Muslim Informants Version 4 - Ashok - Madeline

Case: Muslim Informants
Story:
They will come for you.
Imagine the FBI busting down your door in the middle of family dinner and
threatening to deport you to a random foreign country if you dont give up
your friends darkest secrets - worse, secrets you just dont have. This
scenario might seem ridiculous - after all, the FBI is the good guy, right? They
only do the right thing, dont they? But this story is frighteningly common
among Muslim communities, where the FBI consistently disrespects and
violates rights of American citizens just like you because of an illegitimate
fear of terrorism. The fear of that threat is pretty prevalent. Terrorism, the
people say! We could all die! Actually, you are more likely to die from a
refrigerator falling on top of you than being killed by an Islamic Extremist
here at home. And throughout history, we see that if we let the government
marginalize and dehumanize a minority, they end up compromising basic
human rights for all.
The FBI is abusing their informants and the communities they spy on
right now - especially in Muslim communities, where their efforts are
particularly harmful and ineffective. We are taking steps to make
their processes more efficient and more effective.
There are three specific parts to our plan.
1. Plan will create Congressional Oversight of the FBIs Domestic
Terrorist Informants and Judicial oversight of the Section 6 Visa
program
Basically, we are making sure that the FBI has a system of accountability in
using and respecting informants in a system that as of now not conducive to
producing actionable intelligence or respecting the communities it is
surveilling. Using non-executive branches to check the FBI will decrease their
abuse of power.
2. A strict scrutiny standard will be required from all Muslim
informant operations.
Strict scrutiny is a standard higher than that of reasonable doubt. In this way,
we will ensure that the FBI only uses informants in cases where it is
absolutely critical to national security. The FBI will now have to be more
stringent and sure about its plans before carrying them out.
3. The United States will no longer threaten deportation of Muslim

informants and instead to grant them Section 6 Visa protection with
an explanation of the program.
Our plan fixes an existing program called the Section 6 Visa, commonly called
the snitch visa. It allows reformed terrorists with credible intelligence to
help the FBI in exchange for a visa. Right now, there are not an adequate
number of those visas available and the application process has too many
steps, leading the FBI to disregard the visa in favor of using coercive and
dehumanizing tactics to recruit informants, estranging the Muslim community
and failing to acquire actionable counterterrorism intelligence.
In all, our plan helps the FBI do its job in a more respectful and efficient way.
1AC- Affirmative
Plan
The United States federal government will substantially
curtail its domestic surveillance by limiting the
governments use of informants in Muslim communities.
These limits will be implemented in 3 specific planks.
1. Plan will reform Congressional Oversight of the FBIs
Domestic Terrorist Informants and Judicial Review of
the Section 6 Visa program
2. A strict scrutiny standard will be required to
conduct all Muslim informant operations.
3. The United States will no longer threaten deportation
of Muslim informants and instead grant them Section
6 Visa protection with an explanation of the program.
Contention 1: Inherency
A. Oversight of Informants Ineffective in the status quo
Stabile 2014
Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013
Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives
and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7
Despite the FBIs long history of problematic relationships with informants,39
both Congress and the Department of Justicethe FBIs

parent agencyprovide very little oversight of FBI
informants.
The lack of transparency, control, and accountability give the FBI almost unlimited power over how it recruits,
handles, and rewards informants.40 In particular, because of the greater secrecy afforded to national security investigations, the use of
terrorism informants presents unique problems not present in traditional, nonterrorism use of informants.
The use of informants in terrorism investigations differs

in several ways from their use in the investigation of
domestic crimes like smuggling, prostitution, and financial impropriety.
Although the FBI has41been using informants to conduct investigations
since the agencys inception, informants were traditionally used
to investigate victimless crimes
such as white-collar crimes42 and crimes dealing with
prostitution, drugs, and corruption.43 Informants proved especially useful in those cases because all parties to the crime were usually guilty
and not likely to inform authorities, making it difficult for law enforcement agents to discover the crime on their own.44 Consequently, because
individuals already part of the criminal organization or conspiracy had the trust and confidence of the organization and could provide the most
FBI has generally recruited

informants in these investigations from the inside.
useful information to law enforcement over a longer period of time, the
The FBIs Top
Echelon informant program, for example, sought to recruit high-ranking members of the mafia as informants.45 Notably, however, even the
FBIs traditional method of recruiting informants from within the criminal organizations resulted in false intelligence and botched cases.46
While there are no detailed studies on the differences between terrorism informants and traditional informants because the FBI keeps most of
this information confidential,47 broad observations can still be made. First, the FBIs preventative stance on terrorism has significantly
After 9/11, the FBI drastically

49
expanded the use of informants
from around 1,500 in
51
1975 to an estimated 15,000 today .
increased reliance on informants intelligence.48
Informants have become the number one tool for
52
preventing terrorist acts.

Second, law enforcement dealings with terrorism informants receive greater deference from courts and other
limiting actors because terrorism is considered a national security matter instead of simply a domestic law enforcement matter.53 The
executive branch has greater control over national security and foreign intelligence matters than over domestic law enforcement, an area
traditionally reserved to the states. 54 Thus, the post-9/11 characterization of terrorism as a national security matter results in courts affording
more leeway to terrorism investigations than domestic criminal investigations.55 In other words, the federal government is afforded more
secrecy in matters of national security.56 Hence, because the government can invoke national security concerns to keep information about the
informant and handler privileged, there is less regulation governing the recruitment and handling of terrorism informants than traditional
criminal informants.57
recent terrorism
investigations raise the question of whether the alleged
terrorist crimes would have occurred without law
59
enforcement instigating the terrorist activities.
Third, while false and inaccurate intelligence has generally been a problem with informants,58
Informants in these
cases aggressively instigated the defendants participation in the plot.
60
Recruiting informants who lack ties to terrorist organizations may
61
be at the root of this problem, because they lack predetermined targets known to be involved in terrorist groups.
Without these targets,
informants under pressure to avoid deportation or other immigration consequences, for example, are more likely to produce false
information.
62
Further complicating this issue, the government has suffered from credibility problems in terrorism investigations for not
always fulfilling the promises made to informants.
63
One FBI informant, a Yemeni citizen named Mohamed Alanssi, set himself on fire in
64
front of the White House after alleging that the FBI had broken numerous promises to him.
Governmental credibility is critical to
maintaining a relationship of trust between law enforcement and informants, and thereby facilitates the gathering of credible intelligence.
Due to the vast number of terrorism informants
today,
the secrecy underlying the
the recruitment
and use of informants in terrorism investigations present
unique problems to the FBI.
investigations,65 and the potential for false intelligence,
Because of increased confidentiality surrounding national security issues,
the government has the means and incentives to shield the true extent of its recruitment and use of terrorism informants from courts and the
more oversight over the FBIs

dealings with terrorism informants is needed.
public.66 To increase accountability and lessen the risk of abuse
Notably, some limits on the
FBIs use of informants do exist. However, given the secrecy surrounding national security concerns, whether these limits apply in terrorism
investigations remains unclear.
B. Post 9/11 United States Federal Governments lust

for information has pushed FBI informant policy into
counterproductive tactics
Stabile 2014
Available at:
Using the threat of immigration consequences like

deportation to produce terrorism intelligence presents novel
problems for the intelligence gathering process and the
informants. When individuals are pressured into becoming informants by
the threat of deportation, which may remove them from their family and all
sources of support, the decision essentially becomes a Hobsons choice.16
Informants recruited in this manner who also lack
17
legitimate ties to foreign terrorist organizations have an

enormous incentive to fabricate information to fulfill
18
their end of the agreement and avoid deportation.
Attorney
Stephen Downs of Project SALAM explained, Community life is shattered as the government often forces Muslim immigrants to spy on their
own communities or give false testimony with the threat that the Muslims immigration status will be revised if the Muslims do not
cooperate. Such practices generate fear and alienation in the Muslim community and diminish our security rather than enhance it.19
individuals may
feel they must offer up something to the government to
avoid being removed from their families, jobs, and lives.
As Downs notes, the intelligence these informants provide can be unreliable,20 because these
The threat of false intelligence is grave. In addition to the possibility of
false intelligence may

encourage ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim and
22
Middle Eastern communities,
entrapment21 by agent provocateurs,
chill free speech,23 and waste finite intelligence resources.
Recruitment through immigration law also affords less protection to informants than recruitment done by offering monetary rewards or
reductions in sentencing.24 For example, unlike criminal offenses, there is no statute of limitations governing civil penalties like deportation,
removal, or exclusion orders, which means that the FBI can use immigration violations to leverage cooperation from out-of-status individuals
who have been in the country for years. Moreover, unlike an informant who is promised a sentence reduction or lessened charges and who can
enforce his or her bargain with the government through plea bargaining, an informant promised immigration benefits has no way of enforcing
these promises.25 Furthermore, the Sixth Amendments guarantee of counsel26 does not apply to immigration violations.27 Finally, according
to some reported cases, the government has failed to reward informants with the promised immigration benefits after receiving their
cooperation.28
With fewer bargaining options, less protection, and potentially more to lose29 than informants recruited through monetary incentives or
there is greater incentive for informants

30
flipped via immigration violations to provide
unreliable information.
promises of sentence reductions
Furthermore, due to the latitude afforded to the executive branch in national
security matters, there is a darker veil of secrecy shrouding measures for recruiting terrorism informants than for other types of informants.31
Immigration status offers a valuable way for the FBI to elicit cooperation and collect intelligence from individuals who otherwise would not be
forthcoming. However, this method for collecting intelligence can prove counterproductive when indiscriminately applied to situations where
the informants lack useful connections to terrorist groups. Decreased intelligence benefits, lack of protection for informants, and increased
ethnic and religious profiling suggest that changes to how the FBI recruits terrorism informants with immigration threats and rewards are
needed.
C. Section 6 Visa program has limited application in the

status quo
Stabile 2014
Available at:
While the FBI appears to recruit most terrorism informants through informal
means, an existing visa program already formally offers
immigration benefits to informants in exchange for their

cooperation with terrorism investigations .
As part of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,32 Congress specifically designed the S-6 visa to attract and reward immigrants who were willing to
However, given the small number of S6 visas issued, the program likely fails to meet the FBIs
intelligence recruitment needs.
cooperate by giving terrorism intelligence.33
The fifty allotted S-6 visas per year34 do not match up

with the number of informants (fifteen thousand) used
by the FBI.
35 In order to qualify for the S-6 visa, an informant must also meet the eligibility requirements of the Department of
Justices Rewards for Justice Program, a separate program designed to elicit and monetarily reward terrorism intelligence.36 Lastly, access to
the S-6 visa is further restricted by the requirement that the informant be subject to danger if he or she is returned to his or her home
country.37 Since
the FBI
has long used immigration law as an incentive to compel
it has little motivation to use a

rewards program that presents additional barriers. The
terrorism informants to act,
stringent eligibility requirements to obtain an S-6 visa explain its ongoing

underuse.38
D. Current Congressional oversight is dysfunctional and

needs to be strengthened
Senate Hearing, 07 (HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH
CONGRESS, November 13, 2007,
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, http://fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/oversight.html
)
But you will recall that during the debate on the 9/11 bill in March, you and I supported the sense of the Senate provision calling on the
Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee to conduct hearings on intelligence reform, specifically
on congressional reform of fiscal oversight of intelligence, which is why I believe we're here today. Even though the Senate has adopted
some of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations on congressional reform, this most important area, in my view, has not been addressed.
strengthening congressional
oversight may be among the most difficult and important, further
stating that congressional oversight of intelligence and
counterterrorism is now dysfunctional. The recommendation of the Commission to deal with that
The 9/11 Commission stated that, of all our recommendations,
dysfunction was to consolidate authorization and appropriations in a single committee.
E. The United States uses Otherization and the concept

of domination and subordination to justify extreme
domestic discrimination in surveillance and foreign
attacks
Jamal 08 (Amaney Jamal, Edwards S. Sanford Professor of Politics at Princeton
University and director of the Mamdouha S. Bobst Center for Peace and Justice, Civil
Liberties and the Otherization of Arab and Muslim Americans, Race and Arab
Americans Before and After 9/11: From Invisible Citizens to Visible Subjects, 2008,
https://books.google.com/books?
id=Qbgw2ZwvT8kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Race+and+Arab+Americans+Before+
and+After+9/11:+From+Invisible+Citizens+to+...&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwA
GoVChMI07_Wn9ngxgIVSakeCh2caA2d#v=onepage&q=Race%20and%20Arab
%20Americans%20Before%20and%20After%209%2F11%3A%20From%20Invisible
%20Citizens%20to%20...&f=false, al)
An alternative explanation focuses on racial motivations.

According to this logic, Americans in favor of infringing on
Muslim and Arab American civil liberties do so because they
hold negative views about an entire people. These
negative views are fed by a variety of misperceptions and
stereotypes. The Muslim and Arab American had
been popularly constructed as an irrational,

terror-supporting, and fanatical enemy Other
long before 9/11. American foreign policy has consistently
justified intervention in the Muslim world along similar lines.
When U.S. leaders characterize the Arab and Muslim world
as inherently undemocratic owing to fundamental value
differences between us and them, they promote an
environment of intolerance at home. Thus, the racialization of Arab and
Muslim Americans, a process decades in the making, also explains the overwhelming support
for the infringement of Arab and Muslim civil liberties (Moallem 2005). In this chapter I move
beyond the narrow phenotypical definition of racialization, wherein race relations are strictly
structured by biological differences. Rather, I adopt a larger definition of racialization that
incorporates the process of othering. More specifically here, I argue that the
racialization of Muslims and Arabs stems from the

consistent deployment of an us versus them
mentality, excessively propped up for the justification of military campaigns in the
Arab world. The racialization of Arabs and Muslims is not simply contingent on phenotypical
differences; rather, this racialization of difference is driven by a perceived clash of values and
exacerbated by cultural ethnocentrism. This process of othering is based on assumptions
about culture and religion instead of phenotype. It is not based on assumptions about culture
and religion instead of phenotype. It is not based on racial divides; instead, it conforms to the
process of racialization that has characterized the ways in which the dominant elements in
society have interacted with minority ethnic groups more generally. The racialization of Arabs
in a society that is
already constructed along racial lines, any perceived
difference between the dominant mainstream and a minority
Other tends to conform to racisms framework. This othering
and Muslims stems from two intertwined processes. First,
process lends itself to the already existing paradigm of defining oneself vis--vis other groups
along the lines of racial categories. This form of racism is not contingent on differences in
appearance but on differences in cultural attributes. These differences are exacerbated by
popular and government discourses that deem the group an enemy Other, especially after
9/11. The loyalties of the Arab and Muslim communities have consistently been questioned
since the attacks. Only 38 percent of Americans in the Detroit metro area believe that Arabs
and Muslims are doing all that they can to fight the war on terror. Muslims and Arabs across
the United States are consistently asked to apologize for 9/11, as if they were behind the
attacks. And yet, ironically, the numerous and countless condemnations emanating from
mosques and organizations in the United States that emphatically denounce the attacks have
received little media attention. Americans remain suspicious of Arabs and Muslims. When
asked whether Arabs and Muslims could be trusted, Americans in the Detroit metro area
ranked them as the least trustworthy subpopulation. Twenty percent of Americans have little or
not trust for whites; 24 percent have little or no trust for blacks, and 30 percent little or no
trust for Muslims and Arabs. Not only are Arabs and Muslims different, they are also a threat
treated with great suspicion because they are assumed to originate from the Middle East. They
are presumed to be operating against us. The binary construction of us versus them is
not new to American social relations in the United States or abroad. Racial relations in the
United States have been constructed through the binary lens of the
dominant and
the subordinate,
a legacy of the history of race relations in this country. Likewise,

the lens through which America sees the rest of the world is tinted with this dichotomy: we,
whoever and wherever we are, enjoy both cultural and moral superiority. Such interactions
with Others abroad translate into a racial logic in a U.S. home. The process of othering, be it
based on phenotype or cultural difference, therefore lends itself to racialization, particularly
when it involves attributing essentializing characteristics to the entire group. The racialization
of Arabs and Muslims, however, draws on yet another element of difference. Not only are they
different at home, but their difference is exacerbated by geopolitical realities where the United
States has utilized the construction of the Other as enemy-terrorist to justify its campaign
abroad. The second process of racialization involves the direct subordination of the minority
Other. The very process of rendering the Other inferior to white Americans, or some imagined
group of acceptable Americans, is at the heart of racialization. In the case of Muslim and Arab
Otherness is determined is through a

process by which the dominant social group claims
moral and cultural superiority in the process of producing an
Americans, the way that
essentialized, homogenous image of Muslim and Arab Americans as nonwhites who are
naturally, morally, and culturally inferior to real Americans. Terrorism, according to this logic, is
not the modus operandi of a few radical individuals, but a by-product of a larger cultural and
civilizational heritage: the Arab and Islamic Other.
Contention 2 Harms
A. The Current policy promotes Islamophobia through
Religious and Ethnic profiling
Stabile 2014
Available at:
In addition to eroding the First Amendments free speech rights of Muslims

and Middle Easterners, the FBIs informant surveillance tactics also
inappropriately target these religious and ethnic group s. Most of
the organizations designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the State
Department are Muslim or Arab groups. Many post-9/11 policies, like the
extensive detention of Muslims and Middle Easterners, indicate that the
federal government views Muslims and Middle Eastern

immigrants as potential terrorists. Popular perception of Muslims has
moved in the same direction, with huge opposition, for example, to the
construction of an Islamic community centerPark 51near the site of
the World Trade Center in New York. Other examples include state laws
banning the use of Shariah law in judicial decisions and Islamophobia rising
in the United States and abroad. By sending immigrant informants into
mosques and religious and ethnic communities with little more than a vague
directive to find terrorists, the FBI perpetuates ethnic profiling and the
conflation of Islam and terrorism. In recruiting terrorism informants from
the immigrant population, the FBI puts an ethnic and religious face
on terrorism, and perpetuates the popular perception of what terrorists
look like. Sending these informants into mosques and immigrant communities
greatly increases the chances that alleged suspects fit the

ethnic and religious stereotypes of terrorists. Put differently, if an
informant is assigned to surveil a mosque, the chances of the informant
bringing back a non-Muslim or non-Middle Eastern suspect are low.
This surveillance policy becomes a vicious cycle. The FBI recruits immigrant individuals from suspect communities to become informants,
pressures them into producing terrorism suspects that fit the popular perception of what terrorists are like, and then prosecutes these
. Ethnic and
religious profiling further alienates Muslim and Middle Eastern
communities, and deepens their mistrust for government. Additionally, by
suspected terrorists. All this reinforces the public conflation of immigrants, Muslims, Middle Easterners, and terrorists
predisposing many Americans to view Muslims, immigrants, and Middle Easterners as potential terrorist threats, ethnic and religious profiling
may also bias juries in terrorism prosecutions.97 Although suspects often claim entrapment as a defense, after 9/11 the
entrapment defense has never been successfully used in terrorism

cases. In fact, many, if not most, terrorism cases never reach the jury because the chances of successfully defending against terrorism
charges after 9/11 are almost nonexistent. Popular stereotypes concerning Muslims and Middle Easterners play a role in this. Although the use
of immigration law in recruiting informants is only one of many factors contributing to this harmful cycle, the use of coercive tactics like
immigration law to recruit informants creates a higher risk of unfounded terrorism prosecutions against innocent individuals who do not pose a
risk. Consequently, this fuels the public perception that a stereotypical terrorist is a Middle Easterner or Muslim.
To the FBI it was never meant to be actual surveillance,

its a rigged operation to create terrorists
Harris 12 (Paul Harris, 3-20-2012, "The ex-FBI informant with a change of
heart: 'There is no real hunt. It's fixed'," Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant)
Craig Monteilh says he did not balk when his FBI handlers gave him the OK to have sex with the Muslim women his undercover operation was targeting. Nor, at the time,
They said, if it would enhance the intelligence, go

ahead and have sex. So I did," Monteilh told the Guardian as he described his year
as a confidential FBI informant sent on a secret mission to infiltrate southern
Californian mosques. It is an astonishing admission that goes to the heart of
the intelligence surveillance of Muslim communities in America in the years
after 9/11. While police and FBI leaders have insisted they are acting to
defend America from a terrorist attack, civil liberties groups have insisted
they have repeatedly gone too far and treated an entire religious group as
did he shy away from recording their pillow talk. "
suspicious. Monteilh
was involved in one of the most

controversial tactics: the use of "confidential informants" in
so-called entrapment cases.
This is when suspects carry out or plot fake terrorist "attacks" at the request or under the
close supervision of an FBI undercover operation using secret informants. Often those informants have serious criminal records or are supplied with a financial motivation
to net suspects. In the case of the Newburgh Four where four men were convicted for a fake terror attack on Jewish targets in the Bronx a confidential informant offered
$250,000, a free holiday and a car to one suspect for help with the attack. In the case of the Fort Dix Five, which involved a fake plan to attack a New Jersey military base,
one informant's criminal past included attempted murder, while another admitted in court at least two of the suspects later jailed for life had not known of any plot .
Such actions have led Muslim civil rights groups to wonder if

their communities are being unfairly targeted in a spying
game that is rigged against them. Monteilh says that is
exactly what happens. "The way the FBI conducts their
operations, It is all about entrapment
There is no real hunt. It's fixed," he said.
I know the game, I know the dynamics of it. It's such a joke, a
real joke.
But Monteilh has regrets now about his involvement in
Monteilh said the FBI should

publicly apologise for his fruitless quest to root out Islamic radicals in Orange
County, though he does not hold out much hope that will happen. "They don't have the humility to admit a mistake," he said. Monteilh's story sounds like
a scheme called Operation Flex. Sitting in the kitchen of his modest home in Irvine, near Los Angeles,
something out of a pulp thriller. Under the supervision of two FBI agents the muscle-bound fitness instructor created a fictitious French-Syrian alter ego, called Farouk Aziz.
In this disguise in 2006 Monteilh started hanging around mosques in Orange County the long stretch of suburbia south of LA and pretended to convert to Islam.
He
was tasked with befriending Muslims and blanket recording their

conversations. All this information was then fed back to the FBI who told
Monteilh to act like a radical himself to lure out Islamist sympathizers. Yet, far from
succeeding, Monteilh eventually so unnerved Orange County's Muslim community that that they got a restraining order against him. In an ironic twist, they also reported
Monteilh to the FBI: unaware he was in fact working undercover for the agency. Monteilh does not look like a spy. He is massively well built, but soft-spoken and friendly. He
is 49 but looks younger. He lives in a small rented home in Irvine that blends into the suburban sprawl of southern California. Yet Monteilh knows the spying game
intimately well. By his own account Monteilh got into undercover work after meeting a group of off-duty cops working out in a gym. Monteilh told them he had spent time
in prison in Chino, serving time for passing fraudulent checks. It is a criminal past he explains by saying he was traumatised by a nasty divorce. "It was a bad time in my
life," he said. He and the cops got to talking about the criminals Monteilh had met while in Chino. The information was so useful that Monteilh says he began to work on
undercover drug and organised crime cases. Eventually he asked to work on counter-terrorism and was passed on to two FBI handlers, called Kevin Armstrong and Paul
Allen. These two agents had a mission and an alias ready-made for him. Posing as Farouk Aziz he would infiltrate local mosques and Islamic groups around Orange County.
"Paul Allen said: 'Craig, you are going to be our computer worm. Our guy that gives us the real pulse of the Muslim community in America'," Monteilh said. The operation
began simply enough. Monteilh started hanging out at mosques, posing as Aziz, and explaining he wanted to learn more about religion. In July, 2006, at the Islamic Center
Monteilh began
circulating endlessly from mosque to mosque, spending long days in prayer
or reading books or just hanging out in order to get as many people as
possible to talk to him. "Slowly I began to wear the robes, the hat, the scarf and they saw me slowly transform and growing a beard. At that
point, about three or four months later, [my FBI handlers] said: 'OK, now start to ask questions'."
Those questions were aimed at rooting out radicals. Monteilh would talk of
of Irvine, he converted to Islam. Monteilh also began attending other mosques, including the Orange County Islamic Foundation.
his curiosity over the concepts of jihad and what Muslims should do
about injustices in the world, especially where it pertained to American
foreign policy. He talked of access to weapons, a possible desire to be a
martyr and inquired after like-minded souls. It was all aimed at
trapping people in condemning statements. "The skill is that I am going to get you to say something. I am
the chats were recorded. In scenes out of a James Bond movie, Monteilh
said he sometimes wore a secret video recorder sewn into his shirt. At other
times he activated an audio recorder on his key rings. Monteilh left his keys in
offices and rooms in the mosques that he attended in the hope of recording
conversations that took place when he was not there. He did it so often that he earned a reputation with
other worshippers for being careless with his keys. The recordings were passed back to his FBI handlers
at least once a week. He also met with them every two months at a hotel room in nearby Anaheim for a more intense debriefing. Monteilh says he
was grilled on specific individuals and asked to view charts showing networks of relationships among Orange County's Muslim population. He said the
cornering you to say "jihad"," he said. Of course,
FBI had two basic aims. Firstly, they aimed to uncover potential
militants. Secondly, they could also use any information Monteilh
discovered like an affair or someone being gay to turn targeted
people into becoming FBI informants themselves. None of it seemed to
unnerve his FBI bosses, not even when he carried out a suggestion to begin seducing Muslim women and recording them. At one hotel
meeting,
agent Kevin Armstrong explained the FBI attitude towards the immense breadth of Operation Flex
by saying simply: "Kevin is God." Monteilh's own attitude evolved into something very similar. "I
and any concerns over civil rights
was untouchable. I am a felon, I am on probation and the police cannot arrest me. How empowering is that? It is very empowering. You began to have a certain arrogance
about it. It is almost taunting. They told me: 'You are an untouchable'," he said. But it was not always easy. "I started at 4am. I ended at 9.30pm. Really, it was a lot of work
Farouk took over. Craig did not exist," he said. But it was also well paid: at the peak of Operation Flex, Monteilh was earning more than $11,000 a month. But he was
Monteilh ended up traumatising the

community he was sent into. Instead of embracing calls for jihad or his questions about suicide bombers or his claims to have
wrong about being untouchable. Far from uncovering radical terror networks,
Monteilh was instead reported to the FBI as a

potentially dangerous extremist.
access to weapons,
A restraining order was also taken out against him in June 2007,
asking him to stay away from the Islamic Center of Irvine. Operation Flex was a bust and Monteilh had to kill off his life as Farouk Aziz. But the story did not end there. In
circumstances that remain murky Monteilh then sued the FBI over his treatment, claiming that they abandoned him once the operation was over. He also ended up in jail
after Irvine police prosecuted him for defrauding two women, including a former girlfriend, as part of an illegal trade in human growth hormone at fitness clubs. (Monteilh
What is not in doubt is

that Monteilh's identity later became public. In 2009 the FBI brought a case
against Ahmad Niazi, an Afghan immigrant in Orange County. The evidence
included secret recordings and even calling Osama bin Laden "an angel".
That was Monteilh's work and he outed himself to the press to the shock of
the very Muslims he had been spying on who now realised that Farouk Aziz
the radical they had reported to the FBI two years earlier had in fact been
an undercover FBI operative. Now Monteilh says he set Niazi up and the FBI
was trying to blackmail the Afghani into being an informant. "I built the whole
relationship with Niazi. Through my coercion we talked about jihad a lot," he
said. The FBI's charges against Niazi were indeed later dropped. Now Monteilh has joined an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit against the FBI. Amazingly, after
claims those actions were carried out as part of another secret string operation for which he was forced to carry the can.)
first befriending Muslim leaders in Orange County as Farouk Aziz, then betraying them as Craig Monteilh, he has now joined forces with them again to campaign for their
civil liberties.
Structural racism is a controlling impact that shapes how

violence and inequality are distributed in society, its
responsible for forms of everyday violence
Lawrence and Keleher, 2004
Chronic Disparity: Strong and Pervasive Evidence of Racial Inequalities
POVERTY OUTCOMES Structural Racism By Keith Lawrence, Aspen Institute on
Community Change and Terry Keleher, Applied Research Center at UC
Berkeley For the Race and Public Policy Conference 2004,
http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf,
/Bingham-MB
Structural Racism in the U.S. is

the normalization and legitimization of an array of
dynamics historical, cultural, institutional and
interpersonal that routinely advantage whites while
producing cumulative and chronic adverse outcomes for
people of color. It is a system of hierarchy and inequity,
primarily characterized by white supremacy the
preferential treatment, privilege and power for white people
at the expense of Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander,
Native American, Arab and other racially oppressed
people. Scope: Structural Racism encompasses the
entire system of white supremacy, diffused and infused in all
aspects of society, including our history, culture, politics,
economics and our entire social fabric. Structural Racism
is the most profound and pervasive form of racism
all other forms of racism (e.g. institutional, interpersonal,
internalized, etc.) emerge from structural racism.
Indicators/Manifestations: The key indicators of structural
racism are inequalities in power, access, opportunities,
treatment, and policy impacts and outcomes, whether they
are intentional or not. Structural racism is more difficult to
locate in a particular institution because it involves the
reinforcing effects of multiple institutions and cultural norms,
Structural Racism Definition:
past and present, continually producing new, and reproducing old forms of racism. Individual Racism:
Individual or internalized racism lies within individuals. These
are private manifestations of racism that reside inside the
individual. Examples include prejudice, xenophobia,
internalized oppression and privilege, and beliefs about race
influenced by the dominant culture. Institutional Racism
Institutional racism occurs within and between institutions.
Institutional racism is discriminatory treatment, unfair
policies and inequitable opportunities and impacts, based on
race, produced and perpetuated by institutions (schools,
mass media, etc.). Individuals within institutions take on the
power of the institution when they act in ways that
advantage and disadvantage people, based on race .
We must reject every instance of racism
Barndt 91
Joseph Barndt, Co-Director, Crossroads, DISMANTLING RACISM, 1991, p. 155156
The limitations imposed on people of color by poverty, subservience, and

powerlessness are cruel, inhuman, and unjust: the effects of uncontrolled
power privilege, and greed, which are the marks of our white prison, will
the walls of racism

can be dismantled. We are not condemned to an inexorable
fate, but are offered the vision and the possibility of
freedom. Brick by brick, stone by stone, the prison of
individual, institutional, and cultural racism can be
destroyed. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of
those who know it is time to tear down, once and for all, the
walls of racism. The danger point of self-destruction seems
to be drawing even more near. The results of centuries of national
inevitably destroy us. But we have also seen that
and worldwide conquest and colonialism, of military buildups and violent

aggression, of overconsumption and environmental destruction, may be
reaching a point of no return. A small and predominately white minority of the
global population derives its power and privilege from the suffering of the
For the sake of the world and

ourselves, we dare not allow it to continue.
vast majority of peoples of color.
B. Status quo policies create hostility with Muslim

community and increase the threat of terrorism
Stabile 2014
Available at:
Many argue that tactics like recruiting informants through immigration law and surveilling mosques are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks,
and that national security must be the nations top priority, whatever the cost. These arguments fail to recognize that when informants lack a
the FBI
with little concern for the actual gravity of the original threat posed by the
specific target and direction, the gathered intelligence does not necessarily enhance the nations security. Instead,
suspectcreates
an elaborate terrorism plot for the

surveillance targets to participate in.100 After 9/11,
many individuals who showed no signs of violence or
extremism prior to involvement with informants and
government-created plots have been prosecuted under
terrorism charges.
101 Until the informants provided the means, these individuals did not have the finances or the
proper connections to conceive and carry out these terrorism plans. Although orchestrating these plots makes the FBIs preventative stance
appear successful in the public eye, it diverts law enforcement resources from focusing on real targets. Moreover, Professor David A. Harris
claims that the unregulated use of informants in mosques and other religious and cultural settings can also do great damage because it
poses the risk of cutting off our best possible source of intelligence: the voluntary, cooperative relationships that have developed between law
Having community members report

suspicious information to the FBI may be a more
effective way of obtaining reliable terrorism intelligence
from these communities.
enforcement and Muslim communities.102
103 For example, in the few domestic terrorist prosecutions where a terrorist attack plan actually existed prior to
informant involvement, community members who had noticed something amiss were the first to alert the FBI and identify the subjects.104 In fact, since 9/11, community members have assisted law enforcement in
stopping potential terrorism plots in a number of cases.105 A recent example, the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber, shows that the attempted bombing could have been prevented had
law enforcement heeded the warnings that Abdulmutallabs father gave the CIA at the U.S. embassy in Nigeria.106 As the president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and former criminal prosecutor, David
Chiu testified regarding the Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian communities in San Francisco: [W]ithout that level of cooperation, that level of trust, everything falls apart....[S]urveillance only serves to
continue to drive wedges when cooperation is what is needed most.107 Analogous to the way informants in mosques target vulnerable individuals despite these individuals lack of connection to terrorist
organizations or predilection for extremism, a 2011 study by the Migration Policy Institute demonstrates a similar phenomenon within other communities.108 The 287(g) initiative, named after the section of the
Immigration and Nationality Act that authorized it, allows ICE to enter into memorandums of agreement with state and local law enforcement agencies, empowering these agencies to directly enforce immigration
laws.109 However, the study found that half of the jurisdictions using 287(g) did not direct their enforcement efforts toward serious or violent offenders,110 as the 287(g) initiative had originally envisioned.111
Instead, these jurisdictions sought to deport as many offenders as possible regardless of the severity of the crime.112 Study respondents believe that 287(g) program activities affect the community in distinct
and adverse ways, including by causing declines in Latino immigrant populations, [creating] avoid[ance of] public places by these populations, chang[ing] [] driving behavior, [creating] fear and mistrust of the
police and other authorities, and reduc[ing] crime reporting.113 These behaviors were more acute in jurisdictions with nontargeted enforcement, where any offense could constitute grounds for deportation.114 Just
as Latino immigrant communities became distrustful of law enforcement and withdrew from crime reporting when threatened with deportation, so did Muslim and Middle Eastern communities when threatened with
FBI surveillance of communal spaces. As the study notes, these operations can generate widespread distrust of police. Such distrust in turn prompts immigrants to change their behavior to avoid contact with police
and other authorities.115
C. Muslim being a synonym for terrorist in the status

quo means that Muslims are dehumanized others
Joshi 06
(Khyati Y. Joshi, Professor of Education at Fairleigh Dickinson University, The
Racialization of Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism in the United States, Equity &
Excellence in Education, 11/23/06,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10665680600790327, al)
The racialization of religion occurs through multiple processes, involves
multiple agents, and leads to multiple outcomes. Ultimately, racialization
results in essentialism; it reduces people to one aspect of their identity and
thereby presents a homogeneous, undifferentiated, and static view of an
ethnoreligious community. While Hinduism, Sikhism, and Islam are three
different belief systems, they share some of the major outcomes of
racialization: they are rendered theologically, morally, and socially
illegitimate. Despite this similarity of processes and often of outcomes, racialization affects each religious group that is targeted
differently. While one could argue that Christianity has been racialized through its association with whitenesswith distinctive designations for
black, Korean, or Chinese Christian congregationsthe results of racialization are different because whiteness and Christianity function as the
The construction of identity most often

involves establishing both norms and opposites, who one is involves
identifying others who are not (Pharr, 1988; Said, 1978). The process of
othering entails a dialectic of both inclusion and exclusion. By attributing
certain characteristics to a population in order to categorize and differentiate
it as an other, those who do so also establish criteria by which they
themselves are represented. Indeed, a norm and its other or others are, to a great extent, each defined by
United States racial and religious norms, respectively.3
reference to the other, by what each is not. For reasons that will become clear in the historical section that follows, it is the normative power of
whiteness and Christianity, separately and in tandem, that makes the racialization of religion an essential problem for non-white nonChristians. Thus, in order to understand the contemporary racialization of South Asian religions, we must begin by orienting ourselves
historically and socially. In the next two sections, I show how the United States has developed as a society where Christianity and whiteness
are intimately linked and where Christianity and whiteness generate social norms against which other religions and races are measured.
The concept of the other justifies violence,

stereotyping, invisibility, distortion, isolation, and
internalized oppression
Joshi 06 (Khyati Y. Joshi, Professor of Education at Fairleigh Dickinson University,
The Racialization of Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism in the United States, Equity &
Racial meaning is extended to a religion, a religious group, or a belief system that had previously been racially unclassified. Particular faiths come to be considered not for their worldwide practice by diverse
peoples, but rather in direct association with colors of skin, textures of hair, and other phenotypical features that may characterize communities of believers. The process ultimately goes beyond phenotype, and
results in a group of people being identified, based on shared ethnicity and nationality, as being of a particular religion. In the context of the historical moment, social values and political
human beings
ascribe social meaning to certain biological
characteristics in order to differentiate, to exclude,
and to dominate.
presumptions are connected to the racialized religion. Within the unique context of their own time and place,
This process occurs not in a vacuum but in specific conditions that render the distinctions relevant in a particular
historical
moment. Because racial systems of classification are intimately linked to systems of power and authority, these social categories take on everyday importance in social, ideological, and economic
contexts. Most obviously, they become fodder for those who perpetuate physical violence based on race. Bu t
more subtly, these categories become a part of our cultural vocabulary: our shared
the racialization of Islam

intersects with the Wests encounters with enemies
whose ideological identity is intimately linked to their
interpretation and use of Islam.
assumptions, our media buzz, and our humor. In the present day, for example,
As a result, brown-skinned, non-Christian Americans become more (or less) than just an other
within the society; they become an other who is associated with a foreign enemy. They go from merely being a minority to being viewed as a potential fifth column10 due to their presumed connection with and
loyalty to this enemy. The impact of this process on South Asian Americanson those unlucky adults who have been beaten or slain in post-September 11 backlash attacks and on those many children and
The
racialization of religion locates certain religious
populations within the social strata of U.S. society by
applying ideological forces in conjunction with social and
political relations of domination .
adolescents who must laugh off or fight back against assumptions that they or their relatives are affiliated with terrorismare described in greater detail in the next section.
The racialization of Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism has Orientalist
underpinnings (Said, 1978).11 American society created an image of South Asiannessand of the South Asian religions before it even encountered them physically. The
writings of the Transcendentalists Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, both of whose more philosophical works were influenced by the Bhagavad Gita, were the
vehicle for this encounter (Eck, 2001). The West created the East as a site of difference. . . reified in the anthropological mode where strange tongues, other beliefs, [and] centuries old (read unchanging) religions. .
. mark out the community (Hutnyk, 1999, p. 132). In an early example of Americans conflating immigrants religions with their place of origin, 17th-century Sikh immigrants were known as Hindoos (Jensen,
1988). The sense of danger that historically characterized Europes post-Crusade view of the Muslim world was again projected onto Muslim immigrants. Meanwhile, Britains approach to Hindu-majority India,
always characterized by sentiments more proprietary than conflict-laden (Said, 1978), was transformed into the new American commodification of things Indian. Islam, Hinduism, and Sikhism therefore become not
and Muslims, Hindus, and

and thereby diminished in
merely non-Christian they become the villainous, anachronistic religions of the East. Both Indians as a race and ethnicity
Sikhs as religions were othered

the American minds eye. This othering, in turn, has
consequences for these minority groups in the U.S .
South Asian Americans face what Pharr (1988)
identifies as the common elements of oppression; In relation to a defined norm, which both buttresses and is buttressed by institutional and economic power, out-group members suffer violence and the threat of
violence, stereotyping, invisibility, distortion, isolation, and internalized oppression. In the act of defining Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism as deviant, and thereby excluding them from society, white American
enables individual
members of the in group to rationalize (and to perpetuate) the
Christians represent themselves as benevolent. This in/out group phenomenon reinforces Christian hegemony at the institutional and cultural levels, and
exclusion of religious others.
Dehumanization outweighs all

