe. Privately, most generals and top civilian leaders were never convinced of the utility of
MAD, and that skepticism was reflected in both Soviet and U.S. war planning. Each side strove for advantage, sought to
minimize damage to its society, deployed defenses when deemed practical, and sought limited nuclear options that were
militarily effective. Yet, for all these efforts, it is highly probable that a conventional war in Europe or, even more likely, the
limited use of nuclear weapons would have prompted a full-scale nuclear war that would have resulted in mutual

MAD doesnt protect US interests
Jerivs 2 (Robert Jervis is the Adlai E. Stevenson professor of international politics at Columbia University. He was president of the American
Political Science Association in 2000-01. Mutual Assured Destruction. Foreign Policy December 2002.) EW
MAD's credibility plummeted even further during the last stages of the Cold War, as the Soviet military buildup
convinced U.S. policymakers that the U.S.S.R. did not believe in MAD and was seeking nuclear advantage. The
Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and its African adventures revealed that MAD could not protect all U.S. interests. In
response, U.S. leaders talked about the significance of nuclear superiority and about the possibility of surviving
a nuclear war. Most dramatically, President Ronald Reagan called for missile defense, declaring in 1983 that "to look down to an
endless future with both of us sitting here with these horrible missiles aimed at each other and the only thing
preventing a holocaust is just so long as no one pulls this trigger-this is unthinkable."

Interdependence doesnt prevent war
Wyne 12 (Ali Wyne, Researcher, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Can Economic Interdependence Help to Prevent a
U.S.-China War? Big Think 11 May 2012. Web.)
china-war EW
Angell didnt argue that the extraordinary interdependence of the modern financial world (p. 56) made war among
European countriesBritain and Germany, in particularimpossible, but rather, futilea crucial distinction. Indeed, it was because he
believed that growing tensions between them were likely to culminate in war that he appealed so forcefully to
statesmen in each country to reverse course: [S]o long as the production of war material and the training for war
are our only preparation for peace, we shall almost certainly prepare not for peace but for war, and every ship that
we *the British+ addby increasing the suspicion and distrust that go with the ever-increasing weight of material, does but render
a solution of the matter more difficult.At present there is only one policy that holds the fieldto go on building ships (p. 334).

Interdependece and MAD fail nanotechnology
Treder 5 (Mike Treder is the executive director of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. War, Interdependence, and
Nanotechnology. FutureBrief 2005. Web.) EW
Today, more people live in freedom than at any time in history. Although poverty is still a serious worldwide problem, more
people are healthier and better fed than ever before. And despite regional wars and terrorist attacks (which have beset civilization for
centuries), we have managed to avoid destroying ourselves with full-scale thermonuclear war. But looming just
over the horizon is a grave threat. It is nanotechnology. From the dawn of the nuclear age until the present day, we have
relied on two mechanisms to protect us from World War III: the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), and the
growing interdependence of nations. However, in the very near future we may not be able to count on these
controls. The tenuous balance of MAD and the worldwide network of commercial trade are both threatened by
the rise of advanced nanotechnology.

Fettweis indict
Fettweis analysis is flawed doesnt assume key factors
Hanley 11 (Lieutenant Colonel Hanley works as a supervisory intelligence analyst in the Washington, D.C. area. He is a former member of
the Naval Institutes editorial board and a regular contributor to Proceedings. January 2011.) EW
Fettweis says nothing about the reckless proliferation of dual-use technologies especially biotechnologies and nuclear
fuel-cycle technology. The past masters of proliferation include the very powers China and Russiawhom Fettweis
claims have no desire to fight a major war. Its been a mere 20 years since the end of the IranIraq wara territorial dispute
between states aspiring to regional dominancewhich resembled World War I a lot more closely than it did anything surmised in Fettweiss
worldview. What are we to make of Chinas recent claim to indisputable sovereignty over 1.3 million square miles
of the South China Sea, substantial portions of which are considered international waters? What happens if a
dispute over navigation cant be resolved through diplomacy? What of the territorial disputes between India
and Pakistan? War may not be likely under such circumstances, as it has throughout human history, but it is certainly possible

War with China will escalate Chinese preemption
Wroe 13 (David Wroe is the defence correspondent for The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald in Canberra. US strategy could result in
nuclear war. Sydney Morning Herald 15 April 13. Web.)
nuclear-war-20130414-2htn8.html EW
The paper, written by the institute's senior analyst for defence strategy, Benjamin Schreer, urges the Australian government to
keep a cautious distance from the plan for now. Australia would likely play a role in the strategy, particularly with
US Marines stationed in Darwin. The plan assumes any conflict between the US and China - most likely over Taiwan or
Chinese skirmishing with Japan - would remain below the level of nuclear strikes. But Dr Schreer writes that "such an
outcome is far from certain". Part of any US plan to strike at China would involve "blinding" the People's Liberation
Army by hitting its surveillance, intelligence and command systems. This could provoke panic on the Chinese side and "consequently
increase the chances of Chinese nuclear pre-emption", he writes.

War escalates miscalc and drawing in other powers
Wroe 13 (David Wroe is the defence correspondent for The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald in Canberra. US strategy could result in
nuclear war. Sydney Morning Herald 15 April 13. Web.)
nuclear-war-20130414-2htn8.html EW
"AirSea Battle thus raises the spectre of a series of miscalculations on both sides if Beijing perceives
conventional attacks on its homeland as an attempt to disarm its nuclear strike capability.'' The paper coincides with
rising tensions between China and Japan over territorial disputes in the East China Sea, and between China and Vietnam
in the South China Sea. US military planners are developing the AirSea Battle plan in response to the shift in the strategic balance as China's
growing military might threatens to end more than half a century of US dominance on the western Pacific rim.