Montagu and Matson 83
Esteemed Scientist and Writer; and Professor of American Studies at University of
Hawaii [Ashley and Floyd, The dehumanization of man, http://64.233.187.104/search?
q=cache:hnDfqSFkJJwJ:www.cross-x.com/vb/archive/index.php/t939595.html+montagu+matson+dehumanization&hl=en]
The contagion is unknown to science and unrecognized by medicine

(psychiatry aside); yet its wasting symptoms are plain for all to see and its
lethal effects are everywhere on display. It neither kills outright nor inflicts
apparent physical harm, yet the extent of its destructive toll is already
greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -and its potential damage to the quality of human life and the fabric of
civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason, this sickness of the
soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. Its more
conventional name, of course, is dehumanization
Contention 3 Solvency
A. Ending unfettered Status Quo Informant Policy leads
to cooperation with Muslim Community
Said, 2010
Said, Wadie E. Professor of Law, graduate of Princeton University and the
Columbia University School of Law, where he served as an articles editor of
the Columbia Human Rights Law Review."The terrorist informant."
Washington Law Review 85.4 (2010): 687+. Academic OneFile. Web. 28 June
2015. /Bingham-MB
Perhaps the main difficulty with trying to reform the

entrapment defense to curtail informant excesses is that
many informant-driven prosecutions reflect entrenched
institutional and societal prejudices. The time has almost
certainly come to call for not merely a curative or more
objective version of entrapment doctrine, but rather a halt
to the policy of using informants to investigate
terrorism-related cases where no articulable
suspicion exists. That is not to say that informants cannot play a role
in helping create that legally required suspicion, but rather that it is both
dangerous and unjust to allow them to play the same role as
an undercover officer (302) without providing genuine
oversight by agents who have some understanding of the
language, culture, and motivations of the community from
which a suspect originates. None of the prosecutions discussed here
involved a supervising agent who seemed to have had any linguistic, cultural,
or regional expertise that the agent could have used to challenge an
Even in cases where a defendant's

links to or knowledge of terrorism exist independently of the
informant, the discretionless use of informants is too
problematic to justify its existence. (303) Given that
informant use preys on groups that have been racialized as
terrorists, the use of informants in its current form
should end, much like what happened to the FBI's
COINTELPRO operation, which featured similar use of
informant's version of events.
informants to spy on dissident groups within the United

States in the 1960s and 1970s. (304) Then, as now, informants
often acted as provocateurs who drummed up prosecutions for crimes that
would not have existed but for their involvement. The use of cooperators,
however controversial in its own right, involves, at least in theory, a criminal
conspiracy already in existence, not one that an informant created. Stated
there is a vast difference between 1) sending

someone who has no law enforcement training to look for
people from the Arab and Muslim community to see if they
would be interested in a vaguely defined terrorist plot
(especially when the informant offers money in return) and
2) enlisting an individual who was once part of a conspiracy
or group to offer inside information (even if for money). The
former operates in the hopes that focusing on a particular
community will uncover terrorism, based on a general
stereotype that that community has a propensity to engage
in such activity. Theoretically, the latter at the very least has some inside
information that would reflect the existence of terrorist activity. Calling for
an end to the use of informants in terrorism prosecutions
should not be perceived as drastic. The vast majority of
Arabs and Muslims in the United States are not terrorists and
the law generally disfavors guilt by association. (305)
Furthermore, a recent study indicates that MuslimAmericans are eager to cooperate with law
enforcement when they perceive the police to be a
legitimate authority whose practices are imbued with
fairness and procedural justice. (306) It is axiomatic that
voluntary cooperation from the Muslim community with law
enforcement to combat suspicious activity would be far
superior to the current informant-driven practice. Eliminating
informant use would certainly go a long way toward
enhancing law enforcement's legitimacy in the eyes of the
Arab and Muslim communities, but will require a hard look at the
differently,
preconceived notions fueling the phenomenon.
B. Trust is key to solve terrorism, reforms are key to

Muslim cooperation
Risen, 2014
Tom Risen, technology and business reporter for U.S. News & World Report, 79-2014, Racial Profiling Reported in NSA, FBI Surveillance," US News & World
Report, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/07/09/racial-profilingreported-in-nsa-fbi-surveillance, Accessed: 6-28-2015, /Bingham-MB
There is a risk of radicalization among citizens Americans,

evidenced by some who have gone to fight jihads in Syria
and Somalia, but mass shootings carried out by U.S. citizens of various
racial backgrounds occurs much more often, says Vanda Felbab-Brown, a
senior fellow on foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. Since 1982, there
We have seen
very little domestic terrorism in the U.S., FelbabBrown says. This lack of terrorism is due in part to the
willingness of the Islamic community to cooperate
with law enforcement to identify possible radical threats,
out of gratitude that the U.S. is a stable, secure country
compared with the Middle East, she says. That could go
sour if law enforcement becomes too aggressive, too
extreme, she says. The FBIs ability to spy on U.S. citizens
even government employees and those without criminal records will
expand this summer when its new facial recognition
database becomes fully operational. The new database
called Next Generation Identification system, or NGI, will
include photos of anybody who sends images as part of an
application for a job that requires fingerprinting or a
background check. The Muslim-Americans monitored by the
government included Nihad Awad, the executive director and
have been at least 70 mass shootings across the U.S.
founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim advocacy and

civil rights organizations. The group has been represented by the Electronic
Frontier Foundation represents the CAIR Foundation in a case challenging the
NSAs mass collection of Americans call records. These disclosures yet
demonstrate the need for ongoing public attention to

the governments activities to ensure that its surveillance
stays within the bounds of law and the Constitution,
said a blog post from EFF Staff Attorney Mark Rumold. And they once
again
again demonstrate the need for immediate and

comprehensive surveillance law reform."
C. Status quo surveillance policies create a chilling effect
on Muslim American populations. Only adopting a strict
scrutiny standard for domestic surveillance solves.
Shahabuddin 15 (Madiha Shahabuddin, JD, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law,
May 2015; BA, University of California, Irvine, "The More Muslim You Are, the More Trouble You Can Be:
How Government Surveillance of Muslim Americans Violates First Amendment Rights, Chapman Law
Review 18 Chap. L. Rev. 577, Spring, 2015, SMahajan)
Muslim American Associational Rights Infringed The jurisprudence on

associational rights discussed above provides a few key methods of first assessing
whether government conduct rises to the kind of level that merits strict
scrutiny, and then deciding whether the compelling interest and narrowly tailored
elements of the strict scrutiny test itself are met. As established by case law,
government conduct that may have the effect of curtailing the
freedom to associate should be subjected to strict scrutiny .108 Such
effects have included economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of
physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility . 109 The Ninth
Circuit provided more relevant examples of suppression of religious
expression, including (1) withdrawal by congregants from actively
participating, (2) decline in financial support or donations , (3) congregants
reluctance in seeking religious counseling or being open during prayer , (4)
diversion of clergies or religious leaders time from congregation duties to
dealing with the effects of surveillance , and (5) fear or apprehension of
conversations being bugged (recorded), which have a negative impact on
congregants morale.110 Muslim American surveillance has exhibited
similarly chilling effects on mosque-goers, demonstrating the need for
strict scrutiny application of the government programs aimed at
widespread Muslim surveillance. Like the curtailment the Court found in Patterson,
Muslim Americans in regions like the East Coast have also suffered from the loss of
business; diminished or affected employment opportunities ;111 other
manifestations of public hostility such as stigma;112 and the enabling or
furthering justification of hate crimes against Muslims 113 because of the specter left
upon the Muslim community in the wake of media reports of NYPD surveillance.114 Moreover, the
surveillance of Muslims has placed a particularly ominous mark on the
community through the governments use of informants to infiltrate mosques ,
Muslim Student Associations on college campuses, and the Muslim
community in general.
D. Multicultural education can deconstruct the other to

rid ourselves of prejudice. Jackie C. Horne The Lion and the Unicorn.
Volume 34, Number 1, January 2010. Harry and the Other: Answering the Race
Question in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter
The most common takes the form of multicultural antiracism,

an approach that affirms the value of diversity as a method
of combating racial oppression. Since the late 1980s,
learning about and celebrating other cultures has become a
cornerstone of educational practice in many British,
Canadian, and American schools. The goal of such
multicultural education is not simply to become
familiar with the traditions of other cultures, but to
"enable empathy," to "generat[e] cross-cultural
understanding and solidarity," enabling students to
"see things from others' point of view" (Bonnett 9495).
Part of this understanding stems from the creation of
"positive racial images" (97); celebrating Black
History Month, teaching about the role of Islamic
scholars in the development of early mathematics, or
learning about the Navajo who worked as
codebreakers for the U.S. Army during World War II
would all be examples of multicultural antiracism practice.
proponents of multiculturalism believe that, by learning
about the culture of other races, or learning about
positive role models of members of previously
ignored groups, students will learn to rid themselves
of their prejudices, which in turn will lead to a more
egalitarian world.
E. When modified the S6 Visa and congressional oversight
serves the security interests of the United States
Stabile 2014
Available at:
Offering S-6 visas to immigrant informants with established

connections to terrorist organizations in exchange for their
cooperation would be a legitimate way for the FBI to reward these
informants. Further, informants would be able to rely on the FBIs
promise and seek review should the agreement go awry. Gaining

informants trust and lessening the coercive aspect of
recruitment would lead to more trustworthy intelligence,
and thereby enhance national security. A larger but less
committed group of informants characterized by the current
underused S-6 visa programdoes the country little good.
Likewise, the indiscriminate and widespread surveillance
of Muslims and Middle Easterners damages American
communities and reifies assumptions and stereotypes
about terrorists identities and backgrounds. These
assumptions may also blind law enforcement to real threats
taking place in non- Muslim or non-Middle Eastern communities.
Expanding and modifying the use of S-6 visas would turn a small,
poorly designed program into a helpful law enforcement tool that
better procures reliable intelligence. Furthermore, providing
more oversight for FBI informant use and restricting
practices that contribute to ethnic and religious profiling would
improve Muslim and Middle Eastern communities
confidence in and cooperation with the government. This,
in turn, would encourage communities to effectively work with
law enforcement and report suspicious activities. Information
offered from within a community is more likely to be accurate,272
leading to more counterterrorism prosecutions that enhance
national security and less waste of law enforcement resources on
bogus threats.273 In the end, only Congress can reform the S-6
visa program to better effectuate the laws aim of rewarding
informants and procuring credible intelligence on real threats.
Reform would allow the FBI to more efficiently channel its
resources, and would afford informants a fairer
agreement changes that would better serve the security
interests of the United States
G. Reformed congressional Oversight it vital to

intelligence and to combat executive circumvention

)
I understand full well that a separate Appropriations subcommittee on intelligence may not be the preference of this Committee. It was not
the recommendation of the commission. But ways have to be found to bring greater focus and additional resources to the oversight of
increase the opportunity

and likelihood of robust congressional oversight of the intelligence
community. Let me give you some practical examples as to why oversight
of the intelligence community is more important than ever and why
congressional oversight must be reformed and strengthened. First, the
United States will without a doubt intervene again somewhere with military
force. It may be the most important foreign policy question of the coming
decades. Decisions whether to intervene and how to intervene will ride
largely on what the intelligence tells us. It is vitally important that the
intelligence community get it right. Oversight is vitally important to
help the community get it right. Second, the Congress since 9/11 has provided broad authorities to the
executive branch to conduct investigations and collect data .
Enhanced collection capabilities and data mining pose high risks to
civil liberties and to privacy. To safeguard our liberties, the
Congress must conduct robust oversight over the exercise of the
authorities it has granted. Third, the success of reform also needs
congressional oversight. Reform in the intelligence community, the most far reaching since 1947, is not easy to
implement. Reform is a long and hard road. Crises distract, attention wavers, senior officials are pulled in 100 different directions . The
executive cannot carry out reform on its own. Support and guidance from the Congress are
necessary to sustain reform. Sustained oversight is necessary
intelligence appropriations. Governor Kean and I will support reforms and structures that
. Chairman Rockefeller requested comment from us with regard to this very
difficult question of access to information. That's not a new problem in the Congress. That goes back 30, maybe 40 years, when the committees have been fighting for more information from the intelligence
community. When I was Chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the House, we fought that battle every single week. It has not been resolved. I don't know the answer to that except the only way to get the
attention of the executive is to withhold the money. You'll get their attention quick when that money is withheld. The checks and balances in the Constitution are there for the Senators and the Members to
exercise, if they will do it. If you want access to information and the executive branch won't give it to you--don't give them the money. You'll get the information. To conclude, let me just say that, under our
Constitution, Congress cannot play its proper role unless its oversight committees are powerful and active. I was immensely pleased to hear a moment ago that you have had over 60, I think it was, oversight
hearings during this year thus far. That shows a vitality and activity that I think is just extraordinary on the part of this Committee and you are to be commended for it. Strong oversight provides the checks and
balances our Constitution requires. Strong oversight by the Congress protects our liberties .
Under our Constitution, Congress cannot play its proper role unless its
oversight committees are powerful and active . Strong oversight provides the checks and balances our
Constitution requires. Strong oversight by the Congress protects our liberties
and makes our policies better. Strong oversight keeps our country
safe and free. I appreciate your time and attention, and look forward to your questions.
After our plan is passed we will:

1. End the discriminatory Informant policy and replace it
with both strict scrutiny and the S-6 Visa policy
2. End the Dehumanization of the 15,000 Current Muslim
Informants (Strict Scrutiny and Congressional oversight)
3. Take Significant steps to end the dehumanization of the
Muslim Community by taking away a tool used to otherize,
discriminate, and create stereotypes against them (Strict
Scrutiny)
4. Gain better intelligence to combat real terrorism
through both the S-6 Visa as well as the trust repaired
with the Muslim Community. (S-6, Strict Scrutiny)
5. Create better oversight of the FBI to combat
circumvention (Congressional Oversight)
6. Combat Islamophobia by bringing it up in a debate
space and beginning to deconstruct its causes. (Plan)
Contention 4: Framework
We advocate a critical praxis centered on challenging
Islamophobic domestic surveillance policies.
A. A vote affirmative is an ethical stance taken by the
judge to refuse Islamophobia- every affirmation of our
project is key to the process of activism, awareness. the
only productive start is challenging the culture of the
American security state
Kundnani and Kumar 2015 [Arun (professor @ NYU, and author on domestic
surveillance) and Deepa (professor of Middle East Studies @ Rutgers), Spring 2015, Race, surveillance,
and empire, http://isreview.org/issue/96/race-surveillance-and-empire, Accessed 7/14/15, AX]
What brings together these different systems of racial oppressionmass

incarceration, mass surveillance, and mass deportationis a security logic
that holds the imperial state as necessary to keeping American families
(coded white) safe from threats abroad and at home. The ideological work of
the last few decades has cultivated not only racial security fears but also an
assumption that the security state is necessary to keep us safe. In this sense,
security has become the new psychological wage to aid the reallocation of
the welfare states social wage toward homeland security and to win support for
empire in the age of neoliberalism. Through the notion of security, social and
economic anxieties generated by the unraveling of the Keynesian social
compact have been channeled toward the Black or Brown street criminal,
welfare recipient, or terrorist. In addition, as Susan Faludi has argued, since 9/11, this
homeland in need of security has been symbolized, above all, by the white
domestic hearth of the prefeminist fifties, once again threatened by mythical frontier
enemies, hidden subversives, and racial aggressors. That this idea of the homeland
coincides culturally with the denigration of capable women, the magnification of manly men, the
heightened call for domesticity, the search for and sanctification of helpless girls points to the ways it is
gendered as well as racialized.67 The post-Snowden debate The mechanisms of surveillance outlined in
this essay were responses to political struggles of various kindsfrom anticolonial insurgencies to slave
Surveillance practices themselves

have also often been the target of organized opposition. In the 1920s and
1970s, the surveillance state was pressured to contract in the face of public
disapproval. The antiwar activists who broke into an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971
rebellions, labor militancy to anti-imperialist agitation.
and stole classified documents managed to expose COINTELPRO, for instance, leading to its shut down.
(But those responsible for this FBI program were never brought to justice for their activities and similar
techniques continued to be used later against, for example in the 1980s, the American Indian Movement,
and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador.68) Public concern about state surveillance
in the 1970s led to the Church committee report on government spying and the Handschu guidelines that
regulated the New York Police Departments spying on political activities .
Those concerns began

to be swept aside in the 1980s with the War on Drugs and, especially, later
with the War on Terror. While significant sections of the public may have
consented to the security state, those who have been among its greatest
victimsthe radical Left, antiwar activists, racial justice and Black liberation
campaigners, and opponents of US foreign policy in Latin America and the
Middle Eastunderstand its workings. Today, we are once again in a period of
revelation, concern, and debate on national security surveillance. Yet if real

change is to be brought about, the racial history of surveillance will need to
be fully confrontedor opposition to surveillance will once again be easily
defeated by racial security narratives. The significance of the Snowden leaks is that they
have laid out the depth of the NSAs mass surveillance with the kind of proof that only an insider can have.
The result has been a generalized level of alarm as people have become aware of how
intrusive surveillance is in our society, but that alarm remains constrained within a public
debate that is highly abstract, legalistic, and centered on the privacy
rights of the white middle class. On the one hand, most civil liberties
advocates are focused on the technical details of potential legal
reforms and new oversight mechanisms to safeguard privacy. Such
initiatives are likely to bring little change because they fail to
confront the racist and imperialist core of the surveillance system. On
the other hand, most technologists believe the problem of government
surveillance can be fixed simply by using better encryption tools. While
encryption tools are useful in increasing the resources that a government agency would need to
monitor an individual, they do nothing to unravel the larger surveillance apparatus.
Meanwhile, executives of US tech corporations express concerns about loss of sales to foreign customers
what should be a debate

about basic political freedoms is simply a question of corporate profits .69
Another and perhaps deeper problem is the use of images of state surveillance
that do not adequately fit the current situation such as George Orwells discussion of
concerned about the privacy of data. In Washington and Silicon Valley,
totalitarian surveillance. Edward Snowden himself remarked that Orwell warned us of the dangers of the
type of government surveillance we face today.70 Reference to Orwells 1984 has been widespread in the
current debate; indeed, sales of the book were said to have soared following Snowdens revelations.71 The
argument that digital surveillance is a new form of Big Brother is, on one level, supported by the evidence.
For those in certain targeted groupsMuslims, left-wing campaigners, radical

journalistsstate surveillance certainly looks Orwellian . But this level of
scrutiny is not faced by the general public. The picture of surveillance today is therefore
quite different from the classic images of surveillance that we find in Orwells 1984, which assumes an
What we have
instead today in the United States is total
surveillance, not on everyone, but on very specific
groups of people, defined by their race, religion, or
political ideology: people that NSA officials refer to as
the bad guys. In March 2014, Rick Ledgett, deputy director of the NSA, told an audience:
undifferentiated mass population subject to government control.
Contrary to some of the stuff thats been printed, we dont sit there and grind out metadata profiles of
average people. If youre not connected to one of those valid intelligence targets, you are not of interest to
us.72 In the national security world, connected to can be the basis for targeting a whole racial or
national
security surveillance can draw entire communities into its web, while
reassuring average people (code for the normative white middle class) that
they are not to be troubled. In the eyes of the national security state, this
average person must also express no political views critical of the status quo.
Better oversight of the sprawling national security apparatus and greater use of
encryption in digital communication should be welcomed. But by themselves these are likely to do
little more than reassure technologists, while racialized populations and
political dissenters continue to experience massive surveillance. This is why the
political community so, even assuming the accuracy of this comment, it points to the ways that
most effective challenges to the national security state have come

not from legal reformers or technologists but from grassroots
campaigning by the racialized groups most affected. In New York, the
campaign against the NYPDs surveillance of Muslims has drawn its strength
from building alliances with other groups affected by racial profiling: Latinos
and Blacks who suffer from hugely disproportionate rates of stop and frisk. In
Californias Bay Area, a campaign against a Department of Homeland Security-funded Domain
Awareness Center was successful because various constituencies were able to
unite on the issue, including homeless people, the poor, Muslims, and Blacks .
Similarly, a demographics unit planned by the Los Angeles Police Department, which would have profiled
communities on the basis of race and religion, was shut down after a campaign that united various groups
while the national security

state aims to create fear and to divide people,
activists can organize and build alliances across race
lines to overcome that fear. To the extent that the national
defined by race and class. The lesson here is that,
security state has targeted Occupy, the antiwar movement, environmental

rights activists, radical journalists and campaigners, and whistleblowers,
these groups have gravitated towards opposition to the national security
state. But understanding the centrality of race and empire to national security
surveillance means finding a basis for unity across different groups who
experience similar kinds of policing: Muslim, Latino/a, Asian, Black, and white
dissidents and radicals. It is on such a basis that we can see the beginnings
of an effective multiracial opposition to the surveillance state and empire.
B. Discussing and interrogating Islamophobia in an

educational space such as debate is a gateway to larger
political actions.
Housee 12, Senior Lecturer in Sociology
[Jan. 04 2012, Shirin Housee works at the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences, University
of Wolverhampton, UK Whats the point? Anti-racism and students voices against Islamophobia, Volume
15, Issue 1]
that the
work of anti-racism in university classrooms is fundamentally important . As one
Having reflected on the two seminar sessions on Islamophobia and the student comments, I am convinced
student said racism is real. Through racism people suffer physically, psychologically, socially, educationally and politically.
Our work in university classrooms is just the beginning of this challenge

against racisms and other oppressions. Classroom
discussions and
general teaching form a very important contribution to
this work of anti racism in education. There are no short cuts or painless cuts;
the work of anti-racism is a difficult one. As educators we should make use of classroom exchanges; students engaged
learning could be the key to promoting anti-racism in our class. My goal is to teach in a way that engages students and
leads them to reflect on the socio-economic political/religions issues that surrounds theirs (our) lives. This article argues
The student voice, that critiques

mainstream thinking as found in the media and
for making anti-racist thinking possible in class.
elsewhere, is a starting point for this political work . I argue

that teaching and learning in our classroom should encourage the critical
consciousness necessary for pursuing social justice. Whilst I acknowledge the limits of doing
anti-racist campaign in university spaces, I argue that this is a good starting point. And who knows,
these educational exchanges may become (as with my own story) the awakening for
bigger political projects against injustices in our society . In conclusion I endorse social
justice advocates, such as Cunningham (cited in Johnson-Bailey 2002, 43) who suggest that educators re-direct classroom
practices and the curriculum, because: if
we are not working for equity in our teaching and

learning environments, theneducators are inadvertently maintaining the
status quo. In conclusion I argue that a classroom where critical race exchanges and
dialogues take place is a classroom where students and teachers can be
transformed. Transformative social justice education calls on people to
develop social, political and personal awareness of the damages of racism
and other oppressions. I end by suggesting that in the current times of Islamophobic racism, when racist
attacks are a daily occurrence, in August and September 2010 alone, nearly 30 people have been racially abused and
physically attacked (Institute of Race Relations 2010).
The point of studying racism, therefore, is
to rise to the anti-racist challenge, and for me, a place to start this campaign is within Higher
Education Institutions, optimistic as it might sound, I believe, as asserted by Sheridan (cited in Van Driel 2004) that:
Education
can enlighten students and promote positive attitudes .
Education settings can be the first arena in which battles

can be fought against Islamophobia. It is to education that our
attention should be directed.
C. Education in debate is critical to begin deconstructing

Islamophobia we need engaged dialogue on the question
of discrimination in order to challenge internal
stereotypes and ignorance
Esposito 11 (John L. Esposito, Professor of Religion and International Affairs and of Islamic Studies
and Founding Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the
Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, Islamophobia and the Challenges of Pluralism
in the 21st Century, January 6 2011,
http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/docs/ACMCU_Islamophobia_txt_99.pdf)
9/11 made the international community more aware of the critical importance
of intercivilizational dialogue. Governments in Europe and America, the Muslim world and
beyond as well as international organizations like the United Nations and Organization of the Islamic
Conference have undertaken serious efforts to promote intercivilizational dialogue. The World Economic
Forum created the Council of 100 Leaders (political, religion, intellectual, and media) and the U.N. the
Centers like Georgetown Universitys Prince Alwaleed Bin

Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, promote a better
understanding between the Muslim world and the West, have been active in
Washington and globally, speaking, briefing, and writing for a broad audience
of university, government, media and corporate audiences. Education in our
schools, universities and seminaries (not just madrasas) as well as our churches and synagogues that
train the next generation of policymakers, religious leaders, educators, and
citizens is critical. Attempts to limit public discourse and debate,
silence alternative voices in America and Europe who speak out
Alliance of Civilizations.
against ignorance, stereotyping and demonization of Islam,

discrimination, hate crimes or threats to the civil liberties of Muslims
must be turned back. Some are attacked in the media and on Islamophobic websites. Would
this discourse and these actions be tolerated if Christianity or Judaism were the targets? Islamophobia
can have serious consequences on foreign policy. Americas policy in Iraq,
from war to post-war reconstruction, was affected by the extent to which
Islam and Muslim religious leaders, and Shii Islam in particular, were seen
through the distorted lens of Khomeini/Iranian revolutionary
fundamentalism. Therefore, the potential roles of Shii religious leaders and institutions were
unforeseen or underestimated, and then feared; the belief that Iranian Shii would control Iraqi Shii, leading
to a Qom-Najaf axis, failed to appreciate and understand the diversity of Shii leadership.
By voting affirmative you as a judge are rewarding the

Affs efforts to both reject racism as well as challenge the
current Islamophobic policies and mindsets in an
educational setting such as debate
1AC- Ashok
What brings together these different systems of racial

oppressionmass incarceration, mass surveillance, and mass deportation
is a security logic that holds the imperial state as
necessary to keeping American families (coded white) safe
from threats abroad and at home. The ideological work of the last
few decades has cultivated not only racial security fears but also
an assumption that the security state is necessary to keep
us safe. In this sense, security has become the new
psychological wage to aid the reallocation of the welfare
states social wage toward homeland security and to win
support for empire in the age of neoliberalism. Through the
notion of security, social and economic anxieties generated by the unraveling
of the Keynesian social compact have been channeled toward the Black or
Brown street criminal, welfare recipient, or terrorist. In addition, as Susan Faludi has
argued,
since 9/11,
this homeland in need of security has been
symbolized, above all, by the white domestic hearth of the prefeminist fifties, once
again threatened by mythical frontier enemies , hidden subversives,
and racial aggressors. That this idea of the homeland coincides culturally with the denigration of
capable women, the magnification of manly men, the heightened call for domesticity, the search for and
sanctification of helpless girls points to the ways it is gendered as well as racialized.67 The post-Snowden
debate The mechanisms of surveillance outlined in this essay were responses to political struggles of
various kindsfrom anticolonial insurgencies to slave rebellions, labor militancy to anti-imperialist
Surveillance practices themselves have also often been the target of

organized opposition. In the 1920s and 1970s, the surveillance state was
pressured to contract in the face of public disapproval. The antiwar activists who broke
agitation.
into an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971 and stole classified documents managed to expose
COINTELPRO, for instance, leading to its shut down. (But those responsible for this FBI program were never
brought to justice for their activities and similar techniques continued to be used later against, for example
in the 1980s, the American Indian Movement, and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El
Salvador.68) Public concern about state surveillance in the 1970s led to the Church committee report on
government spying and the Handschu guidelines that regulated the New York Police Departments spying
on political activities.
Those concerns began to be swept aside in the 1980s with
While
significant sections of the public may have consented to the
security state, those who have been among its greatest
the War on Drugs and, especially, later with the War on Terror.

Middle Eastunderstand its workings. Today, we are once again in a
period of revelation, concern, and debate on national security surveillance.
if real change is to be brought about, the racial history of

surveillance will need to be fully confrontedor opposition to
surveillance will once again be easily defeated by racial
security narratives. The significance of the Snowden leaks is that they have laid out the
Yet
depth of the NSAs mass surveillance with the kind of proof that only an insider can have.
has been a
The result
generalized level of alarm as people have become aware of how
but that alarm remains constrained within a public

intrusive surveillance is in our society,
encryption
tools
are useful in increasing the resources that a government agency would need
do nothing to unravel the larger

surveillance apparatus. Meanwhile, executives of US tech corporations express concerns
to monitor an individual,
they
about loss of sales to foreign customers concerned about the privacy of data. In Washington and Silicon
what should be a debate about basic political freedoms is simply a

question of corporate profits.69 Another and perhaps deeper problem is the use of
images of state surveillance that do not adequately fit the current situation
Valley,
such as George Orwells discussion of totalitarian surveillance. Edward Snowden himself remarked that
Orwell warned us of the dangers of the type of government surveillance we face today.70 Reference to
Orwells 1984 has been widespread in the current debate; indeed, sales of the book were said to have
soared following Snowdens revelations.71 The argument that digital surveillance is a new form of Big
For those in certain targeted groups

Muslims, left-wing campaigners, radical journalistsstate surveillance
certainly looks Orwellian. But this level of scrutiny is not faced by the general
public. The picture of surveillance today is therefore quite different from the classic images of
Brother is, on one level, supported by the evidence.
surveillance that we find in Orwells 1984, which assumes an undifferentiated mass population subject to
What we have instead today in the United

States is total surveillance, not on everyone, but on
very specific groups of people, defined by their race,
religion, or political ideology: people that NSA
officials refer to as the bad guys. In March 2014, Rick Ledgett, deputy
government control.
director of the NSA, told an audience: Contrary to some of the stuff thats been printed, we dont sit there
and grind out metadata profiles of average people. If youre not connected to one of those valid
intelligence targets, you are not of interest to us.72 In the national security world, connected to can be
the basis for targeting a whole racial or political community so, even assuming the accuracy of this
national security surveillance can draw entire

communities into its web, while reassuring average people (code for the
normative white middle class) that they are not to be troubled. In the eyes of
the national security state, this average person must also express no political
comment, it points to the ways that
views critical of the status quo. Better oversight of the sprawling national
security apparatus and greater use of encryption in digital communication should be welcomed. But
reassure technologists,
while racialized populations and political dissenters continue
to experience massive surveillance. This is why the most
effective challenges to the national security state
have come not from legal reformers or technologists
but from grassroots campaigning by the racialized
groups most affected. In New York, the campaign against
the NYPDs surveillance of Muslims has drawn its strength
from building alliances with other groups affected by racial
profiling: Latinos and Blacks who suffer from hugely disproportionate rates
by themselves these
are likely to do little more than
of stop and frisk. In Californias Bay Area, a campaign against a Department of Homeland
Security-funded Domain Awareness Center was successful because various
constituencies were able to unite on the issue, including homeless people,
the poor, Muslims, and Blacks. Similarly, a demographics unit planned by the Los Angeles Police
Department, which would have profiled communities on the basis of race and religion, was shut down after
while
the national security state aims to create fear and to
divide people, activists can organize and build
alliances across race lines to overcome that fear. To the
a campaign that united various groups defined by race and class. The lesson here is that,
extent that the national security state has targeted Occupy, the antiwar
movement, environmental rights activists, radical journalists and
campaigners, and whistleblowers, these groups have gravitated towards
opposition to the national security state. But understanding the centrality of
race and empire to national security surveillance means finding a basis for
unity across different groups who experience similar kinds of policing: Muslim,
Latino/a, Asian, Black, and white dissidents and radicals. It is on such a basis
that we can see the beginnings of an effective multiracial opposition to the
surveillance state and empire.

political actions.
15, Issue 1]
that the

discussions and


Education


9/11 made the international community more aware of the

critical importance of intercivilizational dialogue. Governments in
Europe and America, the Muslim world and beyond as well as international organizations like the United
Nations and Organization of the Islamic Conference have undertaken serious efforts to promote
intercivilizational dialogue. The World Economic Forum created the Council of 100 Leaders (political,
Centers like
Georgetown Universitys Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for
Muslim-Christian Understanding, promote a better
understanding between the Muslim world and the West, have
been active in Washington and globally, speaking, briefing,
and writing for a broad audience of university, government,
media and corporate audiences. Education in our schools,
religion, intellectual, and media) and the U.N. the Alliance of Civilizations.
that train the

next generation of policymakers, religious leaders, educators, and citizens is
critical. Attempts to limit public discourse and debate, silence
alternative voices in America and Europe who speak out against
ignorance, stereotyping and demonization of Islam, discrimination,
hate crimes or threats to the civil liberties of Muslims must be
turned back. Some are attacked in the media and on Islamophobic websites. Would this discourse
universities and seminaries (not just madrasas) as well as our churches and synagogues
Islamophobia can
have serious consequences on foreign policy. Americas
policy in Iraq, from war to post-war reconstruction, was
affected by the extent to which Islam and Muslim religious
leaders, and Shii Islam in particular, were seen through the
distorted lens of Khomeini/Iranian revolutionary
and these actions be tolerated if Christianity or Judaism were the targets?

Plan
The United States federal government will substantially
curtail its domestic surveillance by limiting the
governments use of informants in Muslim communities.
These limits will be implemented in 3 specific planks.
4. Plan will reform Congressional Oversight of the FBIs
Domestic Terrorist Informants and Judicial Oversight
of the Section 6 Visa program
5. A strict scrutiny standard will be required to
conduct all Muslim informant operations.
6. The United States will no longer threaten deportation
of Muslim informants and instead grant them Section
6 Visa protection with an explanation of the program.
Contention 2 Inherency
Stabile 2014
Available at:


17
18
Attorney
Stephen Downs of Project SALAM explained, Community life is shattered as the government often forces Muslim immigrants to spy on their
own communities or give false testimony with the threat that the Muslims immigration status will be revised if the Muslims do not
cooperate. Such practices generate fear and alienation in the Muslim community and diminish our security rather than enhance it.19
individuals may
feel they must offer up something to the government to
avoid being removed from their families, jobs, and lives.
As Downs notes, the intelligence these informants provide can be unreliable,20 because these
The threat of false intelligence is grave. In addition to the possibility of
false intelligence may

encourage ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim and
22
Middle Eastern communities,
entrapment21 by agent provocateurs,
chill free speech,23 and waste finite intelligence resources.
Recruitment through immigration law also affords less protection to informants than recruitment done by offering monetary rewards or
reductions in sentencing.24 For example, unlike criminal offenses, there is no statute of limitations governing civil penalties like deportation,
removal, or exclusion orders, which means that the FBI can use immigration violations to leverage cooperation from out-of-status individuals
who have been in the country for years. Moreover, unlike an informant who is promised a sentence reduction or lessened charges and who can
enforce his or her bargain with the government through plea bargaining, an informant promised immigration benefits has no way of enforcing
these promises.25 Furthermore, the Sixth Amendments guarantee of counsel26 does not apply to immigration violations.27 Finally, according
to some reported cases, the government has failed to reward informants with the promised immigration benefits after receiving their
cooperation.28 With fewer bargaining options, less protection, and potentially more to lose29 than informants recruited through monetary
incentives or promises of sentence reductions
there is greater incentive for
30
informants flipped via immigration violations to

provide unreliable information.
Furthermore, due to the latitude afforded to the executive
branch in national security matters, there is a darker veil of secrecy shrouding measures for recruiting terrorism informants than for other
types of informants.31 Immigration status offers a valuable way for the FBI to elicit cooperation and collect intelligence from individuals who
otherwise would not be forthcoming. However, this method for collecting intelligence can prove counterproductive when indiscriminately
applied to situations where the informants lack useful connections to terrorist groups. Decreased intelligence benefits, lack of protection for
informants, and increased ethnic and religious profiling suggest that changes to how the FBI recruits terrorism informants with immigration
threats and rewards are needed.
B. Section 6 Visa program has limited application in the

status quo
Stabile 2014
Available at:
an existing visa program already formally offers

cooperation with terrorism investigations .
means,
As part of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,32 Congress specifically designed the S-6 visa to attract and reward immigrants who were willing to
However, given the small number of S6 visas issued, the program likely fails to meet the FBIs
intelligence recruitment needs.
cooperate by giving terrorism intelligence.33
The fifty allotted S-6 visas per year34
do not match up
by the FBI.
35 In order to qualify for the S-6 visa, an informant must also meet the eligibility requirements of the Department of
Justices Rewards for Justice Program, a separate program designed to elicit and monetarily reward terrorism intelligence.36 Lastly, access to
the S-6 visa is further restricted by the requirement that the informant be subject to danger if he or she is returned to his or her home
country.37 Since
the FBI
has long used immigration law as an incentive to compel
it has little motivation to use a

rewards program that presents additional barriers. The
terrorism informants to act,
stringent eligibility requirements to obtain an S-6 visa explain its ongoing

underuse.38
C. Current Congressional oversight is dysfunctional and

needs to be strengthened
)
But you will recall that during the debate on the 9/11 bill in March, you and I supported the sense of the Senate provision calling on the
Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee to conduct hearings on intelligence reform, specifically
on congressional reform of fiscal oversight of intelligence, which is why I believe we're here today. Even though the Senate has adopted
some of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations on congressional reform, this most important area, in my view, has not been addressed.
strengthening congressional
oversight may be among the most difficult and important, further
stating that congressional oversight of intelligence and
counterterrorism is now dysfunctional. The recommendation of the Commission to deal with that
The 9/11 Commission stated that, of all our recommendations,
dysfunction was to consolidate authorization and appropriations in a single committee.
D. The United States uses Otherization and the concept

of domination and subordination to justify extreme
domestic discrimination in surveillance and foreign
attacks

stereotypes. The Muslim and Arab American had
been popularly constructed as an irrational,

terror-supporting, and fanatical enemy Other
long before 9/11. American foreign policy has consistently
justified intervention in the Muslim world along similar lines.
When U.S. leaders characterize the Arab and Muslim world
as inherently undemocratic owing to fundamental value

environment of intolerance at home. Thus, the racialization of Arab and
Muslim Americans, a process decades in the making, also explains the overwhelming support
for the infringement of Arab and Muslim civil liberties (Moallem 2005). In this chapter I move
beyond the narrow phenotypical definition of racialization, wherein race relations are strictly
structured by biological differences. Rather, I adopt a larger definition of racialization that
incorporates the process of othering. More specifically here, I argue that the
racialization of Muslims and Arabs stems from the

consistent deployment of an us versus them
mentality, excessively propped up for the justification of military campaigns in the
Arab world. The racialization of Arabs and Muslims is not simply contingent on phenotypical
differences; rather, this racialization of difference is driven by a perceived clash of values and
exacerbated by cultural ethnocentrism. This process of othering is based on assumptions
about culture and religion instead of phenotype. It is not based on assumptions about culture
and religion instead of phenotype. It is not based on racial divides; instead, it conforms to the
process of racialization that has characterized the ways in which the dominant elements in
society have interacted with minority ethnic groups more generally. The racialization of Arabs
in a society that is
already constructed along racial lines, any perceived
difference between the dominant mainstream and a minority
Other tends to conform to racisms framework. This othering
and Muslims stems from two intertwined processes. First,
process lends itself to the already existing paradigm of defining oneself vis--vis other groups
along the lines of racial categories. This form of racism is not contingent on differences in
appearance but on differences in cultural attributes. These differences are exacerbated by
popular and government discourses that deem the group an enemy Other, especially after
9/11. The loyalties of the Arab and Muslim communities have consistently been questioned
since the attacks. Only 38 percent of Americans in the Detroit metro area believe that Arabs
and Muslims are doing all that they can to fight the war on terror. Muslims and Arabs across
the United States are consistently asked to apologize for 9/11, as if they were behind the
attacks. And yet, ironically, the numerous and countless condemnations emanating from
mosques and organizations in the United States that emphatically denounce the attacks have
received little media attention. Americans remain suspicious of Arabs and Muslims. When
the subordinate,
dominant and


Contention 3 Harms
A. The Current policy promotes Islamophobia through
Religious and Ethnic profiling
Stabile 2014
Available at:
In addition to eroding the First Amendments free speech rights of Muslims
and Middle Easterners, the FBIs informant surveillance tactics also
inappropriately target these religious and ethnic group s. Most of
the organizations designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the State
Department are Muslim or Arab groups. Many post-9/11 policies, like the
extensive detention of Muslims and Middle Easterners, indicate that the
federal government views Muslims and Middle Eastern

immigrants as potential terrorists. Popular perception of Muslims has
moved in the same direction, with huge opposition, for example, to the
construction of an Islamic community centerPark 51near the site of
the World Trade Center in New York. Other examples include state laws
banning the use of Shariah law in judicial decisions and Islamophobia rising
in the United States and abroad. By sending immigrant informants into
mosques and religious and ethnic communities with little more than a vague
directive to find terrorists, the FBI perpetuates ethnic profiling and the
conflation of Islam and terrorism. In recruiting terrorism informants from
the immigrant population, the FBI puts an ethnic and religious face
on terrorism, and perpetuates the popular perception of what terrorists
look like. Sending these informants into mosques and immigrant communities
greatly increases the chances that alleged suspects fit the

ethnic and religious stereotypes of terrorists. Put differently, if an
informant is assigned to surveil a mosque, the chances of the informant
bringing back a non-Muslim or non-Middle Eastern suspect are low.
This surveillance policy becomes a vicious cycle. The FBI recruits immigrant individuals from suspect communities to become informants,
pressures them into producing terrorism suspects that fit the popular perception of what terrorists are like, and then prosecutes these
. Ethnic and
religious profiling further alienates Muslim and Middle Eastern
communities, and deepens their mistrust for government. Additionally, by
suspected terrorists. All this reinforces the public conflation of immigrants, Muslims, Middle Easterners, and terrorists
predisposing many Americans to view Muslims, immigrants, and Middle Easterners as potential terrorist threats, ethnic and religious profiling
may also bias juries in terrorism prosecutions.97 Although suspects often claim entrapment as a defense, after 9/11 the
entrapment defense has never been successfully used in terrorism

cases. In fact, many, if not most, terrorism cases never reach the jury because the chances of successfully defending against terrorism
charges after 9/11 are almost nonexistent. Popular stereotypes concerning Muslims and Middle Easterners play a role in this. Although the use
of immigration law in recruiting informants is only one of many factors contributing to this harmful cycle, the use of coercive tactics like
immigration law to recruit informants creates a higher risk of unfounded terrorism prosecutions against innocent individuals who do not pose a
risk. Consequently, this fuels the public perception that a stereotypical terrorist is a Middle Easterner or Muslim.
To the FBI it was never meant to be actual surveillance,

its a rigged operation to create terrorists
Harris 12 (Paul Harris, 3-20-2012, "The ex-FBI informant with a change of
heart: 'There is no real hunt. It's fixed'," Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant)
Craig Monteilh says he did not balk when his FBI handlers gave him the OK to have sex with the Muslim women his undercover operation was targeting. Nor, at the time,
They said, if it would enhance the intelligence, go

ahead and have sex. So I did," Monteilh told the Guardian as he described his year
as a confidential FBI informant sent on a secret mission to infiltrate southern
Californian mosques. It is an astonishing admission that goes to the heart of
the intelligence surveillance of Muslim communities in America in the years
after 9/11. While police and FBI leaders have insisted they are acting to
defend America from a terrorist attack, civil liberties groups have insisted
they have repeatedly gone too far and treated an entire religious group as
did he shy away from recording their pillow talk. "
suspicious. Monteilh
was involved in one of the most

controversial tactics: the use of "confidential informants" in
so-called entrapment cases.
This is when suspects carry out or plot fake terrorist "attacks" at the request or under the
close supervision of an FBI undercover operation using secret informants. Often those informants have serious criminal records or are supplied with a financial motivation
to net suspects. In the case of the Newburgh Four where four men were convicted for a fake terror attack on Jewish targets in the Bronx a confidential informant offered
$250,000, a free holiday and a car to one suspect for help with the attack. In the case of the Fort Dix Five, which involved a fake plan to attack a New Jersey military base,
one informant's criminal past included attempted murder, while another admitted in court at least two of the suspects later jailed for life had not known of any plot .
Such actions have led Muslim civil rights groups to wonder if

their communities are being unfairly targeted in a spying
game that is rigged against them. Monteilh says that is
exactly what happens. "The way the FBI conducts their
operations, It is all about entrapment
I know the game, I know the dynamics of it. It's such a joke, a
real joke.
There is no real hunt. It's fixed," he said.
But Monteilh has regrets now about his
Monteilh said the FBI

should publicly apologise for his fruitless quest to root out Islamic radicals in
Orange County, though he does not hold out much hope that will happen. "They don't have the humility to admit a mistake," he said. Monteilh's story
involvement in a scheme called Operation Flex. Sitting in the kitchen of his modest home in Irvine, near Los Angeles,
sounds like something out of a pulp thriller. Under the supervision of two FBI agents the muscle-bound fitness instructor created a fictitious French-Syrian alter ego, called
Farouk Aziz. In this disguise in 2006 Monteilh started hanging around mosques in Orange County the long stretch of suburbia south of LA and pretended to convert to
He was tasked with befriending Muslims and blanket recording their

conversations. All this information was then fed back to the FBI who told
Monteilh to act like a radical himself to lure out Islamist sympathizers. Yet, far from
Islam.
succeeding, Monteilh eventually so unnerved Orange County's Muslim community that that they got a restraining order against him. In an ironic twist, they also reported
Monteilh to the FBI: unaware he was in fact working undercover for the agency. Monteilh does not look like a spy. He is massively well built, but soft-spoken and friendly. He
is 49 but looks younger. He lives in a small rented home in Irvine that blends into the suburban sprawl of southern California. Yet Monteilh knows the spying game
intimately well. By his own account Monteilh got into undercover work after meeting a group of off-duty cops working out in a gym. Monteilh told them he had spent time
in prison in Chino, serving time for passing fraudulent checks. It is a criminal past he explains by saying he was traumatised by a nasty divorce. "It was a bad time in my
life," he said. He and the cops got to talking about the criminals Monteilh had met while in Chino. The information was so useful that Monteilh says he began to work on
undercover drug and organised crime cases. Eventually he asked to work on counter-terrorism and was passed on to two FBI handlers, called Kevin Armstrong and Paul
Allen. These two agents had a mission and an alias ready-made for him. Posing as Farouk Aziz he would infiltrate local mosques and Islamic groups around Orange County.
"Paul Allen said: 'Craig, you are going to be our computer worm. Our guy that gives us the real pulse of the Muslim community in America'," Monteilh said. The operation
began simply enough. Monteilh started hanging out at mosques, posing as Aziz, and explaining he wanted to learn more about religion. In July, 2006, at the Islamic Center
Monteilh began
circulating endlessly from mosque to mosque, spending long days in prayer
or reading books or just hanging out in order to get as many people as
of Irvine, he converted to Islam. Monteilh also began attending other mosques, including the Orange County Islamic Foundation.
possible to talk to him. "Slowly I began to wear the robes, the hat, the scarf and they saw me slowly transform and growing a beard. At that
point, about three or four months later, [my FBI handlers] said: 'OK, now start to ask questions'."
Those questions were aimed at rooting out radicals. Monteilh would talk of
his curiosity over the concepts of jihad and what Muslims should do
about injustices in the world, especially where it pertained to American
foreign policy. He talked of access to weapons, a possible desire to be a
martyr and inquired after like-minded souls. It was all aimed at
trapping people in condemning statements.
"The skill is that I am going to get you to say
the chats were recorded. In scenes out of a James Bond movie,

Monteilh said he sometimes wore a secret video recorder sewn into his shirt.
At other times he activated an audio recorder on his key rings. Monteilh left
his keys in offices and rooms in the mosques that he attended in the hope of
recording conversations that took place when he was not there. He did it so often that he
earned a reputation with other worshippers for being careless with his keys. The recordings were passed back to his FBI
handlers at least once a week. He also met with them every two months at a hotel room in nearby Anaheim for a more intense
something. I am cornering you to say "jihad"," he said. Of course,
debriefing. Monteilh says he was grilled on specific individuals and asked to view charts showing networks of relationships among Orange County's Muslim population.
He said the FBI had two basic aims. Firstly, they aimed to uncover
potential militants. Secondly, they could also use any information

Monteilh discovered like an affair or someone being gay to turn
targeted people into becoming FBI informants themselves. None of it
seemed to unnerve his FBI bosses, not even when he carried out a suggestion to begin seducing Muslim women and
agent Kevin Armstrong explained the FBI attitude towards the immense
breadth of Operation Flex and any concerns over civil rights by saying simply: "Kevin is God." Monteilh's own attitude evolved
recording them. At one hotel meeting,
into something very similar. "I was untouchable. I am a felon, I am on probation and the police cannot arrest me. How empowering is that? It is very empowering. You
began to have a certain arrogance about it. It is almost taunting. They told me: 'You are an untouchable'," he said. But it was not always easy. "I started at 4am. I ended at
9.30pm. Really, it was a lot of work Farouk took over. Craig did not exist," he said. But it was also well paid: at the peak of Operation Flex, Monteilh was earning more
than $11,000 a month. But he was wrong about being untouchable. Far from uncovering radical terror networks,
Monteilh ended up
traumatising the community he was sent into. Instead of embracing calls for jihad or his questions about
Monteilh was instead reported to

the FBI as a potentially dangerous extremist.
suicide bombers or his claims to have access to weapons,
A restraining order was also
taken out against him in June 2007, asking him to stay away from the Islamic Center of Irvine. Operation Flex was a bust and Monteilh had to kill off his life as Farouk Aziz.
But the story did not end there. In circumstances that remain murky Monteilh then sued the FBI over his treatment, claiming that they abandoned him once the operation
was over. He also ended up in jail after Irvine police prosecuted him for defrauding two women, including a former girlfriend, as part of an illegal trade in human growth
What
is not in doubt is that Monteilh's identity later became public. In 2009 the FBI
brought a case against Ahmad Niazi, an Afghan immigrant in Orange County.
The evidence included secret recordings and even calling Osama bin Laden
"an angel". That was Monteilh's work and he outed himself to the press to the
shock of the very Muslims he had been spying on who now realised that
Farouk Aziz the radical they had reported to the FBI two years earlier had
in fact been an undercover FBI operative. Now Monteilh says he set Niazi up
and the FBI was trying to blackmail the Afghani into being an informant. "I
built the whole relationship with Niazi. Through my coercion we talked about
jihad a lot," he said. The FBI's charges against Niazi were indeed later dropped. Now Monteilh has joined an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit
hormone at fitness clubs. (Monteilh claims those actions were carried out as part of another secret string operation for which he was forced to carry the can.)
against the FBI. Amazingly, after first befriending Muslim leaders in Orange County as Farouk Aziz, then betraying them as Craig Monteilh, he has now joined forces with
them again to campaign for their civil liberties.

/Bingham-MB
Structural Racism in the U.S. is

the normalization and legitimization of an array of
dynamics historical, cultural, institutional and
interpersonal that routinely advantage whites while
producing cumulative and chronic adverse outcomes for
people of color. It is a system of hierarchy and inequity,
primarily characterized by white supremacy the
preferential treatment, privilege and power for white people
at the expense of Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander,
Native American, Arab and other racially oppressed
people. Scope: Structural Racism encompasses the
entire system of white supremacy, diffused and infused in all
aspects of society, including our history, culture, politics,
economics and our entire social fabric. Structural Racism
is the most profound and pervasive form of racism
past and present, continually producing new, and reproducing old forms of racism. Individual Racism:
Individual or internalized racism lies within individuals. These
are private manifestations of racism that reside inside the

advantage and disadvantage people, based on race .
Barndt 91
Joseph Barndt, Co-Director, Crossroads, DISMANTLING RACISM, 1991, p.
155-156

the walls of racism




community and increase the threat of terrorism
Stabile 2014
Available at:
Many argue that tactics like recruiting informants through immigration law and surveilling mosques are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks,
and that national security must be the nations top priority, whatever the cost. These arguments fail to recognize that when informants lack a
specific target and direction, the gathered intelligence does not necessarily enhance the nations security. Instead,
the FBI
with little concern for the actual gravity of the original threat posed by the
suspectcreates
an elaborate terrorism plot for the

surveillance targets to participate in.100 After 9/11, many
individuals who showed no signs of violence or
extremism prior to involvement with informants and
government-created plots have been prosecuted under
terrorism charges.
101 Until the informants provided the means, these individuals did not have the finances or the
proper connections to conceive and carry out these terrorism plans. Although orchestrating these plots makes the FBIs preventative stance
appear successful in the public eye, it diverts law enforcement resources from focusing on real targets. Moreover, Professor David A. Harris
claims that the unregulated use of informants in mosques and other religious and cultural settings can also do great damage because it
poses the risk of cutting off our best possible source of intelligence: the voluntary, cooperative relationships that have developed between law
Having community members report

suspicious information to the FBI may be a more
effective way of obtaining reliable terrorism intelligence
from these communities.
enforcement and Muslim communities.102
103 For example, in the few domestic terrorist prosecutions where a terrorist attack plan actually existed prior to
informant involvement, community members who had noticed something amiss were the first to alert the FBI and identify the subjects.104 In fact, since 9/11, community members have assisted law enforcement in
stopping potential terrorism plots in a number of cases.105 A recent example, the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber, shows that the attempted bombing could have been prevented had
law enforcement heeded the warnings that Abdulmutallabs father gave the CIA at the U.S. embassy in Nigeria.106 As the president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and former criminal prosecutor, David
Chiu testified regarding the Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian communities in San Francisco: [W]ithout that level of cooperation, that level of trust, everything falls apart....[S]urveillance only serves to
continue to drive wedges when cooperation is what is needed most.107 Analogous to the way informants in mosques target vulnerable individuals despite these individuals lack of connection to terrorist
organizations or predilection for extremism, a 2011 study by the Migration Policy Institute demonstrates a similar phenomenon within other communities.108 The 287(g) initiative, named after the section of the
Immigration and Nationality Act that authorized it, allows ICE to enter into memorandums of agreement with state and local law enforcement agencies, empowering these agencies to directly enforce immigration
laws.109 However, the study found that half of the jurisdictions using 287(g) did not direct their enforcement efforts toward serious or violent offenders,110 as the 287(g) initiative had originally envisioned.111
Instead, these jurisdictions sought to deport as many offenders as possible regardless of the severity of the crime.112 Study respondents believe that 287(g) program activities affect the community in distinct
and adverse ways, including by causing declines in Latino immigrant populations, [creating] avoid[ance of] public places by these populations, chang[ing] [] driving behavior, [creating] fear and mistrust of the
police and other authorities, and reduc[ing] crime reporting.113 These behaviors were more acute in jurisdictions with nontargeted enforcement, where any offense could constitute grounds for deportation.114 Just
as Latino immigrant communities became distrustful of law enforcement and withdrew from crime reporting when threatened with deportation, so did Muslim and Middle Eastern communities when threatened with
FBI surveillance of communal spaces. As the study notes, these operations can generate widespread distrust of police. Such distrust in turn prompts immigrants to change their behavior to avoid contact with police
and other authorities.115

Joshi 06
illegitimate. Despite this similarity of processes and often of outcomes, racialization affects each religious group that is targeted
differently. While one could argue that Christianity has been racialized through its association with whitenesswith distinctive designations for
black, Korean, or Chinese Christian congregationsthe results of racialization are different because whiteness and Christianity function as the
The construction of identity most often

involves establishing both norms and opposites, who one is involves
identifying others who are not (Pharr, 1988; Said, 1978). The process of
othering entails a dialectic of both inclusion and exclusion. By attributing
certain characteristics to a population in order to categorize and differentiate
it as an other, those who do so also establish criteria by which they
themselves are represented. Indeed, a norm and its other or others are, to a great extent, each defined by
United States racial and religious norms, respectively.3
reference to the other, by what each is not. For reasons that will become clear in the historical section that follows, it is the normative power of
whiteness and Christianity, separately and in tandem, that makes the racialization of religion an essential problem for non-white nonChristians. Thus, in order to understand the contemporary racialization of South Asian religions, we must begin by orienting ourselves
historically and socially. In the next two sections, I show how the United States has developed as a society where Christianity and whiteness
are intimately linked and where Christianity and whiteness generate social norms against which other religions and races are measured.
The concept of the other justifies violence,

stereotyping, invisibility, distortion, isolation, and
internalized oppression
Racial meaning is extended to a religion, a religious group, or a belief system that had previously been racially unclassified. Particular faiths come to be considered not for their worldwide practice by diverse
peoples, but rather in direct association with colors of skin, textures of hair, and other phenotypical features that may characterize communities of believers. The process ultimately goes beyond phenotype, and
results in a group of people being identified, based on shared ethnicity and nationality, as being of a particular religion. In the context
of the historical moment, social values and political
human beings
ascribe social meaning to certain biological
characteristics in order to differentiate, to exclude,
and to dominate.
presumptions are connected to the racialized religion. Within the unique context of their own time and place,
This process occurs not in a vacuum but in specific conditions that render the distinctions relevant in a particular
historical
moment. Because racial systems of classification are intimately linked to systems of power and authority, these social categories take on everyday importance in social, ideological, and economic
contexts. Most obviously, they become fodder for those who perpetuate physical violence based on race. Bu t
more subtly, these categories become a part of our cultural vocabulary: our shared
the racialization of Islam

intersects with the Wests encounters with enemies
whose ideological identity is intimately linked to their
interpretation and use of Islam.
assumptions, our media buzz, and our humor. In the present day, for example,
As a result, brown-skinned, non-Christian Americans become more (or less) than just an other
within the society; they become an other who is associated with a foreign enemy. They go from merely being a minority to being viewed as a potential fifth column10 due to their presumed connection with and
loyalty to this enemy. The impact of this process on South Asian Americanson those unlucky adults who have been beaten or slain in post-September 11 backlash attacks and on those many children and
The
racialization of religion locates certain religious
adolescents who must laugh off or fight back against assumptions that they or their relatives are affiliated with terrorismare described in greater detail in the next section.
populations within the social strata of U.S. society by

applying ideological forces in conjunction with social and
political relations of domination .
The racialization of Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism has Orientalist
underpinnings (Said, 1978).11 American society created an image of South Asiannessand of the South Asian religions before it even encountered them physically. The
writings of the Transcendentalists Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, both of whose more philosophical works were influenced by the Bhagavad Gita, were the
vehicle for this encounter (Eck, 2001). The West created the East as a site of difference. . . reified in the anthropological mode where strange tongues, other beliefs, [and] centuries old (read unchanging) religions. .
. mark out the community (Hutnyk, 1999, p. 132). In an early example of Americans conflating immigrants religions with their place of origin, 17th-century Sikh immigrants were known as Hindoos (Jensen,
1988). The sense of danger that historically characterized Europes post-Crusade view of the Muslim world was again projected onto Muslim immigrants. Meanwhile, Britains approach to Hindu-majority India,
always characterized by sentiments more proprietary than conflict-laden (Said, 1978), was transformed into the new American commodification of things Indian. Islam, Hinduism, and Sikhism therefore become not
merely non-Christian they become the villainous, anachronistic religions of the East. Both Indians as a race and ethnicity
and Muslims, Hindus,
and Sikhs as religions were othered and thereby

diminished in the American minds eye. This othering,
in turn, has consequences for these minority groups in
the U.S.
South Asian Americans face what Pharr (1988) identifies as the common elements of oppression; In relation to a defined norm, which both buttresses and is buttressed by institutional
and economic power, out-group members suffer violence and the threat of violence, stereotyping, invisibility, distortion, isolation, and internalized oppression. In the act of defining Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism as
deviant, and thereby excluding them from society, white American Christians represent themselves as benevolent. This in/out group phenomenon reinforces Christian hegemony at the institutional and cultural
enables individual members of the in group to

rationalize (and to perpetuate) the exclusion of religious
others.
levels, and


D. Congressional Oversight Needs to change

ACLU, 13 (American Civil Liberty Union, September 2013, UNLEASHED
AND UNACCOUNTABLE
The FBIs Unchecked Abuse of Authority,
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/unleashed-and-unaccountablefbi-report.pdf)
Congress must intensify its oversight of all FBI policies and

practices, particularly those that implicate Americans constitutional
rights. The collection, retention, and sharing of personally identifying

information about Americans without facts establishing a reasonable
indication of criminal activity poses serious risks to liberty and
democracy, and the evidence of abuse is overwhelming. The lessons of
the past have been ignored and we are increasingly seeing a return to
abusive intelligence operations that target protest groups and religious
and racial minorities. Congress must particularly examine FBI activities
abroad, where Americans due process rights and safety are at
greatest risk
B. Ending unfettered Status Quo Informant Policy leads
to cooperation with Muslim Community
Said, 2010
2015. /Bingham-MB

objective version of entrapment doctrine, but rather a halt to
the policy of using informants to investigate



or group to offer inside information (even if for money ). The
differently,
C. Trust is key to solve terrorism, reforms are key to

Muslim cooperation
Risen, 2014

We have seen

again demonstrate the need for ongoing public attention to the
that its surveillance stays

within the bounds of law and the Constitution, said a
blog post from EFF Staff Attorney Mark Rumold. And they once again
governments activities to ensure
demonstrate the need for immediate and comprehensive

surveillance law reform."
C. Status quo surveillance policies create a chilling effect
on Muslim American populations. Only adopting a strict
scrutiny standard for domestic surveillance solves.
Shahabuddin 15 (Madiha Shahabuddin, JD, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law,
May 2015; BA, University of California, Irvine, "The More Muslim You Are, the More Trouble You Can Be:
How Government Surveillance of Muslim Americans Violates First Amendment Rights, Chapman Law
Review 18 Chap. L. Rev. 577, Spring, 2015, SMahajan)

associational rights discussed above provides a few key methods of first assessing
whether government conduct rises to the kind of level that merits strict
scrutiny, and then deciding whether the compelling interest and narrowly tailored
government conduct that may have the effect of curtailing the
freedom to associate should be subjected to strict scrutiny .108 Such
effects have included economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of
physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility . 109 The Ninth
Circuit provided more relevant examples of suppression of religious
expression, including (1) withdrawal by congregants from actively
participating, (2) decline in financial support or donations , (3) congregants
reluctance in seeking religious counseling or being open during prayer , (4)
diversion of clergies or religious leaders time from congregation duties to
dealing with the effects of surveillance , and (5) fear or apprehension of
conversations being bugged (recorded), which have a negative impact on
congregants morale.110 Muslim American surveillance has exhibited
similarly chilling effects on mosque-goers, demonstrating the need for
strict scrutiny application of the government programs aimed at
Muslim Americans in regions like the East Coast have also suffered from the loss of
business; diminished or affected employment opportunities ;111 other
furthering justification of hate crimes against Muslims 113 because of the specter left
upon the Muslim community in the wake of media reports of NYPD surveillance.114 Moreover, the
surveillance of Muslims has placed a particularly ominous mark on the
community through the governments use of informants to infiltrate mosques,
Muslim Student Associations on college campuses, and the Muslim
community in general.
D. Multicultural education can deconstruct the other to

rid ourselves of prejudice. Jackie C. Horne The Lion and the Unicorn.
Volume 34, Number 1, January 2010. Harry and the Other: Answering the Race
Question in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter
The most common takes the form of multicultural antiracism,

an approach that affirms the value of diversity as a method
of combating racial oppression. Since the late 1980s,
learning about and celebrating other cultures has become a
cornerstone of educational practice in many British,
Canadian, and American schools. The goal of such
multicultural education is not simply to become
familiar with the traditions of other cultures, but to
"enable empathy," to "generat[e] cross-cultural
understanding and solidarity," enabling students to
"see things from others' point of view" (Bonnett 9495).
Part of this understanding stems from the creation of
"positive racial images" (97); celebrating Black
History Month, teaching about the role of Islamic
scholars in the development of early mathematics, or
learning about the Navajo who worked as
codebreakers for the U.S. Army during World War II
would all be examples of multicultural antiracism practice.
proponents of multiculturalism believe that, by learning
about the culture of other races, or learning about
positive role models of members of previously
ignored groups, students will learn to rid themselves
of their prejudices, which in turn will lead to a more
egalitarian world.
E. When modified the S6 Visa and congressional oversight
Stabile 2014
Available at:


promise and seek review should the agreement go awry . Gaining
about terrorists identities and backgrounds. These assumptions may
also blind law enforcement to real threats taking place in nonMuslim or non-Middle Eastern communities. Expanding and
modifying the use of S-6 visas would turn a small, poorly
designed program into a helpful law enforcement tool that better
procures reliable intelligence. Furthermore, providing more
oversight for FBI informant use and restricting practices that
contribute to ethnic and religious profiling would improve
Muslim and Middle Eastern communities confidence in
and cooperation with the government. This, in turn, would
encourage communities to effectively work with law enforcement
and report suspicious activities. Information offered from within a
community is more likely to be accurate,272 leading to more
counterterrorism prosecutions that enhance national security and
less waste of law enforcement resources on bogus threats.273
In the end, only Congress can reform the S-6 visa program to
better effectuate the laws aim of rewarding informants and
procuring credible intelligence on real threats. Reform would
allow the FBI to more efficiently channel its resources,
and would afford informants a fairer agreement changes
that would better serve the security interests of the
United States
F. Judicial review is important and does not threaten

national security as well as increases transparency.
Stabile 2014
(Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013 Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration
Incentives and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276 Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss1/7)
Finally, individuals who agree to provide information in exchange for an S-6 visa should not be forced to waive their right to a deportation
hearing. Currently, informants must knowingly waive their rights to any deportation hearings and appeals should deportation proceedings
occur. They must also waive their rights to contest their detention pending deportation until lawful permanent resident status is obtained.267
Strikingly, informants relinquish all access to judicial review if their applications are mishandled or forgotten and they subsequently face
deportation. In the past, informants have alleged that the FBI has mismanaged and reneged on promises, including immigration promises.268
Allowing judicial review of the S-6 visa process would help lift the
veil of secrecy under which the FBI operates. Furthermore, through
redaction or other methods that preserve informants identities,
judicial review could be carried out without threatening national
security.269 Another benefit of this requirement would be increased transparency in the
way the FBI recruits informants. Wider use of the S-6 visa, as well as greater judicial review, would allow the
government to ascertain the number of individuals enlisted by the FBI as counterterrorism informants . This may further
help curb informant mishandling, a problem that plagues the agency. Because informants would still be
required to provide critical and reliable intelligence, the FBI would be required to articulate clear predicates for recruiting individuals, such as a
close relationship between an individual and a known member of a foreign terrorist organization. This, in turn, would provide due process and
could vindicate informants rights

)
increase the opportunity

and likelihood of robust congressional oversight of the intelligence
community. Let me give you some practical examples as to why oversight
of the intelligence community is more important than ever and why
congressional oversight must be reformed and strengthened. First, the
United States will without a doubt intervene again somewhere with military
force. It may be the most important foreign policy question of the coming
decades. Decisions whether to intervene and how to intervene will ride
largely on what the intelligence tells us. It is vitally important that the
intelligence community get it right. Oversight is vitally important to
help the community get it right. Second, the Congress since 9/11 has
provided broad authorities to the executive branch to conduct
investigations and collect data. Enhanced collection capabilities and data
mining pose high risks to civil liberties and to privacy. To safeguard our
liberties, the Congress must conduct robust oversight over the
exercise of the authorities it has granted. Third, the success of reform
also needs congressional oversight. Reform in the intelligence community, the most far reaching
intelligence appropriations. Governor Kean and I will support reforms and structures that
since 1947, is not easy to implement. Reform is a long and hard road. Crises distract, attention wavers, senior officials are pulled in 100
. The executive cannot carry out reform on its own. Support and
oversight is necessary. Chairman
Rockefeller requested comment from us with regard to this very difficult
question of access to information. That's not a new problem in the Congress.
different directions
guidance from the Congress are necessary to sustain reform. Sustained
That goes back 30, maybe 40 years, when the committees have been
fighting for more information from the intelligence community. When I was
Chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the House, we fought that battle
every single week. It has not been resolved. I don't know the answer to that
except the only way to get the attention of the executive is to withhold the
money. You'll get their attention quick when that money is withheld. The
checks and balances in the Constitution are there for the Senators and the
Members to exercise, if they will do it. If you want access to information and
the executive branch won't give it to you--don't give them the money. You'll
get the information. To conclude, let me just say that, under our
Constitution, Congress cannot play its proper role unless its oversight
committees are powerful and active. I was immensely pleased to hear a
moment ago that you have had over 60, I think it was, oversight hearings
during this year thus far. That shows a vitality and activity that I think is just
extraordinary on the part of this Committee and you are to be commended
for it. Strong oversight provides the checks and balances our Constitution
requires. Strong oversight by the Congress protects our liberties.
Under our Constitution, Congress cannot play its proper role unless its
oversight committees are powerful and active. Strong oversight provides the
checks and balances our Constitution requires. Strong oversight by the
Congress protects our liberties and makes our policies better. Strong
oversight keeps our country safe and free. I appreciate your time and
attention, and look forward to your questions.
What brings together these different systems of racial

oppressionmass incarceration, mass surveillance, and mass deportation
is a security logic that holds the imperial state as
necessary to keeping American families (coded white) safe
from threats abroad and at home. The ideological work of the last
few decades has cultivated not only racial security fears but also
an assumption that the security state is necessary to keep
us safe. In this sense, security has become the new
psychological wage to aid the reallocation of the welfare
states social wage toward homeland security and to win
support for empire in the age of neoliberalism. Through the
notion of security, social and economic anxieties generated by the unraveling
of the Keynesian social compact have been channeled toward the Black or
Brown street criminal, welfare recipient, or terrorist. In addition, as Susan Faludi has
argued,
since 9/11,
this homeland in need of security has been
symbolized, above all, by the white domestic hearth of the prefeminist fifties, once
again threatened by mythical frontier enemies , hidden subversives,
and racial aggressors. That this idea of the homeland coincides culturally with the denigration of
capable women, the magnification of manly men, the heightened call for domesticity, the search for and
sanctification of helpless girls points to the ways it is gendered as well as racialized.67 The post-Snowden
debate The mechanisms of surveillance outlined in this essay were responses to political struggles of
various kindsfrom anticolonial insurgencies to slave rebellions, labor militancy to anti-imperialist
Surveillance practices themselves have also often been the target of

organized opposition. In the 1920s and 1970s, the surveillance state was
pressured to contract in the face of public disapproval. The antiwar activists who broke
agitation.
into an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971 and stole classified documents managed to expose
COINTELPRO, for instance, leading to its shut down. (But those responsible for this FBI program were never
brought to justice for their activities and similar techniques continued to be used later against, for example
in the 1980s, the American Indian Movement, and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El
Salvador.68) Public concern about state surveillance in the 1970s led to the Church committee report on
government spying and the Handschu guidelines that regulated the New York Police Departments spying
on political activities.
Those concerns began to be swept aside in the 1980s with
While
significant sections of the public may have consented to the
security state, those who have been among its greatest
the War on Drugs and, especially, later with the War on Terror.

Middle Eastunderstand its workings. Today, we are once again in a
period of revelation, concern, and debate on national security surveillance.
if real change is to be brought about, the racial history of

surveillance will need to be fully confrontedor opposition to
surveillance will once again be easily defeated by racial
security narratives. The significance of the Snowden leaks is that they have laid out the
Yet
depth of the NSAs mass surveillance with the kind of proof that only an insider can have.
has been a
The result
generalized level of alarm as people have become aware of how
but that alarm remains constrained within a public

intrusive surveillance is in our society,
encryption
tools
are useful in increasing the resources that a government agency would need
do nothing to unravel the larger

surveillance apparatus. Meanwhile, executives of US tech corporations express concerns
to monitor an individual,
they
about loss of sales to foreign customers concerned about the privacy of data. In Washington and Silicon
what should be a debate about basic political freedoms is simply a

question of corporate profits.69 Another and perhaps deeper problem is the use of
images of state surveillance that do not adequately fit the current situation
Valley,
such as George Orwells discussion of totalitarian surveillance. Edward Snowden himself remarked that
Orwell warned us of the dangers of the type of government surveillance we face today.70 Reference to
Orwells 1984 has been widespread in the current debate; indeed, sales of the book were said to have
soared following Snowdens revelations.71 The argument that digital surveillance is a new form of Big
For those in certain targeted groups

Muslims, left-wing campaigners, radical journalistsstate surveillance
certainly looks Orwellian. But this level of scrutiny is not faced by the general
public. The picture of surveillance today is therefore quite different from the classic images of
Brother is, on one level, supported by the evidence.
surveillance that we find in Orwells 1984, which assumes an undifferentiated mass population subject to
What we have instead today in the United

States is total surveillance, not on everyone, but on
very specific groups of people, defined by their race,
religion, or political ideology: people that NSA
officials refer to as the bad guys. In March 2014, Rick Ledgett, deputy
government control.
director of the NSA, told an audience: Contrary to some of the stuff thats been printed, we dont sit there
and grind out metadata profiles of average people. If youre not connected to one of those valid
intelligence targets, you are not of interest to us.72 In the national security world, connected to can be
the basis for targeting a whole racial or political community so, even assuming the accuracy of this
national security surveillance can draw entire

communities into its web, while reassuring average people (code for the
normative white middle class) that they are not to be troubled. In the eyes of
the national security state, this average person must also express no political
comment, it points to the ways that
views critical of the status quo. Better oversight of the sprawling national
security apparatus and greater use of encryption in digital communication should be welcomed. But
reassure technologists,
while racialized populations and political dissenters continue
to experience massive surveillance. This is why the most
effective challenges to the national security state
have come not from legal reformers or technologists
but from grassroots campaigning by the racialized
groups most affected. In New York, the campaign against
the NYPDs surveillance of Muslims has drawn its strength
from building alliances with other groups affected by racial
profiling: Latinos and Blacks who suffer from hugely disproportionate rates
by themselves these
are likely to do little more than
of stop and frisk. In Californias Bay Area, a campaign against a Department of Homeland
Security-funded Domain Awareness Center was successful because various
constituencies were able to unite on the issue, including homeless people,
the poor, Muslims, and Blacks. Similarly, a demographics unit planned by the Los Angeles Police
Department, which would have profiled communities on the basis of race and religion, was shut down after
while
the national security state aims to create fear and to
divide people, activists can organize and build
alliances across race lines to overcome that fear. To the
a campaign that united various groups defined by race and class. The lesson here is that,
extent that the national security state has targeted Occupy, the antiwar
movement, environmental rights activists, radical journalists and
campaigners, and whistleblowers, these groups have gravitated towards
opposition to the national security state. But understanding the centrality of
race and empire to national security surveillance means finding a basis for
unity across different groups who experience similar kinds of policing: Muslim,
Latino/a, Asian, Black, and white dissidents and radicals. It is on such a basis
that we can see the beginnings of an effective multiracial opposition to the
surveillance state and empire.

political actions.
15, Issue 1]
that the

discussions and


Education


9/11 made the international community more aware of the

critical importance of intercivilizational dialogue. Governments in
Europe and America, the Muslim world and beyond as well as international organizations like the United
Nations and Organization of the Islamic Conference have undertaken serious efforts to promote
intercivilizational dialogue. The World Economic Forum created the Council of 100 Leaders (political,
Centers like
Georgetown Universitys Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for
Muslim-Christian Understanding, promote a better
understanding between the Muslim world and the West, have
been active in Washington and globally, speaking, briefing,
and writing for a broad audience of university, government,
media and corporate audiences. Education in our schools,
religion, intellectual, and media) and the U.N. the Alliance of Civilizations.
that train the

next generation of policymakers, religious leaders, educators, and citizens is
critical. Attempts to limit public discourse and debate, silence
alternative voices in America and Europe who speak out against
ignorance, stereotyping and demonization of Islam, discrimination,
hate crimes or threats to the civil liberties of Muslims must be
turned back. Some are attacked in the media and on Islamophobic websites. Would this discourse
universities and seminaries (not just madrasas) as well as our churches and synagogues
Islamophobia can
have serious consequences on foreign policy. Americas
policy in Iraq, from war to post-war reconstruction, was
affected by the extent to which Islam and Muslim religious
leaders, and Shii Islam in particular, were seen through the
distorted lens of Khomeini/Iranian revolutionary
and these actions be tolerated if Christianity or Judaism were the targets?

The Debate space is key to analyze questions of
oppression
Reid-Brinkley, 08 (Dr. Shanara R. Reid-Brinkley, professor at the University of Georgia
focusing on racial studies, argument and performance, and black feminist theory, she is also the director of
debate, The Harsh Realities of" acting Black": How African-American Policy Debaters Negotiate
Representation Through Racial Performance and Style, https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/reidbrinkley_shanara_r_200805_phd.pdf
The attempts at educational reform are not limited to institutional actors such
as the local, state, and federal governments . Non-profit organizations dedicated to alleviating the black/white
achievement gap have also proliferated. One such organization, the Urban Debate League, claims that Urban Debate Leagues have proven to increase literacy scores by
25%, to improve grade-point averages by 8 to 10%, to achieve high school graduation rates of nearly 100%, and to produce college matriculation rates of 71 to 91%. The
UDL program is housed in over fourteen American cities and targets inner city youths of color to increase their access to debate training. Such training of students defined
as at risk is designed to offset the negative statistics associated with black educational achievement. The program has been fairly successful and has received wide scale
media attention. The success of the program has also generated renewed interest amongst college debate programs in increasing direct efforts at recruitment of racial and
ethnic minorities. The UDL program creates a substantial pool of racial minorities with debate training coming out of high school, that college debate directors may tap to
The debate community serves as a microcosm of the broader

educational space within which racial ideologies are operating. It is a space in
which academic achievement is performed according to the intelligibility of
ones race, gender, class, and sexuality. As policy debate is intellectually
rigorous and has historically been closed to those marked by social
difference, it offers a unique opportunity to engage the impact of
desegregation and diversification of American education . How are black students integrated into a
diversify their own teams.
competitive educational community from which they have traditionally been excluded? How are they represented in public and media discourse about their participation,
If racial ideology is perpetuated within discourse

through the stereotype, then mapping the intelligibility of the stereotype
within public discourse and the attempts to resist such intelligibility is a
critical tool in the battle to end racial domination.
and how do they rhetorically respond to such representations?
Convincing 1AC
Overview
Imagine the FBI busting down your door in the middle of family dinner and
threatening to deport you to a random foreign country if you dont give up
your friends darkest secrets - worse, secrets you just dont have. This
scenario might seem ridiculous - after all, the FBI is the good guy, right? But
this story is frighteningly common among Muslim communities, where the FBI
consistently disrespects and violates their rights because of an illegitimate
fear of terrorism.
The FBI is abusing their informants and the communities they spy on
right now - especially in Muslim communities, where their efforts are
particularly harmful and ineffective. We are taking steps to make
their processes more efficient and more effective.
There are three specific parts to our plan.
1. Plan will create Congressional Oversight of the FBIs Domestic
Terrorist Informants and Judicial review of the Section 6 Visa
program
Basically, we are making sure that the FBI has a system of accountability in
using and respecting informants in a system that as of now not conducive to
producing actionable intelligence or respecting the communities it is
surveilling. Using non-executive branches to check the FBI will decrease their
abuse of power.
2. A strict scrutiny standard will be required from all Muslim
informant operations.
Strict scrutiny is a standard higher than that of reasonable doubt. In this way,
we will ensure that the FBI only uses informants in cases where it is
absolutely critical to national security. The FBI will now have to be more
stringent and sure about its plans before carrying them out.
3. The United States will no longer threaten deportation of Muslim
informants and instead to grant them Section 6 Visa protection with
an explanation of the program.
Our plan fixes an existing program called the Section 6 Visa. It allows
reformed terrorists with credible intelligence to help the FBI in exchange for a
visa. Right now, there are not an adequate number of those visas available
and the application process has too many steps, leading the FBI to disregard
the visa in favor of using coercive and dehumanizing tactics to recruit
informants, estranging the Muslim community and failing to acquire
actionable counterterrorism intelligence.
Contention 1 Inherency
A. The FBIs Use of informants
Stabile 2014
Available at:
Despite the FBIs long history of problematic relationships with informants,39
both Congress and the Department of Justicethe FBIs

parent agencyprovide very little oversight of FBI
informants. The lack of transparency, control, and accountability give the
FBI almost unlimited power over how it recruits, handles, and rewards
informants.40 In particular, because of the greater secrecy afforded to
national security investigations, the use of terrorism informants presents
unique problems not present in traditional, nonterrorism use of informants.
The use of informants in terrorism investigations differs in several ways from their use in the investigation
of domestic crimes like smuggling, prostitution, and financial impropriety. Although the FBI has41been
using informants to conduct investigations since the agencys inception, informants were traditionally used
to investigate victimless crimes such as white-collar crimes42 and crimes dealing with prostitution,
drugs, and corruption.43 Informants proved especially useful in those cases because all parties to the
crime were usually guilty and not likely to inform authorities, making it difficult for law enforcement agents
to discover the crime on their own.44 Consequently, because individuals already part of the criminal
organization or conspiracy had the trust and confidence of the organization and could provide the most
useful information to law enforcement over a longer period of time, the FBI has generally recruited
informant program, for

example, sought to recruit high-ranking members of the mafia as
informants.45 Notably, however, even the FBIs traditional method of
recruiting informants from within the criminal organizations resulted in false
intelligence and botched cases.46
informants in these investigations from the inside. The FBIs Top Echelon
While there are no detailed studies on the differences between terrorism

informants and traditional informants because the FBI keeps most of this
information confidential,47 broad observations can still be made. First, the
FBIs preventative stance on terrorism has significantly increased reliance on
informants intelligence.48 After
9/11, the FBI drastically

expanded the use of informants49 from around 1,500 in
51
1975 to an estimated 15,000 today . Informants have become the
number one tool for preventing terrorist acts.
52
Second, law enforcement dealings with terrorism informants receive greater

deference from courts and other limiting actors because terrorism is
considered a national security matter instead of simply a domestic law

enforcement matter.53 The executive branch has greater control over
national security and foreign intelligence matters than over domestic law
enforcement, an area traditionally reserved to the states. 54 Thus, the post9/11 characterization of terrorism as a national security matter results in
courts affording more leeway to terrorism investigations than domestic
criminal investigations.55 In other words, the federal government is afforded
more secrecy in matters of national security.56 Hence, because the
government can invoke national security concerns to keep information about
the informant and handler privileged, there is less regulation governing the
recruitment and handling of terrorism informants than traditional criminal
informants.57
Third, while false and inaccurate intelligence has generally been a problem
with informants,58 recent terrorism investigations raise the question of
whether the alleged terrorist crimes would have occurred without law
enforcement instigating the terrorist activities.59 Informants in these cases
60
aggressively instigated the defendants participation in the plot. Recruiting

informants who lack ties to terrorist organizations may be at the root of this
problem, because they lack predetermined targets known to be involved in
61
terrorist groups. Without these targets, informants under pressure to avoid

deportation or other immigration consequences, for example, are more likely
62
to produce false information. Further complicating this issue, the

government has suffered from credibility problems in terrorism investigations
63
for not always fulfilling the promises made to informants. One FBI
informant, a Yemeni citizen named Mohamed Alanssi, set himself on fire in
front of the White House after alleging that the FBI had broken numerous
64
promises to him. Governmental credibility is critical to maintaining a

relationship of trust between law enforcement and informants, and thereby
facilitates the gathering of credible intelligence.
Due to the vast number of terrorism informants
today,
the secrecy
the
recruitment and use of informants in terrorism investigations
present unique problems to the FBI. Because of increased
underlying the investigations,65 and the potential for false intelligence,
confidentiality surrounding national security issues, the government has the

means and incentives to shield the true extent of its recruitment and use of
terrorism informants from courts and the public.66 To increase accountability
and lessen the risk of abuse, more oversight over the FBIs
dealings with terrorism informants is needed.
Notably, some
limits on the FBIs use of informants do exist. However, given the secrecy
surrounding national security concerns, whether these limits apply in
terrorism investigations remains unclear.

Stabile 2014
Available at:


17
18
Attorney Stephen Downs of Project SALAM explained,
Community life is shattered as the government often forces Muslim
immigrants to spy on their own communities or give false testimony with the
threat that the Muslims immigration status will be revised if the Muslims do
not cooperate. Such practices generate fear and alienation in the Muslim
community and diminish our security rather than enhance it.19
As Downs notes, the intelligence these informants provide can be
individuals may feel they must offer

up something to the government to avoid being
removed from their families, jobs, and lives. The threat of
unreliable,20 because these
false intelligence is grave. In addition to the possibility of entrapment21 by

agent provocateurs, false intelligence may encourage ethnic
and religious profiling of Muslim and Middle Eastern
communities,
22
chill free speech,23 and waste finite intelligence
resources. Recruitment through immigration law also affords less protection

to informants than recruitment done by offering monetary rewards or
reductions in sentencing.24 For example, unlike criminal offenses, there is no
statute of limitations governing civil penalties like deportation, removal, or
exclusion orders, which means that the FBI can use immigration violations to
leverage cooperation from out-of-status individuals who have been in the
country for years. Moreover, unlike an informant who is promised a sentence
reduction or lessened charges and who can enforce his or her bargain with
the government through plea bargaining, an informant promised immigration
benefits has no way of enforcing these promises.25 Furthermore, the Sixth
Amendments guarantee of counsel26 does not apply to immigration
violations.27 Finally, according to some reported cases, the government has
failed to reward informants with the promised immigration benefits after
receiving their cooperation.28
With fewer bargaining options, less protection, and potentially more to lose29
than informants recruited through monetary incentives or promises of
sentence reductions, there is greater incentive for informants flipped
30
via
immigration violations to provide unreliable information. Furthermore, due to the

latitude afforded to the executive branch in national security matters, there is
a darker veil of secrecy shrouding measures for recruiting terrorism

informants than for other types of informants.31 Immigration status offers a
valuable way for the FBI to elicit cooperation and collect intelligence from
individuals who otherwise would not be forthcoming. However, this method
for collecting intelligence can prove counterproductive when indiscriminately
applied to situations where the informants lack useful connections to terrorist
groups. Decreased intelligence benefits, lack of protection for informants, and
increased ethnic and religious profiling suggest that changes to how the FBI
recruits terrorism informants with immigration threats and rewards are
needed.
C. Section 6 Visa program has limited application in the

status quo
Stabile 2014
Available at:
an existing visa program already formally offers

cooperation with terrorism investigations . As part of the
means,
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,32 Congress

specifically designed the S-6 visa to attract and reward immigrants who were
willing to cooperate by giving terrorism intelligence.33 However, given
the small number of S-6 visas issued, the program likely

fails to meet the FBIs intelligence recruitment needs.
The fifty allotted S-6 visas per year34
do not match up
by the FBI.35 In order to qualify for the S-6 visa, an informant must also
meet the eligibility requirements of the Department of Justices Rewards for
Justice Program, a separate program designed to elicit and monetarily reward
terrorism intelligence.36 Lastly, access to the S-6 visa is further restricted by
the requirement that the informant be subject to danger if he or she is
returned to his or her home country.37 Since
the FBI has long used immigration law as an
incentive to compel terrorism informants to act, it has little motivation to use a rewards program that
presents additional barriers. The
stringent eligibility requirements to obtain an S-6 visa
explain its ongoing underuse.38
Contention 2 Harms
A. The Muslim community is dehumanized by structural
Islamophobia In the status quo
Lazare, 15 (Sarah Lazare, On Both Sides of Atlantic, Muslims Organizing
to Reject Dehumanization, December 22, 2015,
http://www.mintpressnews.com/on-both-sides-of-atlantic-muslims-organizingto-reject-dehumanization/212255/ )
Amid rising anti-Muslim attacks across the United States, many from
within targeted
communities are calling on U.S. society to address the root causes of
this violence by examining deep and structural Islamophobia,
manifested in modern U.S. historyfrom the War on Terror to the 2016 presidential race . For some
of us [Muslims], organizing and resisting against this system of antiMuslim violence is survival, Darakshan Raja, co-founder of the Muslim American Womens
Policy Forum and program manager for the Washington Peace Center, told Common Dreams. It is
emotionally exhausting and traumatizing to live in a world where a
core part of our identity, Muslim, is consistently dehumanized . That
dehumanization is not a new phenomenon. In my mind, what Donald Trump is talking about has already
been policy for the past 14 years, Dr. Maha Hillal, executive director of the National Coalition to Protect
There are numerous ways that Muslims have

been targeted under the guise of national security . Raja echoed this point, saying: I
would like for the broader U.S. society to recognize that anti-Muslim violence is structural ,
Civil Freedoms, told Common Dreams.
said Raja. It is an extension of the systems of oppression that America is built upon. It is codified in
policies and laws that make up the War on Terror, which we all fund through our tax dollars, Raja
The collective blame, hate violence, and dehumanization

Muslims experience must be seen as an extension of state violence .
continued.
These systems of violence can only sustain themselves if we continue to accept the dehumanization of
communities.
A simple start to rejecting anti-Muslim violence is rejecting

our dehumanization. From New York to San Francisco to Washington, D.C., Arab and Muslim
communities have been at the forefront of efforts to counter rising Islamophobia, which is perhaps most
explicitly on display in the presidential campaign of Trump, who has invoked the U.S. internment of
Japanese-Americans during World War II to justify his call to ban non-American Muslims. Meanwhile, the
U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations announced Monday that member organizations plan to focus on voter
drives, as well as organize a National Open Mosque Day designed to help increase interactions between
American Muslims and citizens of other faiths and backgrounds. In a statement emailed to Common
Dreams, the Councilwhose members include the Council on American-Islamic Relations and United
Muslim Reliefsaid it will also seek to increase emergency preparedness for Islamic institutions and
individual Muslims to address the rising number of hate incidents nationwide. Some
argue that
such discussion also requires an examination of state violence already
perpetrated by the U.S. government. As Deepa Kumar, professor and author of Islamophobia
and the Politics of Empire, recently pointed out, Trump need not have looked to 1942, or earlier, for a
historical precedent. His internment proposal has already been in process, albeit in different forms, since
9/11, with tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants and citizens having passed through the prison-industrial
Mosques, community
centers, and even childrens sports leagues have been subjected to
surveillance, notes Kumar. Despite the fact that not even one of these 1,200 was found to have
complex. Under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama,
connections to 9/11 or terrorism, the pattern of detention and deportation has only grown since then.
And in what one commentator called taking a page from Donald Trump, lawmakers recently passed a
measure to formalize visa waiver discrimination against Iranian, Iraqi, Sudanese, and Syrian Americans.
According to Hillal, now is a critical time to construct
a counter-narrative that exists

outside of the system of white supremacy, where we can talk about our own
stories from our own experiences. And Raja explained, Some of the ways we are organizing
includes rebuilding community, investing in grassroots work, holding educational forums, self-care, and
unpacking internalized Islamophobia. Parallel organizing, meanwhile, is taking place across the Atlantic
Ocean. Over 100 organizations last week issued a joint statement calling on the French government to lift
the countrys state of emergencywhich is set to expire February 26, but according to President Francois
Hollande, could be extended. Groups including the French Human Rights League and the Collective
against Islamophobia blasted the measure for depriving Muslims and other communities of the right to
protest and allowing police to conduct discriminatory raids and arrests. The missive demands an
immediate halt to arbitrary searches and arrests that have swept homes, mosques, restaurants, and more
since the Paris attacks of November 13. Whats more, Muslims within French society have filed at least 20
complaints against the government, arguing that their rights were violated under the countrys state of
emergency, including through unlawful detentions. The raids have disproportionately targeted people of
Islamic faith with overt brutality, Yasser Louati, spokesman for the Collective against Islamophobia in
France, said in a recent interview. Weve collected evidence of 50 cases of abuse and these are just the
ones we know about where police hurled racist abuse at families, women were assaulted and one even
miscarried.

/Bingham-MB
Structural Racism in the U.S. is the

normalization and legitimization of an array of dynamics
historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal that
routinely advantage whites while producing cumulative and
chronic adverse outcomes for people of color. It is a system
of hierarchy and inequity, primarily characterized by white
supremacy the preferential treatment, privilege and power
for white people at the expense of Black, Latino, Asian,
Pacific Islander, Native American, Arab and other racially
oppressed people. Scope: Structural Racism encompasses
the entire system of white supremacy, diffused and infused
in all aspects of society, including our history, culture,
politics, economics and our entire social fabric. Structural
Racism is the most profound and pervasive form of racism

past and present, continually producing new, and reproducing old forms of racism. Individual Racism: Individual
or internalized racism lies within individuals. These are
private manifestations of racism that reside inside the
advantage and disadvantage people, based on race.
Barndt 91
Joseph Barndt, Co-Director, Crossroads, DISMANTLING RACISM, 1991, p. 155156

the walls of racism




community
Stabile 2014
Available at:
Many argue that tactics like recruiting informants through immigration law
and surveilling mosques are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, and that
national security must be the nations top priority, whatever the cost. These
arguments fail to recognize that when informants lack a specific target and
direction, the gathered intelligence does not necessarily enhance the nations
security. Instead, the FBIwith little concern for the actual gravity of the
original threat posed by the suspect creates
an elaborate
terrorism plot for the surveillance targets to participate
in.100 After 9/11, many individuals who showed no signs of
violence or extremism prior to involvement with
informants and government-created plots have been
prosecuted under terrorism charges.101 Until the informants
provided the means, these individuals did not have the finances or the proper
connections to conceive and carry out these terrorism plans. Although
orchestrating these plots makes the FBIs preventative stance appear
successful in the public eye, it diverts law enforcement resources from
focusing on real targets.
Moreover, Professor David A. Harris claims that the unregulated use of

informants in mosques and other religious and cultural settings can also do
great damage because it poses the risk of cutting off our best possible source
of intelligence: the voluntary, cooperative relationships that have developed
102
Having
community members report suspicious information to
the FBI may be a more effective way of obtaining reliable
103
terrorism intelligence from these communities. For example,
between law enforcement and Muslim communities.
in the few domestic terrorist prosecutions where a terrorist attack plan actually existed prior to informant
involvement, community members who had noticed something amiss were the first to alert the FBI and
104
identify the subjects.
In fact, since 9/11, community members have assisted law enforcement in
105
stopping potential terrorism plots in a number of cases.
A recent example, the case of Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber, shows that the attempted bombing could have been prevented
had law enforcement heeded the warnings that Abdulmutallabs father gave the CIA at the U.S. embassy in
106
Nigeria.
As the president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and former criminal prosecutor,
David Chiu testified regarding the Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian communities in San
Francisco: [W]ithout that level of cooperation, that level of trust, everything falls apart....[S]urveillance
107
only serves to continue to drive wedges when cooperation is what is needed most.
Analogous to the way informants in mosques target vulnerable individuals despite these individuals lack
of connection to terrorist organizations or predilection for extremism, a 2011 study by the Migration Policy
108
Institute demonstrates a similar phenomenon within other communities.
The 287(g) initiative, named
after the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that authorized it, allows ICE to enter into
memorandums of agreement with state and local law enforcement agencies, empowering these agencies
109
to directly enforce immigration laws.
However, the study found that half of the jurisdictions using
110
287(g) did not direct their enforcement efforts toward serious or violent offenders,
as the 287(g)
111
initiative had originally envisioned.
Instead, these jurisdictions sought to deport as many offenders as
112
possible regardless of the severity of the crime.
Study respondents believe that 287(g) program activities affect the community in distinct and adverse
ways, including by causing declines in Latino immigrant populations, [creating] avoid[ance of] public
places by these populations, chang[ing] [] driving behavior, [creating] fear and mistrust of the police and
other authorities, and reduc[ing] crime reporting.113
These behaviors were more acute in jurisdictions

114
with nontargeted enforcement, where any offense could constitute grounds for deportation.
Just as
Latino immigrant communities became distrustful of law enforcement and withdrew from crime reporting
when threatened with deportation, so did Muslim and Middle Eastern communities when threatened with
FBI surveillance of communal spaces. As the study notes, these operations can generate widespread
distrust of police. Such distrust in turn prompts immigrants to change their behavior to avoid contact with
115
police and other authorities.

Joshi 06
illegitimate. Despite this similarity of processes and often of outcomes,
racialization affects each religious group that is targeted differently. While one
could argue that Christianity has been racialized through its association with
whitenesswith distinctive designations for black, Korean, or Chinese
Christian congregationsthe results of racialization are different because
whiteness and Christianity function as the United States racial and religious
norms, respectively.3 The construction of identity most often involves
establishing both norms and opposites, who one is involves identifying
others who are not (Pharr, 1988; Said, 1978 ). The process of othering entails a
dialectic of both inclusion and exclusion. By attributing certain characteristics to a population in order to
categorize and differentiate it as an other, those who do so also establish criteria by which they
and its other or others are, to a great

extent, each defined by reference to the other, by what each is not. For
reasons that will become clear in the historical section that follows, it is the
normative power of whiteness and Christianity, separately and in tandem,
that makes the racialization of religion an essential problem for non-white
non-Christians. Thus, in order to understand the contemporary racialization of
South Asian religions, we must begin by orienting ourselves historically and
socially. In the next two sections, I show how the United States has developed
as a society where Christianity and whiteness are intimately linked and where
Christianity and whiteness generate social norms against which other
religions and races are measured.
themselves are represented. Indeed, a norm


A. Ending unfettered Status Quo Informant Policy leads to
cooperation with Muslim Community
Said, 2010
2015. /Bingham-MB

objective version of entrapment doctrine, but rather a halt
to the policy of using informants to investigate



or group to offer inside information (even if for money). The
differently,
B. The strict scrutiny standard would immediately

declare the most invasive and abusive Islamophobic
policies un-Constitutional and reduce the executional
ability of these agencies solves both federal and
local discrimination
Love 2012 [Erik, (Assistant Professor of Sociology @
Dickinson College), "NYPD: Whose side are you on?",
Institute for Social Policy and Understanding,
http://www.ispu.org/GetArticles/48/2461/Publications.aspx,
Accessed 7/16/15, AX]
Despite the recent outpouring of support of these
discriminatory programmes, a federal investigation of the
NYPD's practices is sorely needed. It's likely that if the NYPD's
crudely constructed policies of religious and racial profiling were
brought into the courts, the judicial principle of strict scrutiny
would definitively show that the NYPD had grossly violated the
constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Strict
scrutiny is the standard applied by the courts to determine whether
the government can move beyond constitutional limits due to
extraordinary circumstances.
It's called "strict" because the

government must rise to a tripartite standard: first, it must
prove that it has a compelling interest; second, that the policy is
narrowly tailored to achieve that interest; and, finally, the
policy must use the least restrictive means to achieve
that interest. Preventing terrorism is, undoubtedly, a
compelling state interest. But spying on anyone who happens to be
in a mosque or restaurant cannot possibly be "narrowly tailored ".
Similarly, a programme so paranoid that it spied on its own anti-terrorism
partners and kept track of any Muslim who changed their name clearly isn't
the "least restrictive means" towards achieving the goal of anti-terrorism.
The case for proving that the NYPD has violated the
constitution appears easy to prove in a court. The inability of
Muslim American and civil liberties advocates to get these
programmes into the courts, so far, is another sign of
political oppression. What might be even worse than the
flagrant violation of civil rights, however, is that the NYPD
programme is likely to make New York and the rest of the
country less safe from terrorism. The best scholarship on

terrorism suggests that devout Muslims are very unlikely to
join up with terrorists. A February 2012 report from the
Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security
concluded that terrorism from Muslim Americans was a
"miniscule threat to public safety". An earlier report from the
same centre found that Muslim American "practices"
effectively "prevent radicalisation".
B. Trust is key to solve terrorism, reforms are key to
Muslim cooperation
Risen, 2014

We have seen

demonstrate the need for ongoing public attention to

the governments activities to ensure that its surveillance
stays within the bounds of law and the Constitution,
said a blog post from EFF Staff Attorney Mark Rumold. And they once
again demonstrate the need for immediate and
comprehensive surveillance law reform."
again
C. When modified the S6 Visa and congressional oversight

Stabile 2014
Available at:

promise and seek review should the agreement go awry. Gaining
about terrorists identities and backgrounds. These
assumptions may also blind law enforcement to real threats

taking place in non- Muslim or non-Middle Eastern communities.
Expanding and modifying the use of S-6 visas would turn a small,
poorly designed program into a helpful law enforcement tool that
better procures reliable intelligence. Furthermore, providing
more oversight for FBI informant use and restricting
practices that contribute to ethnic and religious profiling would
improve Muslim and Middle Eastern communities
confidence in and cooperation with the government. This,
in turn, would encourage communities to effectively work with
law enforcement and report suspicious activities. Information
offered from within a community is more likely to be accurate,272
leading to more counterterrorism prosecutions that enhance
national security and less waste of law enforcement resources on
bogus threats.273 In the end, only Congress can reform the S-6
visa program to better effectuate the laws aim of rewarding
informants and procuring credible intelligence on real threats.
Reform would allow the FBI to more efficiently channel its
resources, and would afford informants a fairer
agreement changes that would better serve the security
interests of the United States
A vote affirmative is an ethical stance taken by the judge
to refuse Islamophobia- every affirmation of our project is
key to the process of activism, awareness. the only
productive start is challenging the culture of the
What brings together these different systems of racial oppressionmass

incarceration, mass surveillance, and mass deportationis a security logic
that holds the imperial state as necessary to keeping American families
(coded white) safe from threats abroad and at home. The ideological work of
the last few decades has cultivated not only racial security fears but also an
assumption that the security state is necessary to keep us safe. In this sense,
security has become the new psychological wage to aid the reallocation of
the welfare states social wage toward homeland security and to win support for
empire in the age of neoliberalism. Through the notion of security, social and
economic anxieties generated by the unraveling of the Keynesian social
compact have been channeled toward the Black or Brown street criminal,
welfare recipient, or terrorist. In addition, as Susan Faludi has argued, since 9/11, this
homeland in need of security has been symbolized, above all, by the white
domestic hearth of the prefeminist fifties, once again threatened by mythical frontier
enemies, hidden subversives, and racial aggressors. That this idea of the homeland
coincides culturally with the denigration of capable women, the magnification of manly men, the
heightened call for domesticity, the search for and sanctification of helpless girls points to the ways it is
gendered as well as racialized.67 The post-Snowden debate The mechanisms of surveillance outlined in
this essay were responses to political struggles of various kindsfrom anticolonial insurgencies to slave
Surveillance practices themselves

have also often been the target of organized opposition. In the 1920s and
1970s, the surveillance state was pressured to contract in the face of public
disapproval. The antiwar activists who broke into an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971
rebellions, labor militancy to anti-imperialist agitation.
and stole classified documents managed to expose COINTELPRO, for instance, leading to its shut down.
(But those responsible for this FBI program were never brought to justice for their activities and similar
techniques continued to be used later against, for example in the 1980s, the American Indian Movement,
and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador.68) Public concern about state surveillance
in the 1970s led to the Church committee report on government spying and the Handschu guidelines that
regulated the New York Police Departments spying on political activities .
Those concerns began

to be swept aside in the 1980s with the War on Drugs and, especially, later
with the War on Terror. While significant sections of the public may have
consented to the security state, those who have been among its greatest
Middle Eastunderstand its workings. Today, we are once again in a period of
revelation, concern, and debate on national security surveillance. Yet if real
change is to be brought about, the racial history of surveillance will need to

be fully confrontedor opposition to surveillance will once again be easily
defeated by racial security narratives. The significance of the Snowden leaks is that they
have laid out the depth of the NSAs mass surveillance with the kind of proof that only an insider can have.
The result has been a generalized level of alarm as people have become aware of how
intrusive surveillance is in our society, but that alarm remains constrained within a public
encryption tools are useful in increasing the resources that a government agency would need to
monitor an individual, they do nothing to unravel the larger surveillance apparatus.
Meanwhile, executives of US tech corporations express concerns about loss of sales to foreign customers
what should be a debate

about basic political freedoms is simply a question of corporate profits .69
Another and perhaps deeper problem is the use of images of state surveillance
that do not adequately fit the current situation such as George Orwells discussion of
concerned about the privacy of data. In Washington and Silicon Valley,
totalitarian surveillance. Edward Snowden himself remarked that Orwell warned us of the dangers of the
type of government surveillance we face today.70 Reference to Orwells 1984 has been widespread in the
current debate; indeed, sales of the book were said to have soared following Snowdens revelations.71 The
argument that digital surveillance is a new form of Big Brother is, on one level, supported by the evidence.
For those in certain targeted groupsMuslims, left-wing campaigners, radical

journalistsstate surveillance certainly looks Orwellian . But this level of
scrutiny is not faced by the general public. The picture of surveillance today is therefore
quite different from the classic images of surveillance that we find in Orwells 1984, which assumes an
What we have
instead today in the United States is total
surveillance, not on everyone, but on very specific
groups of people, defined by their race, religion, or
political ideology: people that NSA officials refer to as
the bad guys. In March 2014, Rick Ledgett, deputy director of the NSA, told an audience:
undifferentiated mass population subject to government control.
Contrary to some of the stuff thats been printed, we dont sit there and grind out metadata profiles of
average people. If youre not connected to one of those valid intelligence targets, you are not of interest to
us.72 In the national security world, connected to can be the basis for targeting a whole racial or
political community so, even assuming the accuracy of this comment, it points to the ways that
national
security surveillance can draw entire communities into its web, while
reassuring average people (code for the normative white middle class) that
they are not to be troubled. In the eyes of the national security state, this
average person must also express no political views critical of the status quo.
Better oversight of the sprawling national security apparatus and greater use of
encryption in digital communication should be welcomed. But by themselves these are likely to do
little more than reassure technologists, while racialized populations and
political dissenters continue to experience massive surveillance. This is why the
most effective challenges to the national security state have come
not from legal reformers or technologists but from grassroots

campaigning by the racialized groups most affected. In New York, the
campaign against the NYPDs surveillance of Muslims has drawn its strength
from building alliances with other groups affected by racial profiling: Latinos
and Blacks who suffer from hugely disproportionate rates of stop and frisk. In
Californias Bay Area, a campaign against a Department of Homeland Security-funded Domain
Awareness Center was successful because various constituencies were able to
unite on the issue, including homeless people, the poor, Muslims, and Blacks .
Similarly, a demographics unit planned by the Los Angeles Police Department, which would have profiled
communities on the basis of race and religion, was shut down after a campaign that united various groups
while the national security

state aims to create fear and to divide people,
activists can organize and build alliances across race
lines to overcome that fear. To the extent that the national
defined by race and class. The lesson here is that,
security state has targeted Occupy, the antiwar movement, environmental

rights activists, radical journalists and campaigners, and whistleblowers,
these groups have gravitated towards opposition to the national security
state. But understanding the centrality of race and empire to national security
surveillance means finding a basis for unity across different groups who
experience similar kinds of policing: Muslim, Latino/a, Asian, Black, and white
dissidents and radicals. It is on such a basis that we can see the beginnings
of an effective multiracial opposition to the surveillance state and empire.

Advantage: Otherization
Structure:
Muslims characterized as the other in the status quo.
Otherization justifies the war on terror.
By improving the stigma against Muslim Americans
We decrease the War on Terror, saving lives.
Extend Josie 6 Otherization Card from 1AC

The War on Terror relies on the constructed image of the
Other against the dignified and moral force of US
hegemonyrecreates violence, biopower, and colonialism
Crowe, 7researcher at York Centre for International and Security Studies,
York University, (L.A., "The Fuzzy Dream: Discourse, Historical myths, and
Militarized (in)Security - Interrogating dangerous myths of Afghanistan and
the West", www.eisa-net.org/be-bruga/eisa/files/events/turin/Croweloricrowe.pdf)//twemchen
These elements of oppositional binaries is closely related to the second element: contemporary discourse has developed
from and further perpetuates a particular ideology that emmanates from a neo-liberal capitalist and imperial agenda that
is founded upon neo-colonialist attitudes and assumptions. The
US campaign to fight terrorism,

initiated after September 11th explains Nahla Abdo has crystallized all the ideological
underpinnings of colonial and imperial policies towards the constructed
other.82 This emerges in the heroism myth mentioned above; for example, Debrix explains
how narratives around humanitarianism serve an ideological purpose in that it contributes to the reinforcement of
neoliberal policies in pathological regions of the international landscape.83 It also emerges in the militarization myth,
neoliberal globalisation relies on the institutionalization of neocolonialism and the commodification and (re)colonization of labor via militarized
strategies of imperial politics. That is, as Agathangelou and Ling point out, Neoliberal economics enables
insofar as
globalized militarization.84 Embedded in this normalization of neo-colonial frames are the elements of linearity and thus
assumed rationality of reasoning in the West. As Canada stepped up its role in direct combat operations (which included
an increase of combat troops, fighter jets, and tanks with long-range firing capacities85), Stephen Harper appealed to
troop morale on the ground in Afghanistan, stating: Canada and the international community are determined to take a
failed state and create a "democratic, prosperous and modern country."86 (my italics) Proposed solutions to the conflict(s)
in Afghanistan have been framed and justified not only as saving backwards Afghanistan but also as generously bringing
it into the modern, capitalist, neoliberal age. Moreover, this element represents an continuity of colonial power, presenting
the one correct truth or resolution, emmanating from the objective gaze of the problem-solving Western world.
Representations of Afghanistan present Western voices as the authority and

the potential progress such authority can bring to the East as naturally desirable. This
rationality also presumes an inherent value of Western methodology (including
statistical analysis, quantification of data, etc) and devalues alternative epistemologies including
those of the Afghan people. This is problematic for several reasons: 1) It forecloses and discourages
thinking outside the box and instead relies upon the masters tools
which include violent military force, the installation of a democratic regime, peacekeeping, and
reconstruction and foreign aid alternative strategies are deemed radical, unworkable, and anti-American; 2) it
prioritizes numbers and statitistics over lived experiences . By relying on
tallies of deaths, percetages of voters, and numbers of insurgents for example, the experiences of those living in the
region are obfuscated and devalued, and;
3)it reproduces a colonial hierarchy of
knowledge production. Old colonial narratives of have re-surfaced with renewed

vigor in the case of Afghanistan is contingent on and mutually reinforced by opposing
narratives of a civilized and developed West . For example: Consider the language which is
being usedCalling the perpetrators evildoers, irrational, calling them the forces of darkness, uncivilized, intent on
destroying civilization, intent on destroying democracy. They hate freedom, we are told. Every person of colour, and I
would want to say also every Aboriginal person, will recognize that language. The language of us versus them, of
This
colonizer/colonized dichotomy is key to the civilisational justification the
US administration pursues (We wage war to save civilization itself88) which, as Agathangelou and
civilization versus the forces of darkness, this language is rooted in the colonial legacy.87
Ling explain, is motivated by a constructed medieval evil that threatens American freedom and democracy, the
apotheosis of modern civilization, and therefore must be disciplined/civilized. In his Speech to Congress on September 21,
2001, Bush portrays the irrational Other as Evil and retributive seeking to destroy the developed, secure prosperous
and civilized free world: These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of lifeAl Qaeda is to
terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world, and imposing its radical
This production of othering and re-institutionalization of

colonial discourse has been enabled by and facilitated culture clash
explanations.90 The danger of such theories, warns Razack, lies not only in their
decontextualization and dehistoricization, but also on its reliance on the
Enlightenment narrative and notions of European moral superiority that
justify the use of force. This is evident in the unproblematic way in which
outside forces have assumed a right of interference in the region spanning from the 18th
beliefs on people everywhere.89
century when imperial powers demarcated the Durrand Line (which created a border between British India and
Afghanistan with the goal of making Afghanistan an effective buffer statefor British Imperial interests91) to the American
intervention that began in the Cold War, followed by the Soviets in the 1980s and the Americans, Canadians and British
today. In fact, The Wests practical engagement in Afghanistan reveals how it has served to reporoduce this neo-colonial
myth as well as the complexities and paradoxes which simultaneously de-stabilize that myth. During the cold war, the
Soviet and the Americans used Afghanistan as the battleground for power, choosing to sponsor and condemn various
regimes as they saw fit; this history of foreign engagement contributed to state fragmentation, underdevelopment, and
the self-sustaining war-economy that persist today. An example of this is the use of rentier incomes during the early
1900s that were used as a means of control and coercion.92
The United States uses otherization and the concept of

domination and subordination to justify extreme domestic
discrimination in surveillance and foreign attacks

stereotypes. The Muslim and Arab American had been popularly
constructed as an irrational, terror-supporting, and fanatical enemy
long before 9/11. American foreign policy has

consistently justified intervention in the Muslim world along
similar lines. When U.S. leaders characterize the Arab and
Muslim world as inherently undemocratic owing to
fundamental value differences between us and them,
they promote an environment of intolerance at home. Thus, the
Other
racialization of Arab and Muslim Americans, a process decades in the making, also explains the
overwhelming support for the infringement of Arab and Muslim civil liberties (Moallem 2005).
In this chapter I move beyond the narrow phenotypical definition of racialization, wherein race
relations are strictly structured by biological differences. Rather, I adopt a larger definition of
racialization that incorporates the process of othering. More specifically here, I argue that the
racialization of Muslims and Arabs stems from the consistent

deployment of an us versus them mentality, excessively propped up for
the justification of military campaigns in the Arab world. The racialization of Arabs and Muslims
is not simply contingent on phenotypical differences; rather, this racialization of difference is
driven by a perceived clash of values and exacerbated by cultural ethnocentrism. This process
of othering is based on assumptions about culture and religion instead of phenotype. It is not
based on assumptions about culture and religion instead of phenotype. It is not based on racial
divides; instead, it conforms to the process of racialization that has characterized the ways in
which the dominant elements in society have interacted with minority ethnic groups more
generally. The racialization of Arabs and Muslims stems from two intertwined processes. First,
in a society that is already constructed along racial lines, any

perceived difference between the dominant mainstream and
a minority Other tends to conform to racisms framework.
This othering process lends itself to the already existing paradigm of defining oneself vis-vis other groups along the lines of racial categories. This form of racism is not contingent on
differences in appearance but on differences in cultural attributes. These differences are
exacerbated by popular and government discourses that deem the group an enemy Other,
especially after 9/11. The loyalties of the Arab and Muslim communities have consistently
been questioned since the attacks. Only 38 percent of Americans in the Detroit metro area
believe that Arabs and Muslims are doing all that they can to fight the war on terror. Muslims
and Arabs across the United States are consistently asked to apologize for 9/11, as if they were
behind the attacks. And yet, ironically, the numerous and countless condemnations emanating
from mosques and organizations in the United States that emphatically denounce the attacks
have received little media attention. Americans remain suspicious of Arabs and Muslims. When
the subordinate,
dominant and


Muslim communities cooperation is key to war on terror

and terror threats are real- from president Obama himself
President Obama, 15 (Transcript Obama san Bernardino ISIS
Address, Barack Obama, December 6th, 2015, CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/transcript-obama-san-bernardinoisis-address/
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken
from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black; Latino and Asian; immigrants and American-born; moms and dads;
daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens and all of them were part of our American family. Tonight, I want to talk with
you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe. The FBI is still gathering the facts about what
happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their coworkers and his wife.
So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy
the two of them had gone down the dark path of

radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war
against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of
here at home. But it is clear that
terrorism, designed to kill innocent people. President Obama: 'This was an act of terrorism' President Obama: 'This was an act of
terrorism' 01:15 Our nation has been at war with terrorists since al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we've
Intelligence and law

enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and
overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe. Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued
hardened our defenses -- from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure .
terrorist networks overseas -- disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama bin Laden, and decimating al Qaeda's
leadership. Over the last few years, however, the terrorist threat has evolved into a new phase. As we've become better at preventing
complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common
in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino. And as
groups like ISIL grew stronger
amidst the chaos of war in Iraq and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the distance
between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San
Bernardino killers. For seven years, I've confronted this evolving threat each morning in my intelligence briefing. And since the day I took this
know how real the danger is. As

Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the
American people. As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves
office, I've authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because
with friends and coworkers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in
Paris. And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.
The threat from terrorism is real
Well, here's what I want you to know:

, but we will overcome it. We will
destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won't depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into
fear. That's what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing
upon every aspect of American power. Here's how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is
necessary. In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our
closest allies -- including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom -- have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will
help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL. Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and
Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens. In both countries, we're deploying Special Operations Forces
who can accelerate that offensive. We've stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and we'll continue to invest more in approaches that
are working on the ground. Third,
we're working with friends and allies to stop ISIL's
operations -- to disrupt plots,
cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more fighters. Since the attacks in Paris, we've surged intelligence-sharing
with our European allies. We're working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria. And we are cooperating with Muslim-majority countries -- and with our Muslim communities here at home -- to counter the vicious
ideology that ISIL promotes online. Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process -- and timeline -- to pursue ceasefires and a political resolution to the Syrian war.
Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL -- a group that threatens us all. This is our strategy to
destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy
to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done. That's why I've ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa (waiver) program under which the female terrorist in
San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that's why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice. Now, here at home, we
have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away. To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What
could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security. We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like
the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies -- no matter how effective they are -cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do -- and must do -- is make it harder for them to kill. Next, we should put in
place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they've traveled to warzones. And we're working with members of both parties in Congress to do
exactly that. Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered
our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it's time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight. My fellow Americans, these
are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat. Let me now say a word about what we should not do. We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria.
That's what groups like ISIL want. They know they can't defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can
maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops, draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits. The strategy that we are using now -- airstrikes, Special Forces, and working
with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country -- that is how we'll achieve a more sustainable victory. And it won't require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die
We cannot turn against one another by letting

this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is
what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and
killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more
than a billion Muslims around the world -- including millions of patriotic
Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast
majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we're to
succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities
as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through
suspicion and hate. That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim
for another decade on foreign soil. Here's what else we cannot do.
communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue
working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against
not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect,
, it
is the responsibility of all Americans -- of every faith -- to reject
discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It's our responsibility to reject
proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road,
we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends
and human dignity. But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization
and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes -- and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of
our country. We have to remember that. President Obama: 'Freedom is more powerful than fear' President Obama: 'Freedom is
more powerful than fear' 02:15 My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of
. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity
history
-- that no matter who you are, or where you
come from, or what you look like, or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law. Even in this
political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future Presidents must take to keep our country safe, let's make sure we never
forget what makes us exceptional. Let's not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear; that we have always met challenges -- whether
war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks -- by coming together around our common ideals as one nation, as one people. So long
as we stay true to that tradition, I have no doubt America will prevail. Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of
America.
2AC Case
Biopower/Colonialism
1. The War on Terror relies on the constructed image
of the Other against the dignified and moral force of
US hegemonyrecreates violence, biopower, and
colonialism
Crowe, 7researcher at York Centre for International and Security Studies,
York University, (L.A., "The Fuzzy Dream: Discourse, Historical myths, and
Militarized (in)Security - Interrogating dangerous myths of Afghanistan and
the West", www.eisa-net.org/be-bruga/eisa/files/events/turin/Croweloricrowe.pdf)//twemchen
These elements of oppositional binaries is closely related to the second element: contemporary discourse has developed
from and further perpetuates a particular ideology that emmanates from a neo-liberal capitalist and imperial agenda that
is founded upon neo-colonialist attitudes and assumptions. The
US campaign to fight terrorism,

crystallized all the ideological
underpinnings of colonial and imperial policies towards the constructed
other.82 This emerges in the heroism myth mentioned above; for example, Debrix explains
initiated after September 11th explains Nahla Abdo has
how narratives around humanitarianism serve an ideological purpose in that it contributes to the reinforcement of
neoliberal policies in pathological regions of the international landscape.83 It also emerges in the militarization myth,
neoliberal globalisation relies on the institutionalization of neocolonialism and the commodification and (re)colonization of labor via militarized
strategies of imperial politics. That is, as Agathangelou and Ling point out, Neoliberal economics enables
insofar as
globalized militarization.84 Embedded in this normalization of neo-colonial frames are the elements of linearity and thus
assumed rationality of reasoning in the West. As Canada stepped up its role in direct combat operations (which included
an increase of combat troops, fighter jets, and tanks with long-range firing capacities85), Stephen Harper appealed to
troop morale on the ground in Afghanistan, stating: Canada and the international community are determined to take a
failed state and create a "democratic, prosperous and modern country."86 (my italics) Proposed solutions to the conflict(s)
in Afghanistan have been framed and justified not only as saving backwards Afghanistan but also as generously bringing
it into the modern, capitalist, neoliberal age. Moreover, this element represents an continuity of colonial power, presenting
the one correct truth or resolution, emmanating from the objective gaze of the problem-solving Western world.
Representations of Afghanistan present Western voices as the authority and

the potential progress such authority can bring to the East as naturally desirable. This
rationality also presumes an inherent value of Western methodology (including
statistical analysis, quantification of data, etc) and devalues alternative epistemologies including
those of the Afghan people. This is problematic for several reasons: 1) It forecloses and discourages
thinking outside the box and instead relies upon the masters tools
which include violent military force, the installation of a democratic regime, peacekeeping, and
reconstruction and foreign aid alternative strategies are deemed radical, unworkable, and anti-American; 2) it
prioritizes numbers and statitistics over lived experiences . By relying on
tallies of deaths, percetages of voters, and numbers of insurgents for example, the experiences of those living in the
3)it reproduces a colonial hierarchy of

knowledge production. Old colonial narratives of have re-surfaced with renewed
vigor in the case of Afghanistan is contingent on and mutually reinforced by opposing
narratives of a civilized and developed West . For example: Consider the language which is
region are obfuscated and devalued, and;
being usedCalling the perpetrators evildoers, irrational, calling them the forces of darkness, uncivilized, intent on
destroying civilization, intent on destroying democracy. They hate freedom, we are told. Every person of colour, and I
would want to say also every Aboriginal person, will recognize that language. The language of us versus them, of
This
colonizer/colonized dichotomy is key to the civilisational justification the
US administration pursues (We wage war to save civilization itself88) which, as Agathangelou and
civilization versus the forces of darkness, this language is rooted in the colonial legacy.87
Ling explain, is motivated by a constructed medieval evil that threatens American freedom and democracy, the
apotheosis of modern civilization, and therefore must be disciplined/civilized. In his Speech to Congress on September 21,
2001, Bush portrays the irrational Other as Evil and retributive seeking to destroy the developed, secure prosperous
and civilized free world: These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of lifeAl Qaeda is to
terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world, and imposing its radical
This production of othering and re-institutionalization of

colonial discourse has been enabled by and facilitated culture clash
explanations.90 The danger of such theories, warns Razack, lies not only in their
decontextualization and dehistoricization, but also on its reliance on the
Enlightenment narrative and notions of European moral superiority that
justify the use of force. This is evident in the unproblematic way in which
outside forces have assumed a right of interference in the region spanning from the 18th
beliefs on people everywhere.89
century when imperial powers demarcated the Durrand Line (which created a border between British India and
Afghanistan with the goal of making Afghanistan an effective buffer statefor British Imperial interests91) to the American
intervention that began in the Cold War, followed by the Soviets in the 1980s and the Americans, Canadians and British
today. In fact, The Wests practical engagement in Afghanistan reveals how it has served to reporoduce this neo-colonial
myth as well as the complexities and paradoxes which simultaneously de-stabilize that myth. During the cold war, the
Soviet and the Americans used Afghanistan as the battleground for power, choosing to sponsor and condemn various
regimes as they saw fit; this history of foreign engagement contributed to state fragmentation, underdevelopment, and
the self-sustaining war-economy that persist today. An example of this is the use of rentier incomes during the early
1900s that were used as a means of control and coercion.92
2. Racism makes war and genocide the permanent

conditions of society while simultaneously making it
invisible- society internalizes it
Mendieta 02 (Eduardo Mendieta, PhD and Associate professor of
Stonybrook School of Philosophy, To make live and to let die Foucault on
Racism Meeting of the Foucault Circle, 4/25/02 APA Central Division Meeting)
This is where racism intervenes, not from without, exogenously, but from
within, constitutively. For the emergence of biopower as the form of a new
form of political rationality, entails the inscription within the very logic of the
modern state the logic of racism. For racism grants, and here I am quoting:
the conditions for the acceptability of putting to death in a society
of normalization. Where there is a society of normalization, where there is a
power that is, in all of its surface and in first instance, and first line, a biopower, racism is indispensable as a condition to be able to put to
death someone, in order to be able to put to death others. The
homicidal [meurtrire] function of the state, to the degree that the
state functions on the modality of bio-power, can only be assured by
racism (Foucault 1997, 227) To use the formulations from his 1982 lecture
The Political Technology of Individuals which incidentally, echo his 1979
Tanner Lectures the power of the state after the 18th century, a power which
is enacted through the police, and is enacted over the population, is a power
over living beings, and as such it is a biopolitics. And, to quote more directly,
since the population is nothing more than what the state takes care of for its
own sake, of course, the state is entitled to slaughter it, if necessary. So the
reverse of biopolitics is thanatopolitics. (Foucault 2000, 416). Racism, is the
thanatopolitics of the biopolitics of the total state. They are two sides of one
same political technology, one same political rationality: the management of
life, the life of a population, the tending to the continuum of life of a people.
And with the inscription of racism within the state of biopower, the long
history of war that Foucault has been telling in these dazzling lectures has
made a new turn: the war of peoples, a war against invaders, imperials
colonizers, which turned into a war of races, to then turn into a war of
classes, has now turned into the war of a race, a biological unit, against its
polluters and threats. Racism is the means by which bourgeois political
power, biopower, re-kindles the fires of war within civil society.
Racism normalizes and medicalizes war. Racism makes war the
permanent condition of society, while at the same time masking its
weapons of death and torture. As I wrote somewhere else, racism
banalizes genocide by making quotidian the lynching of suspect threats to
the health of the social body. Racism makes the killing of the other, of
others, an everyday occurrence by internalizing and normalizing the
war of society against its enemies. To protect society entails we be ready
to kill its threats, its foes, and if we understand society as a unity of life, as a
continuum of the living, then these threat and foes are biological in nature.
3. That culminates in violence, war, and genocide.

Foucault 78 (Michel late philosopher, History of Sexuality An
Introduction Vol. 1, Vintage Books, p. 135-137) **We do not agree with this
authors use of gendered language
For a long time, one of the characteristic privileges of sovereign power was
the right to decide life and death. In a formal sense, it derived no doubt from
the ancient patria potestas that granted the father of the Roman family the
right to "dispose" of the life of his children and his slaves; just as he had
given them life, so he could take it away. By the time the right of life and
death was framed by the classical theoreticians, it was in a considerably
diminished form. It was no longer considered that this power of the
sovereign over his (their) subjects could be exercised in an absolute
and unconditional way, but only in cases where the sovereign's very
existence was in jeopardy: a sort of right of rejoinder. If he were
threatened by external enemies who sought to over-throw him or contest his
rights, he could then legitimately wage war, and require his subjects to take
part in the defense of the state; without "directly proposing their death," he
was empowered to "expose their life": in this sense, he wielded an "indirect"
power over them of life and death.' But if someone dared to rise up against
him and transgress his laws, then he could exercise a direct power over the
offender's life: as punishment, the latter would be put to death. Viewed in this
way, the power of life and death was not an absolute privilege: it was
conditioned by the defense of the sovereign, and his own survival. Must we
follow Hobbes in seeing it as the transfer to the prince of the natural right
possessed by every individual to defend his life even if this meant the death
of others? Or should it be regarded as a specific right that was manifested
with the formation of that new juridical being, the sovereign?' In any case, in
its modern form-relative and limited-as in its ancient and absolute form, the
right of life and death is a dissymmetrical one. The sovereign exercised
his (their) right of life only by exercising his right to kill, or by
refraining from killing; he (they)evidenced his power over life only

through the death he was capable of requiring. The right which was
formulated as the "power of life and death" was in reality the right
to take life or let live. Its symbol, after all, was the sword. Perhaps this
juridical form must be referred to a historical type of society in which power
was exercised mainly as a means of deduction (prelevement), a subtraction
mechanism, a right to appropriate a portion of the wealth, a tax of products,
goods and services, labor and blood, levied on the subjects. Power in this
instance was essentially a right of seizure: of things, time, bodies, and
ultimately life itself; it culminated, in the privilege to seize hold of life in order
to suppress it. Since the classical age the West has undergone a very
profound transformation of these mechanisms of power. "Deduction"
has tended to be no longer the major form of power but merely one element
among others, working to incite, reinforce, control, monitor, optimize, and
organize the forces under it: a power bent on generating forces, making them
grow, and ordering them, rather than one dedicated to impeding them,
making them submit, or destroying them. There has been a parallel shift
in the right of death, or at least a tendency to align itself with the
exigencies of a life-administering power and to define itself accordingly.
This death that was based on the right of the sovereign is now
manifested as simply the reverse of the right of the social body to
ensure, maintain, or develop its life. Yet wars were never as bloody
as they have been since the nineteenth century, and all things being
equal, never before did regimes visit such holocausts on their own
populations. But this formidable power of death -and this is perhaps what
accounts for part of its force and the cynicism with which it has so greatly
expanded its limits -now presents itself as the counterpart of a power that
exerts a positive influence on life, that endeavors to administer, optimize,
and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive
regulations. Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who
must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of
everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of
wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have
become vital. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the
race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars,
causing so many men to be killed. And through a turn that closes the
circle, as the technology of wars has caused them to tend increasingly toward
all-out destruction, the decision that initiates them and the one that
terminates them are in fact increasingly informed by the naked question of
survival. The atomic situation is now at the end point of this process: the
power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of the power to
guarantee an individual's continued existence. The principle underlying the
tactics of battle-that one has to be capable of killing in order to go on livinghas become the principle that defines the strategy of states. But the
existence in question is no longer the juridical existence of sovereignty; at
stake is the biological existence of a population. If genocide is indeed the
dream of modern powers, this is not because of a recent return of the
ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at

the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale
phenomena of population.
Circumvention
Circumvention contributes to the cycle of civic ignorancethat causes authoritarianism in the name of national
security
Glennon 14 (Michael J, professor of international law at Tufts Universitys
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Legal Counsel to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee (1977-1980), Fulbright Distinguished Professor of
International and Constitutional Law, Vytautus Magnus University School of
Law, Kaunas, Lithuania (1998); a Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars in Washington D.C. (2001-2002); Thomas Hawkins
Johnson Visiting Scholar at the United States Military Academy, West Point
(2005); Director of Studies at the Hague Academy of International Law
(2006); and professeur invit at the University of Paris II (Panthon-Assas)
from 2006 to 2012., consultant to congressional committees, the U.S. State
Department, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, member of the
American Law Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Board of
Editors of the American Journal of International Law, Michael J., Torturing the
Rule of Law, http://nationalinterest.org/files/digital-edition/%5Buser-lastlogin-raw%5D/134%20Digital%20Edition.pdf, EC)
That root cause is difficult to discuss in a democracy, for it lies in the
electorates own deficiencies. This is the second great obstacle the reform proposals confront;
on this point Bagehots and Madisons theories converge. Bagehot argued that when the
public becomes too sophisticated to be misled any longer about who holds
governmental power but not informed enough to play a genuine role in
governance, the whole structure will fall to the earth, in his phrase. Madison,
contrary to popular belief, did not suggest that the system that he and his colleagues
designed was self-correcting. The Framers did not believe that merely setting ambition against
ambition within the government would by itself save the people from autocracy. They believed that
this competition for power would not occur absent an informed and
engaged public what Robert Dahl has called the adequate citizen, the
citizen able and willing to undertake the responsibilities required to make democracy work. Thomas
Jefferson spoke for many of the Framers. He said: If
a nation expects to be ignorant and

free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Competition between institutions was thus written into the constitutional architecture not as a substitute
for civic virtuethere is none but as a backstop, as an additional safeguard to forestall the rise of
autocracy. But that backstop was not freestanding: it, too, depended upon an electorate possessed of civic
In the early days of the

Republic, public-policy issues were less intricate, and the franchise was de
jure or de facto more restricted. A smaller electorate was more capable of
mastering the more straightforward issues it faced. As Louis Henkin pointed out,
virtue. If anything, the essentiality of civic virtue has grown over the years.
however, the United States has since changed gradually from a republic to a democracyan ultrademocracy, Bagehot believed. The problems government has faced over the years have become more
a greater base of civic knowledge has thus become indispensable

for responsible participation in the process of governance. Yet a cursory
glance at consistent survey results confirms what former Supreme Court
justice David Souter has described today as the publics pervasive civic
complex, and
ignorance. The numbers are sobering. A 2011 Newsweek survey showed that 80 percent of
Americans did not know who was president during World War I; 40 percent did not know whom the United
States fought in World War II; and 29 percent could not identify the current vice president of the United
Far more Americans can name the Three Stooges than any member of
the Supreme Court. One poll has found that 71 percent of Americans believe that
Iran already has nuclear weapons. In 2006, at the height of U.S. military involvement in the
States.
region, 88 percent of Americans aged eighteen to twenty-four could not find Afghanistan on a map of Asia,
Ilya Somins fine

book Democracy and Political Ignorance analyzes the problem in depth. The
and 63 percent could not find Iraq or Saudi Arabia on a map of the Middle East.
great conundrum is that the publics ignorance does not derive from stupidityaverage raw iq scores
actually have increased in recent decadesso much as it derives from simple rationality :
Why spend
time and energy learning about national-security policies that cannot be
changed? That is the nub of the negative feedback loop in which the United
States is now locked. Resuscitating the Madisonian institutions requires an
informed, engaged electorate, but voters have little incentive to be informed
or engaged if they believe that their efforts would be for naught and as they
become more uninformed and unengaged, they have all the more reason to
continue on that path. The Madisonian institutions thus continue to atrophy,
the power of the Trumanite network continues to grow and the public
continues to disengage. Should this trend continue, and there is scant
reason to believe it will not, it takes no great prescience to see what lies
ahead: outward symbols and rituals of national security governance that appear
largely the same, concealing a Trumanite network that takes on the role of a silent directorate, and
like the British monarchy and House of Lords, quietly and

gradually are transformed into museum pieces.
Madisonian institutions that,
General
No circumvention bureaucratic forces and leaks
William Saletan 13, writes about politics, science, technology, and other
stuff for Slate and the author of Bearing Right, The Taming of the Spook,
6/1/2013, The Slate,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/nsa_his
tory_how_bureaucrats_leaks_and_courts_tamed_government_surveillance.ht
ml ||RS
In January 2007, the Presidents Surveillance Program officially ceased . At that
point, according to the report, delivery of email and phone-call content to NSA from the major telecom
companies ended. In 2008, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act. That law, as the Guardian and
other critics note, facilitated NSA surveillance. But it also mandated the NSA Inspector Generals report. In
2009, Obama took over the White House and began to tighten the oversight. Briefings were extended
In 2011, bulk collection of Internet metadata stopped. That

doesnt mean phone or Internet surveillance has ended altogether . It hasnt. It
doesnt mean such programs wont be abused or that theyre sufficiently supervised. But it does
suggest two things. First, contrary to libertarian dogma, government
surveillance doesnt always expand. Bureaucratic forcesrules, politics,
personal integrity, and finite resourcestend to impose limits and
layers of oversight. Second, contrary to government dogma, leaks are a
crucial part of this ecosystem of restraint. Without that December 2005 Times
more widely to Congress.
story, theres no January 2006 briefing of the full FISC, and the programs reliance on presidential rather
Without Snowden,
Congress wouldnt be reexamining the NSA or filing bills to keep the agency
in check. And we wouldnt be able to read the inspector generals report in the Guardian. Thats what I
than court approval surely would have continued for more than a year.
learned from reading this history of the surveillance program. For the most part, the government has tried
to do the right thing. Little by little, it has made
Snowden, for all his flaws, is part of the cleansing.
progress in cleaning itself up . And
Circumvention Causes Trade Backlash

Other countries trying to circumvent the NSA violates international trade law.
(Bysarah Lazare, a staff writer for Common Dreams., 4-10-2014, "US: EU
Circumvention of NSA Spying Would Violate Trade Law," Common Dreams,
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/04/10/us-eu-circumvention-nsaspying-would-violate-trade-law)//Colt45
Following Edward Snowden's revelations that the U.S. is spying on people and
governments across the world, European Union countries have floated
proposals to build a Europe-centric communications system designed to
bypass NSA surveillance. But on Friday, the top U.S. trade negotiating body
charged that such a move would violate international trade law. "Recent
proposals from countries within the European Union to create a Europe-only
electronic network (dubbed a 'Schengen cloud' by advocates) or to create
national-only electronic networks could potentially lead to effective exclusion
or discrimination against foreign service suppliers that are directly offering
network services, or dependent on them," states a report released Friday by
the office of U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman. The USTR takes aim
at the German state-backed Deutsche Telekom for advocating laws to stop

European electronics data from being routed outside the EU in a bid to
protect privacy. The report slams this approach as "draconian" and charges
that it "appears to be a means of providing protectionist advantage to EUbased ICT suppliers."
Judicial
Judicial Review protects against FBI circumvention as well as reduces
surveillance of Muslim communities
Stabile 2014
(Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013 Recruiting
Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law
Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276 Available at:
Greater use of the S-6 visa would ensure judicial review of government
practices by forcing the FBI to be more careful about following procedures in
recruiting and dealing with informants. Changes to the S-6 visa program that provides
material witness visas to informants with intelligence about terrorist activities could formalize the use of
immigration rewards for terrorism intelligence in ways that would benefit the FBI and potential
reduce the unnecessary and harmful surveillance of

Muslim and Middle Eastern communities. In order for the S-6 visa to become a useful tool
informants, and could help
for the FBI without compromising civil liberties, the S-6 visa must be more readily available, easier to
grant, and carefully tailored.
The Supreme Court can effectively force compliance with

the rule of law
Wu 6 [Edieth, Associate Dean and Professor, Thurgood Marshall School of
Law. 2006. DOMESTIC SPYING AND WHY AMERICA SHOULD AVOID THE
SLIPPERY SLOPE Review of Law and Social Justice.
http://weblaw.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/rlsj/assets/docs/Wu_Final.pdf//jweide
man]
Americans expect their government,
especially the president, to respect the rule of law. That is, they expect all
branches of governmentjudiciary, executive, and legislativeto act as
checks and balances. The judiciary branch, specifically the Supreme Court, is
emphatically the arm of government with the province and duty to say what
the law is.60 And in the context of executive power, the Court has long since
made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President.61 For
example, the Supreme Court was recently asked to use [the Padilla] case to
define the extent of presidential power over U.S. citizens who are detained on
American soil on suspicion of terrorism.62 The Court exercised its authority
to end [the] unusual stalemate between the executive and judiciary
branches by ordering Padillas transfer from military to civilian custody .63
FISA, of course, specifically permits an undeniably larger role for the
judiciary when U.S. persons, such as Padilla, are or may be concerned.64 In such a case, courts limit executive
Although not an enumerated constitutional right,
discretion by approv[ing] surveillance of U.S. persons [only if] the Government can show that [the target] knowingly
engaged in clandestine intelligence activities which involve or may involve a [criminal] violation . . . or knowingly
In
addition to directly limiting executive discretion, the judiciary is in a unique
position to indirectly elicit executive compliance with the established rule of
law by raising public consciousness of an issue . Throughout history, the
judiciary has raised public consciousness by vociferously adhering to the rule
of law, thereby forcing the executive into de facto compliance.66
commits, prepares to commit, or aids in the preparation or commission of, acts of sabotage or terrorism.65
Congressional
Structural reform like the plan is able to reign in the
executive branch.
Quirk, University of British Columbia U.S. politics and
representation professor with the Phil Lind Chair, and
Bendix, Keene State College political science assistant
professor, 2015
[Paul and William, No. 68, March 2015, Secrecy and negligence: How
Congress lost control of domestic surveillance
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/02-secrecynegligence-congres-surveillance-bendix-quirk/ctibendixquirksecrecyv3.pdf,
p.1-2, accessed 7-15-15, TAP]
We describe and explain Congresss deliberative failure on phone and
Internet surveillance policy. We show that along with a lack of consistent
public concern for privacy, and the increasing tendency toward partisan
gridlock, Congresss institutional methods for dealing with secret surveillance
programs have undermined its capacity to deliberate and act effectively with
respect to those programs. Although the current political environment is
hardly conducive to addressing such problems, we discuss long-term goals for
institutional reform to enhance this capacity. We see no easy or decisive
institutional fix. But without some structural change, the prospects
look dim for maintaining significant limitations on investigatory
intrusion in an era of overwhelming concern for security.
Congress is willing to enforce theyve taken up the issue

of surveillance. Prefer the most recent evidence.
Yahoo News 15 Yahoo News, Byline Scott Bomboy, 2015 (USA
Freedom Act signed, so whats next for NSA spying?, Yahoo News, June 3 rd,
Available Online at http://news.yahoo.com/usa-freedom-act-signed-next-nsaspying-111450759.html, Accessed 06-08-2015)
Surveillance will certainly continue under other parts of the act and under
other government programs designed to combat terrorism. But the fight in
Congress may just be getting started.
The New York Times says that Senator Mike Lee and Senator Pat Leahy are
moving on to targeting the government program that allows e-mails older
than six months to be read by investigators. Congressional reformers may
also seek to limit the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
And there is debate in the House and Senate about other spying provisions.
Some of us dont think USA Freedom sufficiently ends bulk metadata
collection. In fact, [the government] will still contend after the act passes that
they can bulk collect all of the websites and emails and all that content, said
Representative Thomas Massie. Read it closely, its only about your phone
calls.
Congress is prepared to enforce surveillance legislation

debate over USA Freedom Act proves.
Buffalo News 15 Buffalo News Editorial Board, 2015 (Freedom Act
recognizes privacy rights without endangering national security, Buffalo
News, June 5th, Available Online at
http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/buffalo-news-editorials/freedom-actrecognizes-privacy-rights-without-endangering-national-security-20150605,
Accessed 06-08-2015)
The ensuing debate was appropriately loud and passionate. The main
problems with the program were determined to be its secrecy and lack of
sufficient oversight to ensure that the NSA was not overstepping its legal
bounds. The collection of metadata, itself, was also troubling, even though
the NSA wasnt listening to the content of calls. Rather the agency was
analyzing the data and attempting to match it with known or suspected
terrorist activities. In that, there may be value. The sifting of data can still
take place, as long as the NSA gets a court order to access records held by
the phone companies.
The continuing need for aggressive government action against terrorism
should, at this point, go without saying. The important point was to determine
how government surveillance should work, not whether it was needed. It was
also true, though, that the Patriot Act was passed during the post-9/11 fever
that gripped the country, including government. Nearly 14 years later, it was
time to consider the issue at least somewhat more dispassionately.
The change seems to be a plausible one, though the test of that is yet to
come. The United States has not suffered a single foreign-born terrorist attack
since 2001 and it is fair to conclude that the telephone surveillance program
may have played some role in that.
The Patriot Act escaped close scrutiny until the Snowden revelations. Thats
just one of the reasons that the USA Freedom Act needs to be closely
monitored. Congress needs to satisfy itself that the NSA and any other
agencies involved are complying with the new law, which President
Obama signed on Tuesday night, but it also needs to verify with those
agencies that the law is doing the job intended and in a way that serves the
legitimate interests of national security.
Still, its good to see that Congress was able to evaluate the Patriot Act in a
way that was inclusive of all interested parties and to produce what looks like
a workable compromise. Its what Congress is supposed to do and what
it hasnt done for far too long.
Congressional action on Section 215 demonstrates that

Congress has stepped up to the plate to enforce antisurveillance measures prefer the most recent evidence.
This is a sea change in behavior that will lead to
aggressive enforcement on other Executive surveillance
issues.
Buttar 15 Shahid Buttar, constitutional lawyer and executive director of
the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, 2015 (Senate Moves to Check
Executive Spying Power, The Progressive, May 27 th, Available Online at
http://progressive.org/news/2015/05/188151/senate-moves-check-executivespying-power, Accessed 06-07-2015)
A revolution came to Washington in the wee hours of Saturday morning, just
after the stroke of midnight. After 15 years of congressional deference to
mass surveillance, Congress finally took actionironically, by failing to
take actionand did its job to check and balance executive power.
On May 23, after a hard-fought congressional debate, the Senate effectively
allowed portions of the notorious Patriot Act to expire as previously
scheduled, appropriately rejecting a compromise branded as the Freedom
Act.
It is the first time Congress has meaningfully checked and balanced the
national security agencies since 2001. It will not be the last.
Where Did This Come From?
Congress approved the Patriot Act in 2001 with neither debate nor an
understanding of what it entailed. Since then, it has acceptedfrom both the
Bush and the Obama administrationssecret legal interpretations contorting
statutes into mass surveillance programs recently held illegal by a federal
appellate court, as well as lies under oath by senior officials aiming to hide
domestic spying programs from congressional and public oversight.
The American people have never gone along quietly.
During the Bush administration, years before the Edward Snowden
revelations amplified mass outrage in 2013, nearly 500 cities and eight states
issued official declarations decrying mass surveillance. Cities from Lexington,
Massachusetts to Bisbee, Arizona (including others in between like New York
City, Los Angeles and Dallas), and states as politically diverse as California
and Idaho raised their voices.
Since the Snowden revelations, Americans from coast to coast have taken
action to challenge domestic spying. We have taken action online, from online
petitions shaming the absent chair of a crucial congressional oversight
committee, to campaigns promoting mass encryption to force constitutional
compliance on the agencies technologically, despite their disdain for legal
limits. We have taken action in the streets, outside NSA headquarters, outside
the White House, at rallies on Capitol Hill and in our state legislatures. We
have fought back with music, sculpture, DJ mixes, poetry and comedy.
While the domestic phone metadata program's days may be numbered, this
drama is just beginning. Hawks may force another Senate vote on Section
215 on the eve of the phone dragnet's expiration. Beyond their desperate
effort to save the program, the Freedom Act's rejection paves the way for
further surveillance reform to address other legal authorities under which
unconstitutional and ineffective domestic spying will continue even after this
authority finally expires.
Congress has power over agencies

Michaels 8, Acting Professor, UCLA School of Law. Law Clerk to the Hon.
David H. Souter, U.S. Supreme Court, 2005-06. Law Clerk to the Hon. Guido
Calabresi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2004-05. J.D., Yale Law
School, 2003. (August 2008, Jon D. Michaels, CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW, All
the President's Spies: Private-Public Intelligence Partnerships in the War on
Terror, 96 Calif. L. Rev. 901, Lexis)
Armed with data far more detailed and more timely than what it currently
receives, n227 Congress could decide to hold hearings (in camera, if
necessary to preserve classified information) to investigate programs that it
suspects are misguided, insufficiently attentive to privacy concerns, overly
burdensome to the corporations, or exploitative of the status differentials that
make it legally easier for the private sector to collect information and give it
to the government than for the intelligence agencies to obtain the data in the
first place. n228 Congress could also hold up confirmation votes on nominees
as leverage to force the Executive to make concessions. n229 Or, it could defund a given [*954] program, which it has previously done when it
disapproved of an intelligence or national-security operation. n230 (It should
be underscored, of course, that even a minority within Congress can wield
tremendous influence, by insisting on various amendments to critical bills, by
itself trying to hold up nominees, or, at least in the Senate, by filibustering.)
The appropriations power n231 may be particularly potent in the intelligence
budgetary arena. Intelligence budgets are treated differently from much of
the rest of the overall federal budget, n232and to the extent intelligence line
appropriations can remain classified yet be subject to programmatic-level
revisions, Congress would have both the dexterity and political cover to
exercise aggressively its co-ordinate powers over intelligence policy. That is,
the ability to tinker with funding streams on a regular basis gives the
legislature a means of acting promptly upon its concerns.n233 What is more,
the concomitant opportunity to appropriate in a manner largely occluded
from the public gives lawmakers the political freedom to challenge imprudent
intelligence policies with less fear of being harshly punished at election time
for their so-called "soft-on-terrorism" vote - a fear that routinely prevents
many a member from voting against (publicly recorded) military-spending

bills. When a vote to deny military appropriations is taken as an article of
disloyalty, as it often is, representatives lose perhaps the most
straightforward and valuable means of influencing foreign policy. n234 None
of this is, of course, to say that Congress [*955] will need to scrutinize every
penny spent on intelligence matters. Most operations, like most expenditures
in the larger budget or, say, most military promotions requiring Senate
confirmation, will be approved as a matter of course. n235 But the option to
affect funding when necessary to redirect misguided policy is not an
inconsequential one.
Congress has power over surveillancefunding,

jurisdiction, and leaks
Riley and Schneider 10 John Riley is an Assistant Professor at the
Political Science Department at Kutztown University. Mary Kate Schneider is a
research assistant; Mary Kate Schneider is a Ph.D. Candidate, Political
Science, University of Maryland, Keith Gregory Logan is the editor of the
book, He is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at
Kutztown University (April 2010, John Riley and Mary Kate Schneider, Praeger
Security International, Book Title: Homeland Security and Intelligence,
Chapter Title: Congressional Oversight of U.S. Intelligence, p.173)
Legislative Leverage: how Congress Influences the Intelligence Community
There are three key mechanisms through which Congress can exert leverage
over the IC. Foremost, Congress controls the flow of resources from the U.S.
government to the intelligence agencies, is responsible for reviewing the
agencies budgets, and appropriates and authorizes funds through the annual
Intelligence Authorization Act. Thus, Congress can threaten to withhold funds
from the IC, and the intelligence community is obligated to justify its
expenses to Congress. Although this sometimes smacks of
micromanagement,1 such leverage is a powerful tool in ensuring
accountability, serving as both carrot and stick.
A second mechanism through which Congress influences the intelligence
community is legalthat is, Congress has both the power and the obligation
to pass legislation that authorizes, constrains, or otherwise affects the
operations of intelligence agencies. Additionally, Congress is charged with
the responsibility to monitor the ICs adherence to these laws and to the U.S.
Constitution.
Third, Congress can shape the actions of the IC through the power to go
public2 Although leaking classified information would appear to be a threat
to national security, S. Res. 400 (the resolution that created the Senates
intelligence oversight committee) includes provisions through which Congress
can declassify information despite opposition from the executive branch.3
Congress has never exercised these formal procedures, but at least one
former director of central intelligence (DCI) has been accused of leaking

information after a congressional hearing and then blaming the leak on
congress.4
The church committee proves congressional effectiveness

Langston 15 Law Clerk to Chief Special Master Denise K. Vowell, U.S.
Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C.(Spring 2015, Marc B. Langston,
TEXAS A&M LAW REVIEW, REDISCOVERING CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE
OVERSIGHT: IS ANOTHER CHURCH COMMITTEE POSSIBLE WITHOUT FRANK
CHURCH?, Lexis)
Church led the Church Committee to conduct an unprecedented investigation
of intelligence agencies, yielding myriad controversial secrets. His experience
in opposing the executive branch over issues such as the Vietnam War
encapsulated his requests for cooperation with a formidable coating of
confidence. Just as Watergate had provided the political will to create the
Church Committee, Church harnessed the secrets of the intelligence agencies
to precipitate sweeping reforms and ensure permanent
congressional intelligence oversight.
By reviewing this Article's brief summary of Church's political background and
key aspects of the Church Committee's work, one hopefully gleans a model
for congressional intelligence oversight that is a persuasive alternative to the
status quo, wherein congressional intelligence oversight committees defer
heavily to the executive branch and offer few protections against government
misconduct. As Church $=P487 envisioned, "Congress being a political animal
will exercise its surveillance with whatever diligence the political climate of
the time makes for." n401 The recent shortcomings of
congressional intelligence oversight committees may spawn a renewed
interest in returning to a less-deferential posture.
War powers prove congressional effectiveness

Pitt 15, J.D. Candidate, 2016, Fordham University School of Law (April 2015, Celdon Pitt, Fordham Law
Review, FAIR TRADE: THE PRESIDENT'S POWER TO RECOVER CAPTURED U.S. SERVICEMEMBERS AND THE
Congress repeatedly has tried to check

the President's ability to wage war, using assorted means to at least oversee - if
not attempt to seize outright control of - the executive branch's conduct of military operations. n135
RECENT PRISONER EXCHANGE WITH THE TALIBAN, Lexis)
The White House has offered various reactions to these methods, ranging from unchallenged acceptance,
n136 Two primary methods, appropriations riders

and the [*2853] implementation of requirements for congressional notification
and consultation, have emerged as both the most effective and the most
popular congressional tools for checking the President's war powers . This section
to grudging acquiescence, to blatant disregard.
will describe several of the ways in which Congress has used these tools to attempt to shape national
security policy. 1. Appropriations Riders As a Means of Congressional Oversight: The Boland Amendments
Appropriations riders, which contain specific conditions on

the grant of funds and are inserted as amendments to large spending bills,
give Congress an opportunity to more narrowly tailor the use of federal
money. n137 As one scholar notes, this dimension of the power of the purse has been
"one of the major factors in shaping and restricting presidential decision
and the Iran-Contra Affair
making with respect to the commitment of forces abroad ." n138 Congress has
traditionally given the President much more discretion over the use of funds
during times of emergency or conventional war than under circumstances of
indefinite conflict or terrorist threat. n139 Riders to defense spending bills therefore have
become more common over the last fifty years, as Congress has sought to exercise more control over
small wars and covert activity. n140 The Iran-Contra Affair combined all of these elements and sparked a
broader debate about the role of "restrictive national security appropriations" in shaping defense policy.
n141 The Reagan Administration's attempts to overthrow the Communist Sandinista regime in
Nicaragua in the early 1980s were scandalous for several reasons. n142 Congress, concerned
over reports that the White House was raising and training the anti-Sandinista
Contra movement without appropriate oversight, passed an initial spending
restriction in 1982. n143 This amendment to the DOD Appropriations Act prohibited the use of
funds for military equipment, training, or other activities in support of any group not part of the Nicaraguan
n144 Under the leadership of House Intelligence Committee Chair Edward Boland,
Congress gradually tightened funding restrictions over the next [*2854] several years.
n145 Congress eliminated all funding by 1984, declaring that no money designated for intelligence
armed forces.
activities "may be obligated or expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of supporting,
directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, group, organization,
movement, or individual."
n146 President Reagan signed these provisions into law without objection.
n147 Despite these restrictions, staff members of the National Security Council (a group known as "the
Enterprise") channeled money to the Contras as part of a larger scheme to also free U.S. hostages being
held in Lebanon by Iranian-backed forces. n148 The Iran-Contra Affair prompted Congress to initiate an
investigation into the executive branch's apparent deceit and resolve potential constitutional issues.
n149 The congressional committee concluded that the Enterprise executed a covert Contra aid program
by raising "private and non-appropriated money[] and without the accountability or restrictions imposed by
law on the CIA." n150 Moreover, this was a program "that Congress thought it had prohibited." n151
Aside from the conviction of one member of the Enterprise for the commission of several minor offenses,
no legal consequences stemmed from the Iran-Contra Affair. n152 Congress issued a series of
recommendations at the end of its report, reminding the White House that "Congress is the partner, not
the adversary of the executive branch, in the formulation of policy" and calling for a more rigid system of
n153 2. Consultation and Notification Requirements A

second method of congressional control over defense policy is the enactment
of consultation and notification requirements, either through attachment to a
spending bill or as stand-alone legislation . n154 When the political system is functioning
presidential findings related to covert action.
as designed, the formal framework of consultation and notification is often complemented by a less rigid,
more ad hoc consultative process between the executive and legislative branches that is "an essential
unwritten ingredient in the national security process." n155 [*2855] Congress also must strike a balance
between fulfilling its role as a representative body and observing the need for limited transparency in the
national security context. n156 This section will examine two recent efforts by Congress to control
presidential discretion through the use of reporting requirements. a. The War Powers Resolution Spurred
the War Powers Resolution was "the

product of almost four decades of bipartisan effort to recapture legislative
authority that had drifted to the President." n157 The resolution declared that any
foreign introduction of U.S. armed forces without a declaration of war would
require the President to submit a report to congressional leaders within fortyeight hours. n158 The report must contain details about, at a minimum, the circumstances leading to
by the mission creep of U.S. involvement in Vietnam,
the deployment, the constitutional and legislative authority under which the President is conducting the
military operation, and an estimation of the involvement's scope and duration. n159 This reporting
requirement remains in effect for the duration of the engagement, during which the President must submit
n160 Furthermore, the engagement must cease after sixty days

unless Congress has declared war, been incapacitated, or voted to delay the deadline. n161 The War
updates at least every six months.
Powers Resolution was controversial during its enactment and has been applied unevenly since. n162
The first test came in 1975, when President Gerald Ford initially sought authorization to evacuate the
remaining U.S. personnel from Cambodia and South Vietnam, but, after growing impatient with
congressional delays, unilaterally approved the evacuations under his executive authority to protect
American lives. n163 Two missions to recover captured Americans, from the Mayaguez commercial ship
under President Ford and the U.S. embassy in Iran under President Carter, have complied with the
reporting requirements in letter but not in spirit. n164 In both cases, the White House circumvented
[*2856] congressional input by waiting to file the report until after the engagement had either ceased or
n165 b. Intelligence Oversight Congress possesses similar

tools for oversight of the intelligence community. n166 Passed in the wake of
revelations about counterproductive covert actions in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the
Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 n167 prohibits the President from
authorizing a covert action without first making a formal determination that
"such an action is necessary to support identifiable foreign policy objectives
of the United States and is important to the national security of the United
States." n168 This finding must be submitted in writing to the congressional
intelligence oversight committees prior to the initiation of the covert action ,
"reached the point of no return."
unless the President determines that "it is essential to limit access to the finding to meet extraordinary
circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States." n169 In that case, the President may inform
only the chairs and ranking minority members of each intelligence committee, as well as the majority and
minority leaders in both the House and the Senate, as long as he provides a written justification for doing
so.
n170 If the President complies with neither of these options, he still must inform the intelligence
n171
committees "in a timely fashion," along with providing justification for not notifying them earlier.
Agencies listen to congress

Rosenbach and Peritz 9 Eric Rosenbach is the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security, earlier worked at the
Harvard Kennedy S;chool as the Executive Director of the Belfer Center for
International Affairs. He managed the Center's operations, taught graduatelevel classes; Aki J. Peritz is an Associate at the Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
(7/18/2009, Eric Rosenbach and Aki J. Peritz, Belfer Center at Harvard,
Confrontation or Collaboration? Congress and the Intelligence Community,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf)
Although the Constitution gives the executive branch preeminence in dealing with intelligence matters,
Article I nevertheless provides Congress with an important oversight role. However, Congressional
oversight into intelligence issues is a complex task, requiring a sophisticated understanding of the issues.
The floor debate for the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 provided a clear example of the difficulties
Congress faces when trying to modify intelligence legislation. Members, for reasons of classification or
technical complexity, did not share a common understanding of the law, let alone how it should be
Congresss most important source of

leverage is the power to authorize programs and appropriate funds . During the
adjusted.
Authorization and Appropriation:
authorization and appropriations process, Congress can signal its intelligence and policy priorities through
both the allocation of funds and the inclusion of non budget-related clauses in the authorization and
the ICs top leaders, including the Director of

National Intelligence and the CIA Director, are nominated by the President
and confirmed by the Senate. This sometimes grueling process forces the White
House to carefully select its nominees and provides an opportunity for Senate
input on both the individuals and issues related to intelligence policy. In recent
appropriations bills. Nominations: Many of
years, the Senate has withheld confirmation until the executive branch agreed to share additional
information on key areas of congressional oversight of intelligence activities. Congressional Hearings:
Congress invitesand, in some cases, compelshigh-ranking members of the executive

branch to appear before Congress to ask them targeted questions intended to
create more transparent and effective IC operations. As noted previously, however, the
power of this tool depends in large part on Congresss awareness of IC activities.
Investigations:
Congress has responded to perceived intelligence abuses or failures by

forming committees and mandating commissions to determine what went
wrong and how it might be corrected. In the 1970s, the Church and Pike Committees
served this function. More recently, the SSCI conducted extensive investigations
on prewar intelligence relating to Iraq. Treaty Ratification: Treaty ratification is a constitutional
power of the Senate. Although few treaties relate directly to intelligence matters, members of the
SSCI can use the treaty ratification process to indirectly press related national
security policy issues. Government Accountability Office (GAO): The GAO is the
investigative arm of Congress, particularly focused on budget-related issues.
As a non-partisan, objective audit and evaluation agency, the GAO gives
financial oversight capabilities to Congress . However, classification and security clearance
hurdles set by the White House may limit the power of the GAO to investigate intelligence-related topics.
Congress can guarantee the executives abide by the law

Welling 12 assistant-professor at Groningen University. (August 2012,
George M. Welling, Oversight Powers of Congress,
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/outlines/government-1991/the-legislative-branchthe-reach-of-congress/oversight-powers-of-congress.php)
Congress' oversight function takes many forms: committee inquiries and
hearings; formal consultations with and reports from the executive; Senate
advice and consent for executive nominations and treaties; House impeachment proceedings and
subsequent Senate trials; House and Senate proceedings under the 25th Amendment in the event that
informal meetings
between legislators and executive officials; congressional membership on governmental
commissions; and studies by congressional committees and support agencies
such as the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office or the
Office of Technology Assessment -- all arms of Congress. The oversight power of
Congress has helped to force officials out of office , change policies and provide
new statutory controls over the executive. In 1949, for example, probes by special
Senate investigating subcommittees revealed corruption among high officials
in the Truman administration. This resulted in the reorganization of certain agencies and the
formation of a special White House commission to study corruption in the government. The Senate
Foreign Relations Committee's televised hearings in the late 196Os helped to
mobilize opposition to the Vietnam War . Congress' 1973 Watergate
investigation exposed White House officials who illegally used their positions
for political advantage, and the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment
proceedings against President Richard Nixon the following year ended his presidency.
Select committee inquiries in 1975 and 1976 identified serious abuses by
intelligence agencies and initiated new legislation to control certain
intelligence activities. In 1983, congressional inquiry into a proposal to
consolidate border inspection operations of the U.S. Customs Service and the
the president becomes disabled, or the office of the vice president falls vacant;
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service raised questions about the

executive's authority to make such a change without new legislation. In 1987,
oversight efforts disclosed statutory violations in the executive branch's
secret arms sales to Iran and the diversion of arms profits to anti-government forces in Nicaragua,
known as the contras. Congressional findings resulted in proposed legislation to
prevent similar occurrences. Oversight power is an essential check in
monitoring the presidency and controlling public policy .
Oversight controls agencies-CIA proves

Knott 5
Assistant Professor at the Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia - See more
at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/380#sthash.hQ6e0msn.dpuf (8/8/2005, Stephen F. Knott, History
News Network, Congressional Oversight and the Crippling of the CIA,
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/380)
The story of how the executive branch lost its control over the CIA is well known, but deserves a retelling,
since it is often presented incompletely. In the aftermath of Vietnam, Watergate, and revelations of CIA
Congress moved in the mid-1970s to reassert

its role in shaping American foreign policy, including the most controversial tool of that policy, covert
action. Secrecy was seen as antithetical to the American way, and there was widespread agreement
that rogue agencies such as the CIA were a threat to liberty. Proponents of congressional
intelligence oversight argued that openness and accountability were the
cornerstone of a legitimate foreign policy, and it was believed that Congress,
due to its diversity of opinion, possessed greater wisdom than the executive
branch. Spurred on by the sensational revelations of the Church Committee hearings in the Senate and
assassination plots and domestic spying,
the Pike Committee in the House, both bodies established permanent intelligence committees.
It is still widely believed that the Church and Pike reforms were an attempt to cure a cancerous growth
on the Constitution that had developed during the Cold War, an era which witnessed an increasing reliance
on executive secrecy and the creation of a private army for the president in the form of the CIA. Senator
Frank Church and his allies claimed that an assertive legislative role would bring the United States back to
the genius of the Founding Fathers. This assertion was made despite the fact that American presidents
from 1789 to 1974 were given wide latitude to conduct clandestine operations they believed were in the
national interest. President Washington, in his first annual message to Congress in 1790, requested a
Contingency Fund, or secret service fund, as one member of Congress described it. Washington was
given this fund, in the amount of $40,000, a sizable sum in the early 1790s. The president was not
required to report how he spent this money, he merely had to divulge the amount of money spent, without
revealing to whom or for what reasons it had been spent. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew
Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln, all authorized clandestine operations out of this fund, and did not report the
details to Congress. This pattern persisted until the mid-1970s with little or no change, other than the
increasing size and bureaucratization of the nations intelligence apparatus in the twentieth century. The
real aberration occurred in the mid-1970s when the United States granted its legislative branch the
greatest control over intelligence matters of any Western nation, and overturned the system which had
damage done to the CIA by this

congressional oversight regime is quite extensive . The committees increased
the number of CIA officials subject to Senate confirmation, condemned the agency
prevailed in the United States since the Founding. The
for its contacts with unscrupulous characters, prohibited any further contact with these bad characters,
insisted that the United States not engage or assist in any coup which may harm a foreign leader, and
overwhelmed the agency with interminable requests for briefings (some 600 alone in 1996). The
committees exercised line by line authority over the CIAs budget and established an Inspector Generals
office within the agency, requiring this official to share his information with them, causing the agency to
refrain from operations with the slightest potential for controversy. The CIA was also a victim of the
renowned congressional practice of pork barrel politics. The intelligence committees forced the agency to
accept high priced technology that just happened to be manufactured in a committee members district.
On some occasions, members of
Congress threatened to leak information in order to
derail covert operations they found personally repugnant. Leaks are a recurring
problem, as some member of Congress, or some staff member, demonstrated in the aftermath of the
September 11th attack. President Bushs criticism of members of Congress was fully justified, despite the
protests from Capitol Hill. Leaks have occurred repeatedly since the mid-1970s, and in very few cases has
the offending party been disciplined. One of the Founding Fathers of the new oversight regime, former
Representative Leo Ryan, held that leaks were an important tool in checking the secret government. In
the wake of the September 11th terror attack, some legislators are now proclaiming their commitment to
unleashing the CIA and rebuilding its human assets. Just a short while ago these same legislators were
leading the charge to curtail the agency. One such convert is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, Joseph Biden. The Delaware Democrat was one of seventeen Senators who voted in 1974 to
ban all covert operations, and proudly noted during his 1988 campaign for president that he had
threatened to go public with covert action plans by the Reagan administration, causing them to cancel
the operations. Hopefully Senator Biden, and other congressional converts, are undergoing a genuine
epiphany. Perhaps they now realize, as Henry Kissinger once observed about the Church Committee, that it
is an illusion that tranquility can be achieved by an abstract purity of motive for which history offers no
example. It is precisely this illusion which has prevailed in congressional circles since the heyday of Frank
Church and Otis Pike. As Church himself once argued, the United States should not fight fire with fire . . .
evil with evil. Another convert is Senator Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, who led the charge in the mid1990s to prevent the CIA from hiring unsavory characters. Torricelli rallied to the defense of State
Department employee Robert Nuccio, who leaked classified material dealing with CIA operations in
Guatemala to Torricelli, who in turn held a press conference and revealed the information to the media. It
was these revelations that led to congressional restrictions on the ability of agents in the field to deal with
bad people. Torricelli is now calling for a thorough inquiry into what he calls the intelligence
communitys stunning failure. There is almost universal agreement that the CIA remains overly reliant
on technological tools in gathering information on very human, very political, problems. Yet Congress is
partly responsible for this, for the intelligence committees (with the support of some in the executive
branch, particularly in the Carter and Clinton administrations) were determined to keep Americas hands
clean. Technology was safer -- it kept us at a distance from the dirty stuff. The sad reality is that a CIA
operative with any hope of infiltrating a terrorist cell would need to demonstrate his bona fides in any
number of reprehensible ways. These are unpleasant thoughts to contemplate, and they certainly do not fit
our conception of the way the world ought to work. But America cannot have it both ways -- it cannot
expect to deter an Osama bin Laden and keep its hands clean at the same time. Presidents need options
short of war to handle this type of threat. While the old CIA may have been noted for the cowboy
the new CIA is, in the words of one critic, composed of

cautious bureaucrats who avoid the risks that come with taking action, who
fill out every form in triplicate and put the emphasis on audit rather than
action. Congressional meddling is primarily responsible for this new CIA ethos,
swagger of its personnel,
transforming it from an agency willing to take risks, and act at times in a Machiavellian manner, into just
another sclerotic Washington bureaucracy. This cautious, legalistic attitude has crippled the agencys
effectiveness and will not change unless the oversight committees of Congress acknowledge the uniquely
executive character of intelligence and covert operations, and start to dismantle the cumbersome
oversight apparatus erected during the last twenty five years.
Dehumanization
THERE ARE 10 STAGES OF GENOCIDE AND WE ARE ON THE
FOURTH, GENOCIDE IN INEVITABLE IF WE DONT DO
SOMETHING NOW
Stanton, President, Genocide Watch, No date (The Ten Stages
of Genocide, The International Alliance to End Genocide, Gregory H. Stanton,
Gregory H. Stanton is the Research Professor in Genocide Studies and
Prevention at the George Mason University in Fairfax County, Virginia, United
States. He is best known for his work in the area of genocide studies, No
Date. http://genocidewatch.org/genocide/tenstagesofgenocide.html )
Genocide is a process that develops in eight stages that are

predictable but not inexorable. At each stage, preventive measures can stop it. The process is not linear.
Logically, later stages must be preceded by earlier stages. But all stages continue to operate throughout the process. 1.
CLASSIFICATION: All cultures have categories to distinguish people into us and them by ethnicity,
race, religion, or nationality: German and Jew, Hutu and Tutsi. Bipolar societies that lack mixed categories, such as Rwanda and Burundi,
are the most likely to have genocide. The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend
ethnic or racial divisions, that actively promote tolerance and understanding, and that promote classifications that transcend the divisions. The
Catholic church could have played this role in Rwanda, had it not been riven by the same ethnic cleavages as Rwandan society. Promotion of a
common language in countries like Tanzania has also promoted transcendent national identity. This search for common ground is vital to early
. 2. SYMBOLIZATION: We give names or other symbols to

the classifications. We name people Jews or Gypsies, or distinguish them by colors or
dress; and apply the symbols to members of groups. Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily
result in genocide unless they lead to the next stage, dehumanization. When combined with hatred, symbols may be
forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups: the yellow star for Jews under Nazi rule, the blue scarf for people
prevention of genocide
from the Eastern Zone in Khmer Rouge Cambodia. To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden (swastikas) as can hate
speech. Group marking like gang clothing or tribal scarring can be outlawed, as well. The problem is that legal limitations will fail if
unsupported by popular cultural enforcement. Though Hutu and Tutsi were forbidden words in Burundi until the 1980s, code-words replaced
them. If widely supported, however, denial of symbolization can be powerful, as it was in Bulgaria, where the government refused to supply
enough yellow badges and at least eighty percent of Jews did not wear them, depriving the yellow star of its significance as a Nazi symbol for
3. DISCRIMINATION: A dominant group uses law, custom, and

political power to deny the rights of other groups. The powerless
group may not be accorded full civil rights or even citizenship . Examples
Jews
include the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 in Nazi Germany, which stripped Jews of their German citizenship, and prohibited their employment by
Denial of citizenship to the Rohingya Muslim minority in

is another example
the government and by universities.
Burma
. Prevention against discrimination means full political empowerment and citizenship rights for
all groups in a society. Discrimination on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion should be outlawed. Individuals should have the
. 4. DEHUMANIZATION: One
group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals,
vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion
against murder. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. In combating this
right to sue the state, corporations, and other individuals if their rights are violated.
dehumanization, incitement to genocide should not be confused with protected speech. Genocidal societies lack constitutional protection for
countervailing speech, and should be treated differently than democracies. Local and international leaders should condemn the use of hate
speech and make it culturally unacceptable. Leaders who incite genocide should be banned from international travel and have their foreign
finances frozen. Hate radio stations should be shut down, and hate propaganda banned. Hate crimes and atrocities should be promptly
5. ORGANIZATION: Genocide is always organized, usually by the

state, often using militias to provide deniability of state responsibility (the Janjaweed in Darfur.) Sometimes organization is informal
(Hindu mobs led by local RSS militants) or decentralized (terrorist groups.) Special army units or militias are
often trained and armed. Plans are made for genocidal killings. To combat this stage, membership in these militias should
punished.
be outlawed. Their leaders should be denied visas for foreign travel. The U.N. should impose arms embargoes on governments and citizens of
countries involved in genocidal massacres, and create commissions to investigate violations, as was done in post-genocide Rwanda
. 6.
POLARIZATION: Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing
propaganda. Laws may forbid intermarriage or social interaction. Extremist terrorism targets
moderates, intimidating and silencing the center. Moderates from the perpetrators own
group are most able to stop genocide, so are the first to be arrested and killed. Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders
or assistance to human rights groups. Assets of extremists may be seized, and visas for international travel denied to them. Coups dtat by
7. PREPARATION: Victims are identified

and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity.
Death lists are drawn up. Members of victim groups are forced to wear identifying symbols. Their property is
expropriated. They are often segregated into ghettoes, deported into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and
starved. At this stage, a Genocide Emergency must be declared. If the political will of the great powers, regional alliances, or the U.N. Security
extremists should be opposed by international sanctions.
Council can be mobilized, armed international intervention should be prepared, or heavy assistance provided to the victim group to prepare for
its self-defense. Otherwise, at least humanitarian assistance should be organized by the U.N. and private relief groups for the inevitable tide of
. 8. PERSECUTION
refugees to come
: Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity.
Death lists are drawn up. In state sponsored genocide, members of victim groups may be forced to wear identifying symbols. Their property is
they are even segregated into ghettoes, deported

into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and
starved. Genocidal massacres begin. They are acts of genocide because they intentionally destroy part
often expropriated. Sometimes
of a group. At this stage, a Genocide Emergency must be declared. If the political will of the great powers, regional alliances, or the U.N.
Security Council can be mobilized, armed international intervention should be prepared, or heavy assistance provided to the victim group to
prepare for its self-defense. Humanitarian assistance should be organized by the U.N. and private relief groups for the inevitable tide of
8. EXTERMINATION begins, and quickly becomes the mass

killing legally called genocide. It is extermination to the killers
because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. When it is
refugees to come.
sponsored by the state, the armed forces often work with militias to do the killing. Sometimes the genocide results in revenge killings by
groups against each other, creating the downward whirlpool-like cycle of bilateral genocide (as in Burundi). At this stage, only rapid and
overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed
international protection. (An unsafe safe area is worse than none at all.) The U.N. Standing High Readiness Brigade, EU Rapid Response
Force, or regional forces -- should be authorized to act by the U.N. Security Council if the genocide is small. For larger interventions, a
multilateral force authorized by the U.N. should intervene. If the U.N. is paralyzed, regional alliances must act. It is time to recognize that the
international responsibility to protect transcends the narrow interests of individual nation states. If strong nations will not provide troops to
intervene directly, they should provide the airlift, equipment, and financial means necessary for regional states to intervene
. 9.
DENIAL is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the
surest indicators of further genocidal massacres . The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass
graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the
witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often
blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern
until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile. There they remain with impunity, like Pol Pot or Idi Amin, unless they are captured
and a tribunal is established to try them. The response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts. There the
evidence can be heard, and the perpetrators punished. Tribunals like the Yugoslav or Rwanda Tribunals, or an international tribunal to try the
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, or an International Criminal Court may not deter the worst genocidal killers. But with the political will to arrest and
prosecute them, some may be brought to justice.
1. Dehumanization links to ethnicity and justifies mass

genocide
Haslam 06 (Nick Haslam, Professor of Psychology at University of Melbourne,
Dehumanization: An Integrative Review, Personality and Social Psychology Review
Vol. 10, No. 3, 252-264, 2006, http://psr.sagepub.com/content/10/3/252.full.pdf, al)
Dehumanization is arguably most often mentioned in relation to ethnicity, race, and
related topics such as immigration and genocide. It is in this paradigmatic context of
intergroup conflict that some groups are claimed to dehumanize others, and these
dehumanizing images have been widely investigated. A historical catalogue is offered
by Jahoda (1999), who examined the many ways in which ethnic and racial others
have been represented, both in popular culture and in scholarship, as barbarians who
lack culture, self-restraint, moral sensibility, and cognitive capacity. Excesses often
accompany these deficiencies: The savage has brutish appetites for violence and sex, is
impulsive and prone to criminality, and can tolerate unusual amounts of pain. A
consistent theme in this work is the likening of people to animals . In racist descriptions
Africans are compared to apes and sometimes explicitly denied membership of the human species. Other
groups are compared to dogs, pigs, rats, parasites, or insects. Visual depictions caricature physical
features to make ethnic others look animal-like. At other times, they are likened to children, their lack of
rationality, shame, and sophistication seen patronizingly as innocence rather than bestiality.
Dehumanization is frequently examined in connection with genocidal conflicts (Chalk &

Jonassohn, 1990; Kelman, 1976). A primary focus is the ways in which Jews in the Holocaust,
Bosnians in the Balkan wars, and Tutsis in Rwanda were dehumanized both during
the violence by its perpetrators and beforehand through ideologies that likened the
victims to vermin. Similar animal metaphors are common in images of immigrants
(O'Brien, 2003a), who are seen as polluting threats to the social order.
2. Dehumanization enables genocides and massacres

because people disengage their own morals because
the inferior are inhuman
Haslam et al. 07 (Nick Haslam, Professor of Psychology at University of Melbourne,
Stephen Loughnan, Lecturer in Experimental & Social Psychology at the University of
Edinburgh, Catherine Reynolds, Vanderbilt University graduate, Samuel Wilson,
Research Fellow at the Swinburne Leadership Institute at Swinburne University,
Dehumanization: A New Perspective, Social and Personality Psychology Compass,
11/15/07,
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Samuel_Wilson4/publication/227548001_Dehuma
nization_A_New_Perspective/links/00b49515e3a917f285000000.pdf, al)
Evidence of inhumanity is not hard to find in recent history. People are killed, tortured, abused, and
The psychological basis of cruelty

and indifference is complex, of course, but one possible mechanism is that
exploited, and their suffering is often ignored or even relished.
inhumane actions are easier to perpetrate when their victims are

seen as less than human. If they are barbarians, then we may act barbarously
toward them, and if they are just distant abstractions then we may
inflict harm on them without being troubled by pangs of conscience
or fellow feeling. The idea that people are sometimes denied their proper
humanness is usually referred to as dehumanization. Sometimes it is starkly
and shockingly obvious, as when ethnic groups are explicitly likened to nonhumans such as vermin or
apes, or when they are accorded a lesser degree of humanity, as when African Americans were once
officially declared to be worth three fifths of a person. At other times dehumanization may be more
implicit, as when people are represented in objectifying ways or when the degrading behavior that is
directed toward them implies that the actor does not consider them fully human. Over the past three
decades, social psychologists have made important contributions to the study of dehumanization. Their
analyses generally place the phenomenon in the context of intergroup violence and antagonism. Kelman
dehumanization plays a key role in sanctioned mass

violence, such as genocides and massacres, because it weakens
moral restraints on violent behavior. In a similar vein, Opotow (1990) proposed that
dehumanizing others is one form of moral exclusion, a process that
places others outside the boundary in which moral vales, rules, and
considerations of fairness apply (p. 1). Bar-Tal (2000) examined the ideological
(1976) argued that
supports of moral exclusion, describing dehumanization as one of several forms of

delegitimizing belief. These shared beliefs portray out-groups in an extremely
negative and often emotionally overheated manner, and serve to reinforce the ingroups superiority and justify its aggression. Bandura (2002) refined the analysis of
moral exclusion by presenting dehumanization as a process in which
people disengage their moral self-sanctions, thereby relieving them of

feelings of guilt over their aggressive actions and empathy for their victims. Consistent
with this view, Bandura and his colleagues found that people behave more harshly toward others who are
divested of human qualities (Bandura, Underwood, & Fromson, 1975) and that moral disengagement
partially accounts for aggressive behavior among children (Bandura, Barbarelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli,
2001). Schwartz and Struch (1989) noted how imputing different basic values to other groups leads them
to be seen as less human and promotes aggression toward them These classic works on the psychology of
dehumanization have some obvious family resemblances. All of them place aggression front and center in
dehumanization enables, disinhibits, and justifies violent

and otherwise aggressive behavior. All of them present
dehumanization as something that occurs primarily in extreme
contexts of antagonism and conflict, such as genocide and
interethnic strife. Most of them, with the partial exception of Banduras work, present
their analysis:
dehumanization as an intergroup phenomenon in which groups are denied human attributes or labelled as
nonhumans. This view of dehumanization as an extreme phenomenon closely linked to intergroup violence
has helped to advance our understanding of human evil, but recent developments in the field have moved
subtle forms of dehumanization are

also apparent in everyday social perception, can occur in the
absence of intense conflict or aggression, and can be observed
outside of group contexts, in peoples understandings of the self and
its distinctiveness from others.
in a new direction. Their main message is that
3. Dehumanization destroys the value to Life and

outweighs all calculable impacts
Berube 97 Professor of Communication Studies and
Associate Director of NanoScience and Technology Studies
at
University of South Carolina
[David M., NANOTECHNOLOGICAL PROLONGEVITY: The Down Side,
http://www.cas.sc.edu/engl/faculty/berube/prolong.htm]
This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matson's treatise on
the dehumanization of humanity. They warn[s]: "its destructive toll is already
greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society
is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be
called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the
holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and
dissidents... in the cuckoo's next of America, lies a dehumanized image of
man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to
quantify the impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is
safe to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities
which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual
benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than any tools
which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war,
environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people

become things, they become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any
and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable
for every epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.
4. Dehumanization make nuclear war inevitable

KOVEL 1988
(Joel, Distinguished Professor of Social Studies at Bard University, White Racism: A Psychohistory,
1988, p. xxix-xxx)
As people become dehumanized, the states become more powerful and warlike.
Metaracism signifies the triumph of technical reasoning in the racial sphere. The same technocracy applies to
militarization in general, where it has led to the inexorable drive toward thermonuclear weaponry and the transformation
There is an indubitable although largely obscure, link between

the inner dynamic of a society, including its racism, and the external
projection of social violence. Both involve actions taken toward an Other , a term
of the state into the nuclear state.
we may define as the negation of the socially affirmed self. Communist, black, Jewall have been Other to the white
The Jew has, for a while at least, stepped outside of the role thanks to the
integration of Israel within the nations of the West, leaving the black and the Communist to suffer the
West.
respective technocratic violences of metaracism and thermonuclear deterrence. Since the initial writing of WHITE
RACISM, these closely linked phenomena have grown enormously. Of course, there is a major, cataclysmic difference
between the types of technocratic domination. Metaracism can be played out quite a while longer. Indeed, since it is a
racism that proceeds on the basis of anti-racism, it appears capable of a vastly greater degree of integration than either
dominative or aversive racism, at least under the firmly entrenched conditions of late capitalist society.
Thermonuclear deterrence, on the other hand, has already decayed into the
apocalyptic logic of first-strike capability (or counterforce means of pursing nuclear war), which
threatens to put an end to history itself. Thus the nuclear crisis is now the leading item on the
global agenda. If it is not resolved civilization will be exterminated while if it is resolved, the terms of society and the
the
disposition of racism will play a key role in the outcome of the nuclear crisis .
state will undoubtedly be greatly altered. This will of course profoundly affect the racial situation. At the same time
For one thing, the effectiveness of an antinuclear movement will depend heavily on its ability to involve people of all races
in contrast to its present makeup, which is almost entirely white and middle class. To achieve such mobilization and
carry it through, however, the movement will have to be able to make the linkages between militarization and racial
oppression very clearly and forcefully. For if the third, and last world war becomes thermonuclear, it will most likely be in
a place defined by racial oppositions.
Dehumanization = domination, slavery, and every form of

evil
Katz in ;97 (Katheryn D. Katz, prof. of law - Albany Law School, 1997, Albany
Law Journal)
It is undeniable that throughout human history dominant and oppressive groups have
committed unspeakable wrongs against those viewed as inferior. Once a person (or a
people) has been characterized as sub-human, there appears to have been no limit to
the cruelty that was or will be visited upon him. For example, in almost all wars,
hatred towards the enemy was inspired to justify the killing and wounding by
separating the enemy from the human race, by casting them as unworthy of human
status. This same rationalization has supported: genocide, chattel slavery, racial
segregation, economic exploitation, caste and class systems, coerced sterilization of
social misfits and undesirables, unprincipled medical experimentation, the
subjugation of women, and the social Darwinists' theory justifying indifference to the
poverty and misery of others.
Dehumanization Bad-Leads to nuke war

Union of International Associations Database selected:
World Problems - Issues 9-29-00 http://db.uia.org
There is an increasing tendency towards dehumanization as a response to many
facets of modern life. Certain features of the preparations for nuclear war are
particularly conducive to this reaction. In turn, dehumanization may increase the risk
of nuclear warfare by inhibiting some of the psychological deterrents to it. Even
under conditions of present conventional warfare, only a fraction of military personnel
comes into face-to-face contact with the enemy. With increasing automation of
weapon systems, there will be even less room for sympathy or empathy that
might attenuate the suffering inflicted on others .
Dehumanization bad- Leads to war

Maiese, Scholar at CU-Boulder, 2003
(Maiese, Michelle. "Dehumanization." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and
Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted:
July 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization/>.)
While deindividuation and the formation of enemy images are very common, they
form a dangerous process that becomes especially damaging when it reaches the
level of dehumanization. Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior,
and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically
acceptable. Restraints against aggression and violence begin to disappear. Not
surprisingly, dehumanization increases the likelihood of violence and may cause a
conflict to escalate out of control. Once a violence break over has occurred, it may
seem even more acceptable for people to do things that they would have regarded as
morally unthinkable before. Parties may come to believe that destruction of the other
side is necessary, and pursue an overwhelming victory that will cause one's opponent
to simply disappear. This sort of into-the-sea framing can cause lasting damage to
relationships between the conflicting parties, making it more difficult to solve their
underlying problems and leading to the loss of more innocent lives. Indeed,
dehumanization often paves the way for human rights violations, war crimes, and
genocide. For example, in WWII, the dehumanization of the Jews ultimately led to the
destruction of millions of people.[9] Similar atrocities have occurred in Rwanda,
Cambodia, and the former Yugoslavia. It is thought that the psychological process of
dehumanization might be mitigated or reversed through humanization efforts, the
development of empathy, the establishment of personal relationships between
conflicting parties, and the pursuit of common goals.
5. Dehumanization does the Worst harm, especially when

it comes to government oppression
Zarat, 12 (Dehumanization is the deepest of all injuries. First
commented by Anthony Zarat on an article of Gay marriage and was then
posted by the editors of The Good Men Project. The Good Man Project,
http://goodmenproject.com/comment-of-the-day/dehumanization-is-the-deepest-ofall-injuries/)
This article is a big moral problem for me. I am tempted to say nothing.
However, people who say nothing are the majority of names on my 2012
Santas naughty list, and I dont want to be one of them. So, here goes. For
king and country. I have been swimming in the conservative fish bowl for
three years now. Naturally I have run across a significant number of people
who do not agree with marriage equality. I estimate that 30% of all
conservatives believe that marriage equality is wrong. I do not have a
problem with these 30%. Ill explain why later. The remaining 70% of
conservativesI have a problem with them. They agree that orientation is an
identity issue (who you are, not what you do). When pressed, most agree
that marriage equality is an equal protection under the law issue. But they
dont want to weaken their side, so they say nothing. This, I have a problem
with. The conservative camp suffers from a very strong feeling of
marginalization and isolation. This has created a powerful us versus them
undercurrent that is, occasionally, stronger than the right and wrong
morality. This is saying something, because conservatives (on average) have
very strong feelings about right and wrong. When it comes to one issue (only
one), I think all persons must set partisanship aside and realize that there is
one kind of harm that outweighs all tactical advantage and all strategic
posturing: >>> Dehumanization is the greatest harm that there is <<< I
understand the tears of your daughter. Dehumanization is the deepest of all
injuries. The greatest harm that bad government inflicts on its citizens is
denial of equal protection to a group of people because of who they are (their
identity). This brings us back to the 30% of conservatives, who liberals think
of as the enemy. They are not. They dont understand. They think that
orientation is a choice, an activity, a thing that people do. A friend of mine
replied to my equal protection argument by saying someone who
vacations in Scandinavia does not have a right to equal protection of
sunshine. See? This guy can be reached. The other person, the shoulder
shrugger who says forget it, we are held together by Kleenex and spit as it
isthis is the problem. - See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/commentof-the-day/dehumanization-is-the-deepest-of-allinjuries/#sthash.oFm3U5id.dpuf
6. Dehumanization destroys the value to life and

outweighs all calculable impacts
Berube 97 (Professor of Communication Studies and Associate Director of
NanoScience and Technology Studies at University of South Carolina [David
M., NANOTECHNOLOGICAL PROLONGEVITY: The Down Side,
http://www.cas.sc.edu/engl/faculty/berube/prolong.htm])
This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matson's treatise on
the dehumanization of humanity. They warn[s]: "its destructive toll is already
greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record --
and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society
is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be
called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the
holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and
dissidents... in the cuckoo's nest of America, lies a dehumanized image of
man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to
quantify the impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is
safe to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities
which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual
benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than any tools
which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war,
environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people become
things, they become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any and
every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for
every epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.
Dehumanization = domination, slavery, and every form of

evil
Katz 97 (Katheryn D. Katz, prof. of law - Albany Law School, 1997, Albany
Law Journal)
It is undeniable that throughout human history dominant and oppressive
groups have committed unspeakable wrongs against those viewed as inferior.
Once a person (or a people) has been characterized as sub-human, there
appears to have been no limit to the cruelty that was or will be visited upon
him. For example, in almost all wars, hatred towards the enemy was inspired
to justify the killing and wounding by separating the enemy from the human
race, by casting them as unworthy of human status. This same rationalization
has supported: genocide, chattel slavery, racial segregation, economic
exploitation, caste and class systems, coerced sterilization of social misfits
and undesirables, unprincipled medical experimentation, the subjugation of
women, and the social Darwinists' theory justifying indifference to the
7. Dehumanization is used as propaganda during wars

Vinulan-Arellano 03. [Katharine, March 22 yonip.com Stop Dehumanization of People
to Stop Wars http://www.yonip.com/main/articles/nomorewars.html]
In war time, dehumanization is a key element in propaganda and

brainwashing. By portraying the enemy as less than human, it is much easier
to motivate your troops to rape, torture or kill. Ethnic cleansing or genocide
would always be perceived as a crime against humanity if human beings
belonging to another race or religion are not dehumanized. Throughout
history, groups or races of human beings have been dehumanized. Slaves,
Negroes, Jews, and now, Muslims. Up to now, women are dehumanized in
many societies -- they are made sexual objects, treated as second-class

human beings. The proliferation of the sex trade are indications of the
prevailing, successful dehumanization of women, worldwide. During wars,
mass rape of women is common.
Definition of Islamophobia
Definition of Islamophobia
Ali et al. 11 (Wajahat, Wajahat Ali is a writer and co-host of Al Jazeera America's social media
driven talk show The Stream. He is the author of the play The Domestic Crusaders and lead author of the
investigative report Fear Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America. The Roots of the
Islamophobia Network in America Center for American Progress. August)
An exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims

that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias,
discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from
social, political, and civic life.
Another Definition of Islamophobia

CAIR 07
(Council of America-Islamic Relations http://www.cair.com/issues/islamophobia/islamophobia.aspx)
Islamophobia refers to unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam.

Such fear and hostility leads to discrimination against Muslims,
exclusion of Muslims from mainstream political or social process,
stereotyping, the presumption of guilt by association, and finally hate
crimes...Islamo- phobia has resulted in the general and unquestioned
acceptance of the following:
Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities.
Islam does not share common values with other major faiths.
Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric

and irrational.
Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
Islam is a violent political ideology.
Epistemology
1. Discussing and interrogating Islamophobia in an
educational space is a gateway to beating racism and
larger political actions.
15, Issue 1]
that the
work of anti-racism in university classrooms is fundamentally important. As one

against racisms and other oppressions. Classroom discussions and general
teaching form a very important contribution to this work of anti racism in
education. There are no short cuts or painless cuts; the work of anti-racism is a difficult one. As educators we should
make use of classroom exchanges; students engaged learning could be the key to promoting anti-racism in our class. My
goal is to teach in a way that engages students and leads them to reflect on the socio-economic political/religions issues
The student
voice, that critiques mainstream thinking as found in the media and
elsewhere, is a starting point for this political work. I argue that teaching
and learning in our classroom should encourage the critical consciousness
necessary for pursuing social justice. Whilst I acknowledge the limits of doing anti-racist campaign in
university spaces, I argue that this is a good starting point. And who knows, these
educational exchanges may become (as with my own story) the awakening for bigger
political projects against injustices in our society . In conclusion I endorse social justice
that surrounds theirs (our) lives. This article argues for making anti-racist thinking possible in class.
advocates, such as Cunningham (cited in Johnson-Bailey 2002, 43) who suggest that educators re-direct classroom
we are not working for equity in our

teaching and learning environments, theneducators are
inadvertently maintaining the status quo. In conclusion I argue that a classroom
where critical race exchanges and dialogues take place is a classroom where
students and teachers can be transformed. Transformative social justice
education calls on people to develop social, political and personal awareness
of the damages of racism and other oppressions. I end by suggesting that in the current times
of Islamophobic racism, when racist attacks are a daily occurrence, in August and September 2010 alone, nearly 30
The point of
studying racism, therefore, is to rise to the anti-racist challenge, and for
people have been racially abused and physically attacked (Institute of Race Relations 2010).
me, a place to start this campaign is within Higher Education Institutions, optimistic as it might sound, I believe, as
asserted by Sheridan (cited in Van Driel 2004) that: Education
can enlighten students and

promote positive attitudes. Education settings can be the first arena in
which battles can be fought against Islamophobia. It is to education that our
attention should be directed. (162)
2. Deconstructing and interrogating flawed

assumptions behind Islamophobia is critical to
establish a transformative and liberatory pedagogy
that enables us as agents to challenge racist
dynamics
Zine 4, Professor of Sociology and Equity Studies
[2004, Jasmin Zine is a researcher studying Muslims in the Canadian diaspora. She teaches graduate
courses in the Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education of the University of Toronto in the areas of race and ethnicity, anti-racism education and
critical ethnography., Anti-Islamophobia Education as Transformative Pedadogy: Reflections from the
Educational Front Lines, American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 21:3]
there
was an urgency to frame a critical pedagogical response to address and
challenge the rampant Islamophobia affecting the realities of Muslims from all
walks of life and social conditions . Among the most vulnerable were children
and youth, who received little support from schools in dealing with the backlash that many were experiencing on a
routine basis. Most schools were reluctant to engage in any response beyond the politically neutral
arena of crisis management. Among the school districts that I was in contact with, there was a clear
resistance to addressing or even naming issues of racism and Islamophobia. In
As an anti-racism scholar and educator, fellow colleagues and I realized from as early as September 12 that
fact, the discursive language to name and define the experiences that Muslims were encountering on a day-to-day basis
did not even exist within the educational discourse. While schools were reluctant to name specific incidents as racism
part of an all-too-common denial the notion of Islamophobia did not have any currency at all. In fact, it was not a part
of the language or conceptual constructs commonly used by educators, even by those committed to multicultural and
I realized the urgency to map a new epistemological and

pedagogical terrain by creating an educational framework for addressing
Islamophobia. Within the existing equity-based educational frameworks, one
could find the conceptual and pedagogical tools to address issues of racism,
classism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and anti-Semitism. However, the
discursive foundations for dealing with Islamophobia and the accompanying
educational resources simply did not exist. Developing a new framework to
fill this gap involved coining a new term: Anti-Islamophobia Education.
Being able to name and define the experience of Muslims as the result of
Islamophobia was critical to shaping the kind of interventions that would take
place from a critical educational standpoint . Before outlining a methodology for conducting antiIslamophobia education, it was necessary to develop some discursive foundations,
arrive at a definition of Islamophobia, and create an understanding of what it
was that we sought to challenge and resist. From a socio-psychological standpoint, the notion of
antiracist pedagogy.
Islamophobia is often loosely translated as an attitude of fear, mistrust, or hatred of Islam and its adherents. However,
this definition presents a narrow conceptual framework and does not take into account the social, structural, and
ideological dimensions through which forms of oppression are operationalized and enacted. Applying a more holistic
Islamophobic attitudes are, in fact, part of a

rational system of power and domination that manifests as individual,
ideological, and systemic forms of discrimination and oppression . The idea
that discrimination, be it based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, or religion, simply stems from
ignorance allows those engaged in oppressive acts and policies to claim a
space of innocence. By labeling Islamophobia as an essentially irrational
fear, this conception denies the logic and rationality of social dominance and
oppression, which operates on multiple social, ideological, and systemic
analysis, far from being based on mere ignorance,
levels. Therefore, to capture the complex dimensions through which Islamophobia operates, it is necessary to extend
the definition from its limited conception as a fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims and acknowledge that these
attitudes are intrinsically linked to individual, ideological, and systemic forms of oppression that support the logic and
rationale of specific power relations. For example, individual acts of oppression include such practices as name-calling or
personal assault, while systemic forms of oppression refer to the structural conditions of inequality regulated through such
These exclusionary
practices are shored up by specific ideological underpinnings, among them
the purveyed notions designed to pathologize Muslims as terrorists and
impending threats to public safety. Understanding the dimensions of how
systems of oppression such as Islamophobia operate socially, ideologically,
and systemically became a key component of developing educational tools
that would help build the critical skills needed to analyze and challenge these
dynamics. From a discursive standpoint, I locate anti-Islamophobia education within a integrative anti-racism
institutional practices as racial profiling or denying jobs or housing opportunities.
framework5 that views systems of oppression based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, and religion as part of a
multiple and interlocking nexus that reinforce and sustain one another. Based on this understanding, I have mapped some
This includes the need to reclaim

the stage through which Islam is represented from the specter of terrorists
and suicide bombers to a platform of peace and social justice. Reclaiming
the stage requires adopting a pedagogical approach that shifts the popular
media discourse away from the negative, essentialized referents and tropes
of abject Otherness ascribed to Muslims. This move involves presenting a critical counterkey epistemological foundations for anti-Islamophobia education.6
narrative in order to reframe the Manichean worldview and clash of civilizations narratives typically being purveyed in
order to present a more nuanced, reasoned, and critical perspective of the global sociopolitical realities that Muslim
individuals and societies are confronting, engaging, and challenging .
Another foundational aspect of

anti-Islamophobia education involves interrogating the systemic mechanisms
through which Islamophobia is reinforced, by analytically unraveling the
dynamics of power in society that sustain social inequality . Racial profiling, which targets
groups on the basis of their race, ethnicity, faith, or other aspects of social difference, and similar issues are major
systemic barriers that criminalize and pathologize entire communities. In schools, the practice of color-coded streaming,
whereby a disproportionate number of racially and ethnically marginalized youth are channeled into lower non-academic
Negative perceptions held by teachers

and guidance counselors toward racialized students have often led to
assumptions of failure or limited chances for success, based on such false
stereotypes as the notion that Islam doesnt value education for girls or
Black students wont succeed. These negative attitudes are relayed to
students through the hidden curriculum of schooling and lead to lower
expectations being placed upon youth from specific communities.7
Developing critical pedagogical tools to analyze and develop challenges to
these systems of domination is part of building a transformative and
liberatory pedagogy, one geared toward achieving greater social justice in
both schools and society. Another key goal of anti-Islamophobia education involves the
need to demystify stereotypes. Since 9/11, renewed Orientalist constructions of difference have
level streams, is another example of institutionalized racism.
permeated the representation of Muslims in media and popular culture. Images of fanatical terrorists and burqa-clad
Deconstructing and demystifying

these stereotypes is vital to helping students develop a critical literacy of the
politics of media and image-making. Critically examining the destructive
impact of how these images create the social and ideological divide between
us and them is important to exposing how power operates through the
politics of representation.
women are seen as the primary markers of the Muslim world.
3. We ought to use the debate round as a site to

formulate counter-hegemonic strategies of
knowledge production- the plan offered a substantial
challenge to the Islamophobic tendencies guiding US
federal policyviolence has manifested itself in
scholarship, and combatting that is a necessary
precondition to breaking it down in reality
Jones 99
(Richard, Professor International Politics @ Aberystwyth University, Security, Strategy, and

Critical Theory, p. 155-162, wcp)
The central political task of the intellectuals is to aid in the construction of a

counterhegemony and thus undermine the prevailing patterns of discourse and
interaction that make up the currently dominant hegemony . This task is accomplished
through educational activity, because, as Gramsci argues, every relationship of
hegemony is necessarily a pedagogic relationship (Gramsci 1971: 350). Discussing the
relationship of the philosophy of praxis to political practice, Gramsci claims: It [the theory] does not tend
to leave the simple in their primitive philosophy of common sense, but rather to lead them to a higher
conception of life. If it affirms the need for contact between intellectuals and simple it is not in order to
restrict scientific activity and preserve unity at the low level of the masses, but precisely in order to
construct an intellectual-moral bloc which can make politically possible the intellectual progress of the
mass and not only of small intellectual groups. (Gramsci 1971: 332-333). According to Gramsci, this
attempt to construct an alternative intellectual-moral bloc should take place under the auspices of the
Communist Party a body he described as the modern prince. Just as Niccolo Machiavelli hoped to see a
prince unite Italy, rid the country of foreign barbarians, and create a virtu-ous state, Gramsci believed that
the modern price could lead the working class on its journey toward its revolutionary destiny of an
emancipated society (Gramsci 1971: 125-205). Gramscis relative optimism about the possibility of
progressive theorists playing a constructive role in emancipatory political practice was predicated on his
belief in the existence of a universal class (a class whose emancipation would inevitably presage the
emancipation of humanity itself) with revolutionary potential. It was a gradual loss of faith in this axiom
that led Horkheimer and Adorno to their extremely pessimistic prognosis about the possibilities of
progressive social change. But does a loss of faith in the revolutionary vocation of the proletariat
necessarily lead to the kind of quietism ultimately embraced by the first generation of the Frankfurt
School? The conflict that erupted in the 1960s between them and their more radical students suggests not.
Indeed, contemporary critical theorists claim that the deprivileging of the role of the proletariat in the
struggle for emancipation is actually a positive move. Class remains a very important axis of domination in
society, but it is not the only such axis (Fraser 1995). Nor is it valid to reduce all other forms of domination
for example, in the case of gender to class relations, as orthodox Marxists tend to do. To recognize
these points is not only a first step toward the development of an analysis of forms of exploitation and
exclusion within society that is more attuned to social reality; it is also a realization that there are other
forms of emancipatory politics than those associated with class conflict.1 This in turn suggests new
possibilities and problems for emancipatory theory. Furthermore, the abandonment of faith in revolutionary
parties is also a positive development. The history of the European left during the twentieth century
provides myriad examples of the ways in which the fetishization of party organizations has led to
bureaucratic immobility and the confusion of means with ends (see, for example, Salvadori 1990). The
failure of the Bolshevik experiment illustrates how disciplined, vanguard parties are an ideal vehicle for
totalitarian domination (Serge 1984). Faith in the infallible party has obviously been the source of
strength and comfort to many in this period and, as the experience of the southern Wales coalfield
demonstrates, has inspired brave and progressive behavior (see, for example, the account of support for
the Spanish Republic in Francis 1984). But such parties have so often been the enemies of emancipation
that they should be treated with the utmost caution. Parties are necessary, but their fetishization is
History furnishes examples of progressive developments that have

been positively influenced by organic intellectuals operating outside the bounds of a
particular party structure (G. Williams 1984). Some of these developments have occurred
in the particularly intractable realm of security . These examples may be considered
as resources of hope for critical security studies (R. Williams 1989). They illustrate that
ideas are important or, more correctly, that change is the product of the dialectical
interaction of ideas and material reality. One clear security-related example of the role of
potentially disastrous.
critical thinking and critical thinkers in aiding and abetting progressive social change is the experience of
the peace movement of the 1980s. At that time the ideas of dissident defense
intellectuals (the alternative defense school) encouraged and drew strength from peace
activism. Together they had an effect not only on short-term policy but on the
dominant discourses of strategy and security, a far more important result in the long
run. The synergy between critical security intellectuals and critical social movements and the potential
influence of both working in tandem can be witnessed particularly clearly in the fate of
common security. As Thomas Risse-Kappen points out, the term common security originated in the
contribution of peace researchers to the German security debate of the 1970s (Risse-Kappen 1994: 186ff.);
it was subsequently popularized by the Palme Commission report (Independent Commission on
Initially, mainstream defense intellectuals dismissed

the concept as hopelessly idealistic; it certainly had no place in their allegedly hardheaded and
realist view of the world. However, notions of common security were taken up by a number
of different intellectuals communities, including the liberal arms control community in the United
Disarmament and Security Issues 1982).
States, Western European peace researchers, security specialists in the center-left political parties of
Western Europe, and Soviet institutchiks members of the influential policy institutes in the Soviet Union
such as the United States of America and Canada Institute (Landau 1996: 52-54; Risse-Kappen 1994: 196-
able to take advantage of

public pressure exerted through social movements in order to gain broader
acceptance for common security. In Germany, for example, in response to social movement
200; Kaldor 1995; Spencer 1995). These communities were subsequently
pressure, German social organizations such as churches and trade unions quickly supported the ideas
promoted by peace researchers and the SPD (Risse-Kappen 1994: 207).
Similar pressures even had
an effect on the Reagan administration. As Risse-Kappen notes: When the Reagan administration
brought hard-liners into power, the US arms control community was removed from policy influence. It was
the American peace movement and what became known as the freeze campaign
that revived the arms control process together with pressure from the European allies. (RisseKappen 1994: 205; also Cortright 1993: 90-110). Although it would be difficult to sustain a claim that the
combination of critical movements and intellectuals persuaded the Reagan government to adopt the
it did at least have a

substantial impact on ameliorating U.S. behavior. The most dramatic and certainly the
most unexpected impact of alternative defense ideas was felt in the Soviet Union. Through various
rhetoric and substance of common security in its entirety, it is clear that
East-West links, which included arms control institutions, Pugwash conferences, interparty contacts, and
a coterie of Soviet policy analysts and advisers were drawn

toward common security and such attendant notions as nonoffensive defense (these links are
even direct personal links,
detailed in Evangelista 1995; Kaldor 1995; Checkel 1993; Risse-Kappen 1994; Landau 1996 and Spencer
1995 concentrate on the role of the Pugwash conferences). This group, including Palme Commission
member Georgii Arbatov, Pugwash attendee Andrei Kokoshin , and Sergei Karaganov, a senior adviser who
was in regular contact with the Western peace researchers Anders Boserup and Lutz Unterseher (Risse-
then influenced Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachevs subsequent

new
Soviet leadership had a strong interest in alleviating tensions in East-West relations in
order to facilitate much-needed domestic reforms (the interaction of ideas and material
reality). But what is significant is that the Soviets commitment to common security led to
significant changes in force sizes and postures. These in turn aided in the winding
down of the Cold War, the end of Soviet domination over Eastern Europe, and even
the collapse of Russian control over much of the territory of the former Soviet Union .
Kappen 1994: 203),
championing of common security may be attributed to several factors. It is clear, for example, that
At the present time, in marked contrast to the situation in the early 1980s, common security is part of the
common sense of security discourse. As MccGwire points out, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) (a common defense pact) is using the rhetoric of common security in order to justify its expansion
This points to an interesting and potentially important

aspect of the impact of ideas on politics. As concepts such as common security, and
collective security before it (Claude 1984: 223-260), are adopted by governments and military
services, they inevitably become somewhat debased. The hope is that enough of the
residual meaning can survive to shift the parameters of the debate in a potentially
into Eastern Europe (MccGwire 1997).
progressive direction. Moreover, the adoption of the concept of common security by official circles
provides critics with a useful tool for (immanently) critiquing aspects of security policy (as MccGwire 1997
demonsrates in relation to NATO expansion). The example of common security is highly instructive. First, it
critical intellectuals can be politically engaged and play a role a significant

in making the world a better and safer place. Second, it points to potential
future addressees for critical international theory in general, and critical security
studies in particular. Third, it also underlines the role of ideas in the evolution in
society. CRITICAL SECURITY STUDIES AND THE THEORY-PRACTICE NEXUS Although most proponents of
indicates that
one at that
critical security studies reject aspects of Gramscis theory of organic intellectuals, in particular his
exclusive concentration on class and his emphasis on the guiding role of the party, the desire for
engagement and relevance must remain at the heart of their project. The example of the peace movement
suggests that critical theorists can still play the role of organic intellectuals and that this organic
relationship need not confine itself to a single class; it can involve alignment with different coalitions of
social movements that campaign on an issue or a series of issues pertinent to the struggle for
Said captures this broader orientation

when he suggests that critical intellectuals are always tied to and ought to remain
an organic part of an ongoing experience in society: of the poor, the disadvantaged, the
emancipation (Shaw 1994b; R. Walker 1994). Edward
voiceless, the unrepresented, the powerless (Said 1994: 84). In the specific case of critical security
this means placing the experience of those men and women and communities
for whom the present world order is a cause of insecurity rather than security at the
center of the agenda and making suffering humanity rather than raison detat the
prism through which problems are viewed. Here the project stands full-square within the critical
theory tradition. If all theory is for someone and for some purpose, then critical
security studies is for the voiceless, the unrepresented, the powerless, and its
purpose is their emancipation. The theoretical implications of this orientation have already
been discussed in the previous chapters. They involve a fundamental reconceptualization of
security with a shift in referent object and a broadening of the range of issues
considered as a legitimate part of the discourse. They also involve a reconceptualization of strategy
within this expanded notion of security. But the question remains at the conceptual level of
how these alternative types of theorizing even if they are self-consciously aligned to the
studies,
practices of critical or new social movements, such as peace activism, the struggle for human rights, and
the survival of minority cultures can become a force for the direction of action. Again,
Gramscis work is insightful. In the Prison Notebooks, Gramsci advances a sophisticated analysis of how
dominant discourses play a vital role in upholding particular political and economic orders, or, in Gramscis
terminology, historic blocs (Gramsci 1971: 323-377). Gramsci adopted Machiavellis view of power as a
centaur, ahlf man, half beast: a mixture of consent and coercion. Consent is produced and reproduced by a
ruling hegemony that holds sway through civil society and takes on the status of common sense; it
becomes subconsciously accepted and even regarded as beyond question. Obviously, for Gramsci, there is
nothing immutable about the values that permeate society; they can and do change. In the social realm,
ideas and institutions that were once seen as natural and beyond question (i.e., commonsensical) in the
West, such as feudalism and slavery, are now seen as anachronistic, unjust, and unacceptable. In Marxs
well-worn phrase, All that is solid melts into the air. Gramscis intention is to harness this potential for
change and ensure that it moves in the direction of emancipation. To do this he suggests a strategy of a
war of position (Gramsci 1971: 229-239). Gramsci argues that in states with developed civil societies,
social change
requires a slow, incremental, even molecular, struggle to break down the prevailing
hegemony and construct an alternative counterhegemony to take its place. Organic
such as those in Western liberal democracies, any successful attempt at progressive
intellectuals have a crucial role to play in this process by helping to undermine the natural,
commonsense, internalized nature of the status quo. This in turn helps create political space within
which alternative conceptions of politics can be developed and new historic blocs created. I contend that
Gramscis strategy of a war of position suggests an appropriate model for proponents of critical security
studies to adopt in relating their theorizing to political practice. THE TASKS OF CRITICAL SECURITY STUDIES
If the project of critical security studies is conceived in terms of war of position, then
the main task of those intellectuals who align themselves with the enterprise is to
attempt to undermine the prevailing hegemonic security discourse. This may be
accomplished by utilizing specialist information and expertise to engage in an immanent
critique of the prevailing security regimes, that is, comparing the justifications of those
regimes with actual outcomes. When this is attempted in the security field, the
prevailing structures and regimes are found to fail grievously on their own terms.
Such an approach also involves challenging the pronouncements of those
intellectuals, traditional or organic, whose views serve to legitimate, and hence
reproduce, the prevailing world order. This challenge entails teasing out the often
subconscious and certainly unexamined assumptions that underlie their arguments
while drawing attention to the normative viewpoints that are smuggled into
mainstream thinking about security behind its positivist faade. In this sense,
proponents of critical security studies approximate to Foucaults notion of specific
intellectuals who use their expert knowledge to challenge the prevailing regime of
truth (Foucault 1980: 132). However, critical theorists might wish to reformulate this sentiment along
more familiar Quaker lines of speaking truth to power (this sentiment is also central to Said 1994) or
even along the eisteddfod lines of speaking truth against the world. Of course, traditional strategists can,
and indeed do, sometimes claim a similar role. Colin S. Gray, for example, states that strategists must be
prepared to speak truth to power (Gray 1982a: 193). But the difference between Gray and proponents of
critical security studies is that, whereas the former seeks to influence policymakers in particular directions
without questioning the basis of their power, the latter aim at a thoroughgoing critique of all that
critical theorists base their critique

on the presupposition, elegantly stated by Adorno, that the need to lend suffering a
voice is the precondition of all truth (cited in Jameson 1990: 66). The aim of critical security
traditional security studies has taken for granted. Furthermore,
studies in attempting to undermine the prevailing orthodoxy is ultimately educational. As Gramsci notes,
every relationship of hegemony is necessarily a pedagogic relationship (Gramsci 1971: 350; see also
by criticizing the hegemonic

discourse and advancing alternative conceptions of security based on different
understandings of human potentialities, the approach is simultaneously playing apart in
eroding the legitimacy of the ruling historic bloc and contributing to the development
of a counterhegemonic position. There are a number of avenues of avenues open to critical
security specialists in pursuing this educational strategy. As teachers, they can try to foster and
encourage skepticism toward accepted wisdom and open minds to other possibilities.
They can also take advantage of the seemingly unquenchable thirst of the media for
instant pundistry to forward alternative views onto a broader stage. Nancy Fraser
argues: As teachers, we try to foster an emergent pedagogical counterculture . As
critical public intellectuals we try to inject our perspectives into whatever cultural or
political public spheres we have access to (Fraser 1989: 11). Perhaps significantly, support for
this type of emancipatory strategy can even be found in the work of the ultrapessimistic Adorno, who
argues: In the history of civilization there have been not a few instances when
delusions were healed not by focused propaganda, but, in the final analysis, because
scholars, with their unobtrusive yet insistent work habits, studied what lay at the root
of the delusion. (cited in Kellner 1992: vii) Such unobtrusive yet insistent work does not in itself
create the social change to which Adorno alludes. The conceptual and the practical dangers of
collapsing practice into theory must be guarded against. Rather, through their
educational activities, proponent of critical security studies should aim to provide
support for those social movements that promote emancipatory social change . By
providing a critique of the prevailing order and legitimating alternative views, critical
theorists can perform a valuable role in supporting the struggles of social
movements. That said, the role of theorists is not to direct and instruct those movements with which
the discussion of critical pedagogy in Neufeld 1995: 116-121). Thus,
they are aligned; instead, the relationship is reciprocal. The experience of the European, North American,
and Antipodean peace movements of the 1980s shows how influential social movements can become
when their efforts are harnessed to the intellectual and educational activity of critical thinkers. For
Pugh cites the

importance of the visits of critical intellectuals such as Helen Caldicott and Richard Falk
in changing the countrys political climate and encouraging the growth of the
antinuclear movement (Pugh 1989: 108; see also Cortright 1993: 5-13). In the 1980s peace
example, in his account of New Zealands antinuclear stance in the 1980s, Michael C.
movements and critical intellectuals interested in issues of security and strategy drew strength and succor
from each others efforts. If such critical social movements do not exist, then this creates obvious
difficulties for the critical theorist. But even under these circumstances, the theorist need not abandon all
hope of an eventual orientation toward practice. Once again, the peace movement of the 1980s provides
evidence of the possibilities. At that time, the movement benefited from the intellectual work undertaken
in the lean years of the peace movement in the late 1970s. Some of the theories and concepts developed
then, such as common security and nonoffensive defense, were eventually taken up even in the Kremlin
and played a significant role in defusing the second Cold War. Those ideas developed in the 1970s can be
seen in Adornian terms of the a message in a bottle, but in this case, contra Adornos expectations, they
were picked up and used to support a program of emancipatory political practice. Obviously, one would be
nave to understate the difficulties facing those attempting to develop alternative critical approaches
within academia. Some of these problems have been alluded to already and involve the structural
constraints of academic life itself. Said argues that many problems are caused by what he describes as the
Academics are now so

constrained by the requirements of job security and marketability that they are
extremely risk-averse. It pays in all senses to stick with the crowd and avoid the
exposed limb by following the prevalent disciplinary preoccupations , publish in certain
prescribed journals, and so on. The result is the navel gazing so prevalent in the study of
international relations and the seeming inability of security specialists to deal with
the changes brought about by the end of the Cold War (Kristensen 1997 highlights the
search of U.S. nuclear planners for new targets for old weapons ). And, of course, the
pressures for conformism are heightened in the field of security studies when
governments have a very real interest in marginalizing dissent . Nevertheless,
opportunities for critical thinking do exist, and this thinking can connect with the
practices of social movements and become a force for the direction of action. The
growing mmphasizedmngmation of academic life (Said 1994: 49-62).
experience of the 1980s, when, in the depths of the second Cold War, critical thinkers risked demonization
and in some countries far worse in order to challenge received wisdom, thus arguably playing a crucial role
in the very survival of the human race, should act as both an inspiration and a challenge to critical security
studies.
4. Individual epistemological interrogation is keyinternalized racist stereotypes and implicit biases

require active challenging
Feingold and Lorang 2012 [Jonathon (J.D. graduate of UCLA School of Law) and Karen
(J.D. graduate of UCLA School of Law), Defusing Implicit Bias, UCLA Law Review Discourse 2012,
LexisNexis, AX]
accusations of racial profiling often require or rely on

evidence of conscious intent. Though presumptively unconstitutional, racial [*220] profiling is
Like allegations of racism,
often justified on policy grounds as a rational form of racial discrimination. Racial profiling is rational in the
sense that it relies on perceived statistical correlations between a particular racial group and a
For instance, when New York officials conduct covert

surveillance on Muslim communities, the decision is based on a conscious
belief that the targeted individuals are more likely to engage in terrorism than
the general population. Understood in this way, a successful claim of racial profiling requires proof
of a conscious decision to discriminate against the targeted group because of their race. These
examples of racism defenses and racism allegations illustrate the central role
that evidence of conscious intent plays in our public dialogue. Even within the
disparate treatment theory of racial discrimination, however, such an approach fails to
take into account recent findings from the fields of psychology and
social cognition that complicate the way we may think about racially
motivated acts. These findings reveal that implicit biases, often undetectable
through introspection [*221] and self-reporting, cause us to treat others differently
because of their race. To gain a more accurate sense of the role played by implicit biases, we
corresponding trait or behavior.
explicit and implicit

biases are the result of social cognitions. n73 Cognitions are thoughts or
feelings, and "[a] social cognition is a thought or feeling about a person or a
social group, such as a racial group." n74 Explicit biases are thoughts or
feelings that we are aware of and are able to identify through introspection. n75 We
commonly, though not always, "agree with and endorse our explicit [biases]." n76 Racism
begin by disaggregating the concepts of explicit and implicit biases. Both
allegations, and the corresponding racism defenses, often reflect our familiarity with explicit biases.
Racism defenses regularly rely on the type of evidence offered by Zimmerman's father, while those
alleging racism correspondingly search for the smoking-gun quote or document that will reveal racist
intent. n77 The national focus on Zimmerman's possible use of the pejorative term "coon" provides one
Implicit bias research shows

that traditional understandings of conscious intent fail to tell the
whole story. Implicit biases "pop[] into mind quickly and automatically
without conscious volition." n79 Unlike explicit biases, implicit biases are difficult to
identify because of introspective limitations and our own self-monitoring. n80 In
fact, we are usually unaware of, or mistaken about, the sources of our implicit biases and
the influence they have on our judgment and behavior. n81 Implicit biases
may actually include "thought[s] or feeling[s] that we would reject
as inaccurate or inappropriate upon self-reflection." n82 This disassociation
between implicit and explicit biases means that we may honestly believe we hold positive
[*222] attitudes about a particular racial group, yet we simultaneously hold
negative attitudes toward that same group at an implicit level . n83 This explains
such example of evidence common to a racism allegation. n78
why being Hispanic, growing up in a multiracial household, having Black friends, and honestly professing
antiracist ideals does not preclude the possibility that an individual might hold implicit negative attitudes
about Blacks. To circumvent challenges posed by our inability to access implicit biases, psy-chological tests
have been designed to measure our unconscious cognitions. These tests have relied on various linguistic
cues, physiological responses, microfacial movements, neurological activity, and "reaction times when
completing various tasks." n84 Perhaps the most well-known test is the Implicit Association Test (IAT),
which measures reaction times for sorting stimuli into categories. n85 The IAT consistently reveals "implicit
attitudes in favor of one social group over another." n86 For many Americans, implicit biases manifest "in
the form of negative beliefs (stereotypes) and attitudes (prejudice) against racial minorities." n87 Because
many people hold implicit biases, the real question becomes whether these biases influence or predict
behavior. Jerry Kang summarizes the prevailing wisdom on this point: There is now persuasive evidence
implicit bias against a social category, as measured by instruments such as the IAT,
predicts disparate behavior toward individuals mapped to that category. This
occurs notwithstanding contrary explicit commitments in favor of racial equality. In
other words, even if our sincere self-reports of bias score zero, we would
still engage in disparate treatment of individuals on the basis of
race, consistent with our racial schemas. Controlled, deliberative,
rational processes are not the only forces guiding our behavior. That we
that
are not even aware of, much less intending, such race-contingent behavior does not magically erase the
harm. n88 [*223] In fact, studies have shown that "[a]utomatic associations influence behavior by both
professionals and laypeople in employment, medical, voting, law enforcement, and countless other
most troubling, and especially relevant to Trayvon's death, evidence suggests

police officers and private citizens unconsciously rely on race when
making decisions about whether or not to shoot. n90 Part III proceeds by detailing the potentially
contexts." n89 Perhaps
that
deadly combination of implicit bias and guns.
5. Centering our praxis in this space is key

---interrogating Islamophobia in educational settings
is critical to establishing a critical consciousness that
enables larger political projects
15, Issue 1]
Having reflected on the two seminar sessions on Islamophobia and the student
comments, I am convinced that the work of anti-racism in university classrooms is
fundamentally important. As one student said racism is real. Through racism people
suffer physically, psychologically, socially, educationally and politically. Our
work in university classrooms is just the beginning of this challenge against
racisms and other oppressions. Classroom discussions and general teaching
form a very important contribution to this work of anti racism in education.
There are no short cuts or painless cuts; the work of anti-racism is a difficult one. As
educators we should make use of classroom exchanges; students engaged
learning could be the key to promoting anti-racism in our class. My goal is to teach in a
way that engages students and leads them to reflect on the socio-economic political/religions issues that
The
student voice, that critiques mainstream thinking as found in the media and
elsewhere, is a starting point for this political work. I argue that teaching and
learning in our classroom should encourage the critical consciousness
necessary for pursuing social justice. Whilst I acknowledge the limits of doing
anti-racist campaign in university spaces, I argue that this is a good starting
point. And who knows, these educational exchanges may become (as with my own story)
the awakening for bigger political projects against injustices in our society . In
conclusion I endorse social justice advocates, such as Cunningham (cited in JohnsonBailey 2002, 43) who suggest that educators re-direct classroom practices and the
curriculum, because: if we are not working for equity in our teaching and
and other oppressions. I end by suggesting that in the current times of Islamophobic
racism, when racist attacks are a daily occurrence , in August and September 2010
alone, nearly 30 people have been racially abused and physically attacked
(Institute of Race Relations 2010). The point of studying racism, therefore, is to rise to the
anti-racist challenge, and for me, a place to start this campaign is within Higher
Education Institutions, optimistic as it might sound, I believe, as asserted by Sheridan (cited in Van
Driel 2004) that: Education can enlighten students and promote positive
attitudes. Education settings can be the first arena in which
battles can be fought against Islamophobia. It is to education that
our attention should be directed. (162)
surrounds theirs (our) lives. This article argues for making anti-racist thinking possible in class.

assumptions behind Islamophobia creates a
transformative and liberatory pedagogy that enables
agency and challenges racist dynamics
As an anti-racism scholar and educator , fellow colleagues and I realized from as early as
September 12 that there was an urgency to frame a critical pedagogical
response to address and challenge the rampant Islamophobia
affecting the realities of Muslims from all walks of life and social conditions .
Among the most vulnerable were children and youth , who received little support from
schools in dealing with the backlash that many were experiencing on a routine basis. Most schools were
reluctant to engage in any response beyond the politically neutral arena of crisis management. Among
there was a clear resistance to addressing

or even naming issues of racism and Islamophobia. In fact, the discursive
language to name and define the experiences that Muslims were
encountering on a day-to-day basis did not even exist within the educational
discourse. While schools were reluctant to name specific incidents as racism part of an all-toocommon denial the notion of Islamophobia did not have any currency
at all. In fact, it was not a part of the language or conceptual constructs
commonly used by educators, even by those committed to multicultural and
antiracist pedagogy. I realized the urgency to map a new
epistemological and pedagogical terrain by creating an educational
framework for addressing Islamophobia. Within the existing equity-based
educational frameworks, one could find the conceptual and pedagogical tools
to address issues of racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and antiSemitism. However, the discursive foundations for dealing with
Islamophobia and the accompanying educational resources simply
did not exist. Developing a new framework to fill this gap involved coining a new term: AntiIslamophobia Education. Being able to name and define the experience of Muslims
as the result of Islamophobia was critical to shaping the kind of interventions
that would take place from a critical educational standpoint . Before outlining a
methodology for conducting anti-Islamophobia education, it was necessary
to develop some discursive foundations, arrive at a definition of Islamophobia, and
create an understanding of what it was that we sought to challenge
and resist. From a socio-psychological standpoint, the notion of Islamophobia is often loosely
the school districts that I was in contact with,
translated as an attitude of fear, mistrust, or hatred of Islam and its adherents. However, this definition
presents a narrow conceptual framework and does not take into account the social, structural, and
ideological dimensions through which forms of oppression are operationalized and enacted. Applying a
Islamophobic attitudes are, in

fact, part of a rational system of power and domination that manifests as
individual, ideological, and systemic forms of discrimination and oppression .
The idea that discrimination, be it based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, or religion,
more holistic analysis, far from being based on mere ignorance,
simply stems from ignorance allows those engaged in oppressive acts and
policies to claim a space of innocence. By labeling Islamophobia as an essentially irrational
fear, this conception denies the logic and rationality of social dominance and oppression, which operates
to capture the complex

dimensions through which Islamophobia operates, it is necessary to extend
the definition from its limited conception as a fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims and
acknowledge that these attitudes are intrinsically linked to individual,
ideological, and systemic forms of oppression that support the logic and
rationale of specific power relations. For example, individual acts of oppression include such
on multiple social, ideological, and systemic levels. Therefore,
practices as name-calling or personal assault, while systemic forms of oppression refer to the structural
conditions of inequality regulated through such institutional practices as racial profiling or denying jobs or
exclusionary practices are shored up by specific

ideological underpinnings, among them the purveyed notions designed to
pathologize Muslims as terrorists and impending threats to public safety.
Understanding the dimensions of how systems of oppression such as
Islamophobia operate socially, ideologically, and systemically became a key
component of developing educational tools that would help build the
critical skills needed to analyze and challenge these dynamics. From a
housing opportunities. These
discursive standpoint, I locate anti-Islamophobia education within a integrative anti-racism framework5

that views systems of oppression based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, and religion as part of a
multiple and interlocking nexus that reinforce and sustain one another. Based on this understanding, I have
mapped some key epistemological foundations for anti-Islamophobia education.6 This includes the need to
reclaim the stage through which Islam is represented from the specter of terrorists and suicide bombers
to a platform of peace and social justice. Reclaiming
the stage requires adopting a

pedagogical approach that shifts the popular media discourse away from the
negative, essentialized referents and tropes of abject Otherness ascribed to
Muslims. This move involves presenting a critical counter-narrative in
order to reframe the Manichean worldview and clash of civilizations
narratives typically being purveyed in order to present a more nuanced,
reasoned, and critical perspective of the global sociopolitical realities that
Muslim individuals and societies are confronting, engaging, and challenging .
Another foundational aspect of anti-Islamophobia education involves
interrogating the systemic mechanisms through which Islamophobia
is reinforced, by analytically unraveling the dynamics of power in society
that sustain social inequality. Racial profiling, which targets groups on the basis of their
race, ethnicity, faith, or other aspects of social difference, and similar issues are major
systemic barriers that criminalize and pathologize entire communities . In
schools, the practice of color-coded streaming, whereby a disproportionate number of racially and
ethnically marginalized youth are channeled into lower non-academic level streams, is another example of
Negative perceptions held by teachers and guidance

counselors toward racialized students have often led to assumptions of failure
or limited chances for success, based on such false stereotypes as the notion that Islam
doesnt value education for girls or Black students wont succeed. These negative attitudes are
relayed to students through the hidden curriculum of schooling and
lead to lower expectations being placed upon youth from specific
communities.7 Developing critical pedagogical tools to analyze and develop
challenges to these systems of domination is part of building a
transformative and liberatory pedagogy, one geared toward achieving
greater social justice in both schools and society. Another key goal of antiinstitutionalized racism.
Islamophobia education involves the need to demystify stereotypes . Since 9/11,

renewed Orientalist constructions of difference have permeated the representation of Muslims in media
and popular culture. Images of fanatical terrorists and burqa-clad women are seen as the primary markers
Deconstructing and demystifying these stereotypes is vital to

helping students develop a critical literacy of the politics of media
and image-making. Critically examining the destructive impact of how
these images create the social and ideological divide between us and
them is important to exposing how power operates through the
of the Muslim world.
7. Epistemological interrogation solves the identity of

the Muslim as a terrorist is a social construct
contingent on the contemporary security State by
questioning this dominant paradigm the affirmative
paves the road to a more inclusive tomorrow
Bhambra and Margee 2010 [Gurminder K Bhambra* and Victoria Margee**,
*Professor of sociology at the University of Warwick, **School of Humanities at the University of Brighton,
Identity Politics and the Need for a Tomorrow, April 10 2010,
http://www.academia.edu/471824/Identity_Politics_and_the_Need_for_a_Tomorrow_, AX]
alternative models of identity and community are required from

those put forward by essentialist theories, and that these are offered by the work of two
We suggest that
theorists, Satya Mohanty and Lynn Hankinson Nelson. Mohantys ([1993] 2000)post-positivist, realist
theorisation of identity suggests a way through the impasses of essentialism, while avoiding the excesses
of the postmodernism that Bramen, among others, derides as a proposed alternative to identity politics.
identities must be understood as theoretical

constructions that enable subjects to read the world in particular ways ; as such,
substantial claims about identity are, in fact, implicit explanations of the social
world and its constitutive relations of power. Experience that from which identity is
For Mohanty ([1993]2000),
usually thought to derive is not something that simply occurs, or announces its meaning and significance
experience is always a work of interpretation that is

collectively produced(Scott 1991).Mohantys work resonates with that of Nelson (1993), who
in a self-evident fashion: rather,
similarly insists upon the communal nature of meaning or knowledge-making. Rejecting both
foundationalist views of knowledge and the postmodern alternative which announces the death of the
subject and the impossibility of epistemology, Nelson argues instead that,
it is not individuals
who are the agents of epistemology, but communities.
Since it is not possible for an
individual to know something that another individual could not also (possibly) know ,
it must be that
the ability to make sense of the world proceeds from shared conceptual
frameworks and practices. Thus, it is the community that is the generator and
repository of knowledge. Bringing Mohantys work on identity as theoretical construction together
with Nelsons work on epistemological communities therefore suggests that, identity is one of
the knowledges that is produced and enabled for and by individuals
in the context of the communities within which they exist. The postpositivist reformulation of experience is necessary here as it privileges
understandings that emerge through the processing of experience in the
context of negotiated premises about the world, over experience itself
producing self-evident knowledge (self-evident, however, only to the one who has had the
experience). This distinction is crucial for, if it is not the experience of, for example, sexual
discrimination that makes one a feminist, but rather, the paradigm through
which one attempts to understand acts of sexual discrimination , then it is not

necessary to have actually had the experience oneself in order to make the
identification feminist. If being a feminist is not a given fact of a particular social (and/or
biological) location that is, being designated female but is, in Mohantys terms, an achieve-ment
that is, something worked towards through a process of analysis and interpretation then two implications
follow. First, that not all women are feminists. Second, that feminism is some-thing that is achievable by
men. 3 While it is accepted that experiences are not merely theoretical or conceptual constructs which can
there is some-thing
politically self-defeating about insisting that one can only understand an
experience (or then comment upon it) if one has actually had the experience oneself .
As Rege (1998) argues, to privilege knowledge claims on the basis of direct
experience, or then on claims of authenticity, can lead to a narrow identity politics that
limits the emancipatory potential of the movements or organisations making
such claims. Further, if it is not possible to understand an experience one has
not had, then what point is there in listening to each other ? Following Said, such a
view seems to authorise privileged groups to ignore the discourses of
disadvantaged ones, or, we would add, to place exclusive responsibility for
addressing injustice with the oppressed themselves. Indeed, as Rege suggests,
reluctance to speak about the experience of others has led to an assumption
on the part of some white feminists that confronting racism is the sole
responsibility of black feminists, just as today issues of caste become the sole responsibility
be transferred from one person to another with transparency, we think that
of the dalit womens organisations (Rege 1998).Her argument for a dalit feminist standpoint, then, is not
a call for others to educate

themselves about the histories, the preferred social relations and utopias and
the struggles of the marginalised (Rege 1998). This, she argues, allows their cause
to become our cause, not as a form of appropriation of their
struggle, but through the transformation of subjectivities that enables a
recognition that their struggle is also our struggle . Following Rege, we suggest that
social processes can facilitate the understanding of experiences, thus making
those experiences the possible object of analysis and action for all, while
recognising that they are not equally available or powerful for all subjects. 4
Understandings of identity as given and essential , then, we suggest, need to give
way to understandings which accept them as socially constructed and
contingent on the work of particular, overlapping, epistemological
communities that agree that this or that is a viable and recognised identity. Such an
understanding avoids what Bramen identifies as the postmodern excesses of post-racial
theory, where in this world without borders (rac-ism is real, but race is not) one can be anything one
made in terms solely of the experiences of dalit women, but rather
wants to be: a black kid in Harlem can be Croatian-American, if that is what he chooses, and a white kid
from Iowa can be Korean-American(2002: 6). Unconstrained choice is not possible to the extent that, as
Nelson (1993) argues, the concept of the epistemological com-munity requires any individual knowledge
claim to sustain itself in relation to standards of evaluation that already exist and that are social. Any claim
to identity, then, would have to be recognised by particular communities as valid in order to be successful. This further shifts the discussion beyond the limitations of essentialist accounts of identity by
recognising that the communities that confer identity are constituted through their shared epistemological
frameworks and not necessarily by shared characteristics of their members conceived of as irreducible. 5
the epistemological community that enables us to identify our-selves as

feminists is one that is built up out of a broadly agreed upon paradigm for
interpreting the world and the relations between the sexes: it is not one that is
premised upon possessing the physical attribute of being a woman or upon sharing the same
experiences. Since at least the 1970s, a key aspect of black and/or postcolonial feminism has been to
Hence,
identify the problems associated with such assumptions (see, for discussion, Rege 1998, 2000).We believe
it is the identification of injustice which calls forth action and

thus allows for the construction of healthy solidarities. 6 While it is
accepted that there may be important differences between those who recognise
the injustice of disadvantage while being , in some respects, its beneficiary (for
that
example, men, white people, brahmins), and those who recognise the injustice from the position of being
we would privilege the importance of a

shared political commitment to equality as the basis for negotiating
such differences. Our argument here is that thinking through identity claims
from the basis of understanding them as epistemological
communities militates against exclusionary politics (and its associated
problems) since the emphasis comes to be on participation in a shared
epistemological and political project as opposed to notions of fixed
characteristics the focus is on the activities individuals participate in rather
than the characteristics they are deemed to possess. Identity is thus defined
further as a function of activity located in particular social locations (understood as
the complex of objective forces that influence the conditions in which one lives) rather than of
nature or origin (Mohanty 1995:109-10). As such, the communities that enable
identity should not be conceived of as imagined since they are
produced by very real actions, practices and projects.
at its effect (women, ethnic minorities, dalits),
8. Islamophobia has built cultural barriers all around us

which manifest themselves in everyday
discrimination against Muslims. We have all become
complicit in the construction of misunderstanding
and fear of Muslim culture the only way out is to
question our cultural and educational practices
Samman 8 (Khaldoun Samman, Associate Professor of Sociology at Macalester College,
Strategies for Decentering Islamophobia, Spring 2008,
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~crg2/faultlines/FL08.pdf)
The case of the unflushed toilet demonstrates how even the seemingly innocuous subject of bathroom
When polarized
distinctionswhat Samman refers to as cultural-binariesare drawn between two
worlds, the results can be cultural isolation, misunderstanding, and fear. A
more sobering example of this is the criticism and negative attention that has
been directed at Muslim communities for purportedly endorsing practices
such as female honor killings. This practice has been framed as a purely
Islamic phenomenon, and consequentially one that does not exist in the West .
etiquette, calls into question the reflexive judgments we make about one another.
An analysis of U.S. criminal statistics however, reveals that 1/3 of female murders were committed by a
Viewed in this light, an honor killing loses its divisive

power as a uniquely Muslim atrocity . We are forced instead into questioning
our own cultural practices and identities. The victimization of young women is
no longer a uniquely Muslim crime, but rather, a human one. Profesor Samman
believes that it is only by discarding the epistemologies of cultural binaries
of us and them, Orient and Occidentwill we be able to move
beyond the politics of fear and diviseness that has come to dominate
our public and political discourse.
boyfriend, husband, or lover.
9. Education in debate is critical to begin

deconstructing Islamophobia we need engaged
dialogue on the question of discrimination in order to
challenge internal stereotypes and ignorance
9/11 made the international community more aware of the critical importance
of intercivilizational dialogue. Governments in Europe and America, the Muslim world and
beyond as well as international organizations like the United Nations and Organization of the Islamic
Conference have undertaken serious efforts to promote intercivilizational dialogue. The World Economic
Forum created the Council of 100 Leaders (political, religion, intellectual, and media) and the U.N. the
Centers like Georgetown Universitys Prince Alwaleed Bin

Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, promote a better
understanding between the Muslim world and the West, have been active in
Washington and globally, speaking, briefing, and writing for a broad audience
of university, government, media and corporate audiences. Education in our
schools, universities and seminaries (not just madrasas) as well as our churches and synagogues that
train the next generation of policymakers, religious leaders, educators, and
citizens is critical. Attempts to limit public discourse and debate,
silence alternative voices in America and Europe who speak out
against ignorance, stereotyping and demonization of Islam,
discrimination, hate crimes or threats to the civil liberties of Muslims
must be turned back. Some are attacked in the media and on Islamophobic websites. Would
this discourse and these actions be tolerated if Christianity or Judaism were the targets? Islamophobia
can have serious consequences on foreign policy. Americas policy in Iraq,
from war to post-war reconstruction, was affected by the extent to which
Islam and Muslim religious leaders, and Shii Islam in particular, were seen
through the distorted lens of Khomeini/Iranian revolutionary
Alliance of Civilizations.
Extra Topical
We Meet:
Our policy action does nothing more than curtail surveillance. All three of the
planks in our plan are specifically designed to provide a comprehensive,
precise, and actionable plan to affirm the resolution.
The direct consequence of that action is solving dehumanization and relations
with the Muslim community, but our plan itself is most definitely not extra
topical. It directly affirms the resolution we substantially curtail the United
States Federal Governments domestic surveillance but the correlation is
that we solve for the rest of the harms stated. We claim no specific
advantage to the planks themselves in our plan but we have constructed it
in such a way that it solves for everything else.
Counter definition:
Extra T definition:
Policy Debate 101 pdf, National Speech and Debate Association (Everything
You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here )
One sub-issue is Extra Topicality, or the concept that the plan does MORE
than is allowed by the Resolution. Extra-T might be implicated if the plan
replaces the withdrawn troops into a different theater of operation and
claims advantages from doing so
Counter Interpretation:
Because the negative cannot articulate the exact advantage we are
proclaiming for the extra planks in our plan and because we simply do not
claim a specific advantage from that part in our plan we meet the inverse of
our definition that the planks of our plan are not extra-topical because they
do not claim an advantage.
If they dont read this T in the 1NC: Isnt topicality supposed to be

an A-Priory issue? If it is then why was it not run in the 1NC? They are abusing
their use of T by not bringing it up in their first speech, putting more pressure
on the 1AR when they obviously dont really care about it. They have proven
This T argument is not A-Priory. They are trying to bind us, but really all
they are proving is our aff it not extra topical, because they have to set it
up in order to try to convince you.
Plank One:
Congressional Oversight is vital to curtailing surveillance
because without congressional oversight of the FBI they
will circumvent (and have been doing so) and they will not
actually curtail their surveillance. The only way to actually
curtail surveillance is to create congressional and judicial
oversight.
Multiple ways that agencies can circumvent legislationspecifically the FBI will continue surveillance regardless of
what the plan does
Ackerman, 2015
(Spencer Ackerman is an editor/ reporter for the US News in New York. Full Date: June 1, 2015. Fears NSA
will seek to undermine surveillance reform; Privacy advocates are wary of covert legal acrobatics from the
NSA similar to those deployed post-9/11 to circumvent congressional authority
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/. Date Accessed- 7/15/15. Anshul Nanda)
National Security Agency will attempt to weaken new

restrictions on the bulk collection of Americans' phone and email records with a
barrage of creative legal wrangles, as the first major reform of US surveillance powers in a
Privacy advocates fear the
generation looked likely to be a foregone conclusion on Monday. Related: Bush-era surveillance powers
expire as US prepares to roll back NSA power The USA Freedom Act, a bill banning the NSA from collecting
US phone data in bulk and compelling disclosure of any novel legal arguments for widespread surveillance
before a secret court, has already been passed by the House of Representatives and on Sunday night the
Senate voted 77 to 17 to proceed to debate on it. Between that bill and a landmark recent ruling from a
federal appeals court that rejected a longstanding government justification for bulk surveillance, civil
libertarians think they stand a chance at stopping attempts by intelligence lawyers to undermine reform in
secret. Attorneys for the intelligence agencies react scornfully to the suggestion that they will stretch their
authorities to the breaking point. Yet reformers remember that such legal tactics during the George W Bush
administration allowed the NSA to shoehorn bulk phone records collection into the Patriot Act. Rand Paul,
the Kentucky senator and Republican presidential candidate who was key to allowing sweeping US
surveillance powers to lapse on Sunday night, warned that NSA lawyers would now make mincemeat of the
USA Freedom Act's prohibitions on bulk phone records collection by taking an expansive view of the bill's
definitions, thanks to a pliant, secret surveillance court. "My
fear, though, is that the people

who interpret this work at a place known as the rubber stamp factory, the
Fisa [court]," Paul said on the Senate floor on Sunday. Paul's Democratic ally, Senator Ron Wyden,
warned the intelligence agencies and the Obama administration against attempting to unravel NSA
intelligence committee has taught me to always be vigilant

for secret interpretations of the law and new surveillance techniques that
Congress doesn't know about, " Wyden, a member of the intelligence committee, told the
Guardian. "Americans were rightly outraged when they learned that US intelligence agencies
relied on secret law to monitor millions of law-abiding US citizens. The
American people are now on high alert for new secret interpretations of the
law, and intelligence agencies and the Justice Department would do well to
keep that lesson in mind." The USA Freedom Act is supposed to prevent what Wyden calls "
reform. "My time on the
secret law ". It contains a provision requiring congressional notification in the event of a novel legal
US
government permitted the NSA to circumvent the Fisa court entirely. Not a
interpretation presented to the secret Fisa court overseeing surveillance. Yet in recent memory, the
single Fisa court judge was aware of Stellar Wind, the NSA's post-9/11
constellation of bulk surveillance programs , from 2001 to 2004. Energetic legal tactics
followed to fit the programs under existing legal authorities after internal controversy or outright exposure.
continuation of a bulk domestic internet metadata collection program

risked the mass resignation of Justice Department officials in 2004 , an internal
When the
NSA draft history records that attorneys found a different legal rationale that " essentially gave NSA the
same authority to collect bulk internet metadata that it had ". After a New York Times story in 2005
revealed the existence of the bulk domestic phone records program, attorneys for the US Justice
Department and NSA argued, with the blessing of the Fisa court, that Section 215 of the Patriot Act
authorized it all along - precisely the contention that the second circuit court of appeals rejected in May.
NSA
lawyers will undermine surveillance reform. Robert Litt, the senior lawyer for director of
Despite that recent history, veteran intelligence attorneys reacted with scorn to the idea that
national intelligence, James Clapper, said during a public appearance last month that creating a banned
bulk surveillance program was " not going to happen ". "The whole notion that NSA is just evilly
determined to read the law in a fashion contrary to its intent is bullshit, of the sort that the Guardian and
the left - but I repeat myself - have fallen in love with. The interpretation of 215 that supported the bulk
collection program was creative but not beyond reason, and it was upheld by many judges," said the
referring to Section 215 of the Patriot Act. This

is the section that permits US law enforcement and surveillance agencies to
collect business records and expired at midnight, almost two years after the
former NSA general counsel Stewart Baker,
whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed to the Guardian that the Patriot Act was secretly being used to
justify the collection of phone records from millions of Americans. With one exception, the judges that
upheld the interpretation sat on the non-adversarial Fisa court, a body that approves nearly all government
surveillance requests and modifies about a quarter of them substantially. The exception was reversed by
the second circuit court of appeals. Baker, speaking before the Senate voted, predicted: "I don't think
anyone at NSA is going to invest in looking for ways to defy congressional intent if USA Freedom is
adopted." The USA Freedom Act,
a compromise bill, would not have an impact on the

vast majority of NSA surveillance. It would not stop any overseas-focused
surveillance program, no matter how broad in scope, nor would it end the
NSA's dragnets of Americans' international communications authorized by a
different law. Other bulk domestic surveillance programs, like the one the Drug Enforcement
Agency operated, would not be impacted. The rise of what activists have come to call
"bulky" surveillance, like the "large collections" of Americans' electronic communications records the FBI
gets to collect under the Patriot Act, continue unabated - or, at least, will, once the USA Freedom Act
passes and restores the Patriot Act powers that lapsed at midnight on Sunday. Related: FBI used Patriot
Act to obtain 'large collections' of Americans' data, DoJ finds That collection, recently confirmed by a
largely overlooked Justice Department inspector general's report, points to a slipperiness in shuttering
surveillance programs - one that creates opportunities for clever lawyers. The Guardian revealed in 2013
that Barack Obama had permitted the NSA to collect domestic internet metadata in bulk until 2011. Yet
even as Obama closed down that NSA program, the Justice Department inspector general confirms that by
FBI was already collecting the same "electronic communications"

metadata under a different authority. It is unclear as yet how the FBI transformed
that authority, passed by Congress for the collection of "business records", into large2009, the
scale collection of Americans' email, text, instant message, internet-protocol and other records. And a
similar power to for the FBI gather domestic internet metadata, obtained
through non-judicial subpoenas called "National Security Letters" , also exists in a
different, non-expiring part of the Patriot Act. Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the ACLU,
expressed confidence that the second circuit court of appeals' decision last month would effectively step
into the breach. The panel found that legal authorities permitting the collection of data "relevant" to an
investigation cannot allow the government to gather data in bulk - setting a potentially prohibitive
precedent for other bulk-collection programs. "We don't know what kinds of bulk-collection programs the
conduct
bulk collection of internet metadata, phone records, and financial records. If
similar programs are still in place, the ruling will force the government to
reconsider them, and probably to end them," said Jaffer, whose organization brought the
government still has in place, but in the past it's used authorities other than Section 215 to
suit that the second circuit considered. Julian Sanchez, a surveillance expert at the Cato Institute, was
more cautious. "The second circuit ruling establishes that a 'relevance' standard is not completely
unlimited - it doesn't cover getting hundreds of millions of people's records, without any concrete
connection to a specific inquiry - but doesn't provide much guidance beyond that as to where the line is,"
Sanchez said. "I wouldn't be surprised if the government argued, in secret, that nearly anything short of
that scale is still allowed, nor if the same Fisa court that authorized the bulk telephone program, in
defiance of any common sense reading of the statutory language, went along with it."
Plank Three
S-6 Visas and the removal of deportation from the FBIs
toolbox is vital to curtailing surveillance because once the
S-6 visas are implemented, the only way for the FBI to use
informants is through the visa program: one that is
checked by the Secretary of State and the Attorney
general. Because not all of the current informants are
eligible for the S-6 visa (because they do not actually
have any information for the FBI) the raw number of
informants will go down. This will curtail surveillance,
because less informants means less surveillance.
S-6 visa Granting process
Ester, Report for Congress, 05
(Karma Ester, Technical Information Specialist
Domestic Social Policy Division, CRS Report for Congress, January 19, 2005)
The S-6 category of classification may be granted to an alien who the

Attorney General and Secretary of State have determined
possesses critical, reliable information concerning a terrorist
organization, operation, or enterprise, and who is willing to supply or has
supplied information to federal law enforcement authorities or to a federal
court. The Attorney General and Secretary must also determine that the alien
has been or will be placed in danger as a result of providing information, and
is eligible to receive a cash reward under 36(a) of the State Department
Basic Authorities Act of 1956.7 The number of informants admitted under
this classification may not exceed 50 in any fiscal year. No terrorist
informants have been admitted under the S-6 category since 1996.
ARGUMENTS FOR EXTRA-TOPICAL PLAN PLANKS

Judge, please put every single one of these standards and
voters on your flow. Failure for the neg to forget or not
win even one of these arguments will immediately win us
extra topicality and not make it a vote for neg. I would
Also like to point out that just because we are arguing
extra topical good does not mean we admit to being extra
topical. It is both more answers on the flow as well as a
failsafe incase you, the judge, somehow agrees that we
are extra topical.
ALLOWING EXTRA-TOPICAL PLANKS ALLOWS US TO FIND
THE BEST POLICY.
The purpose of any policy debate should be to find the best policy. If topical
action, accompanied by non-topical action constitutes the best policy, a
rational decision-maker would endorse both. The resolution is still justified as
long as it is part of the optimal policy package.
Not a reason to reject:

Even if the Plan takes more action than specifically mandated by the
resolved, It isnt exclusive. There is no word such as only In there
THIS IS THE MOST REAL WORLD.

Members of Congress attach riders to the main part of a bill. Public policy
scholars often advocate provisions designed to ameliorate the potential side
effects of their primary policies.
MAKING EXTRA-TOPICALITY A VOTING ISSUE INTERFERES

WITH FINDING THE BEST POLICY.
The goal of policy debate is to find the best policy. Theories which discourage
the affirmative from writing its plan in the way in which it thinks is best
undermines this goal. Not only are clearly extra-topical planks discouraged,
marginally topical plan planks are as well.
EXTRA-TOPICAL PLANKS DON'T CREATE EXTRA-TOPICAL

ADVANTAGES.
Extra-topical provisions are essentially neutral ground they can potentially be
included in either team's policy package Extra-topical planks can be used
only to answer DAs, not to generate an advantage. It can remove minuses
but never create an independent plus.
LOSS OF RESOLUTIONAL FOCUS ISN'T A PROBLEM.

By nature, arguments expand away from the initial core topic focus. This is
true of advantages, disadvantages, and counterplans. Plan spikes may
eliminate some of the less germane generics, resulting in more topic specific
focus.
THE RESOLUTION SERVES MAINLY TO INITIATE

DISCUSSION.
It only serves as a problem area from which the advantage generating
elements of the affirmative plan must derive.
JURISDICTION IS A FLAWED ANALOGY.

The topic doesn't define the jurisdiction of the judge; otherwise, s/he could
never vote for non-topical counterplans. Also, the jurisdictional view
transforms topicality into a "risk" issue. If one needed to go beyond his or her
jurisdiction to prevent nuclear war, s/he should probably do so.
DIVISION OF GROUND IS NOT A PROBLEM.

Focus on the plan also divides ground. The affirmative has the ground defined
by its plan, the negative all ground competitive with that plan. In fact, since
plan focus legitimizes topical counterplans, negative ground is increased.
Extra-topical planks also provide negative ground because the negative can
run disadvantages to the spikes.
EXTRA-TOPICAL PLANKS ARE RECIPROCAL WITH THE

ABILITY OF THE NEGATIVE TO COUNTERPLAN.
The counterplan attempts to create a world where the plan would be

undesirable, the spike one in which it would be a good idea. The spike,
therefore, is no more utopian than the counterplan. If utopianism of either
spikes or counterplans is deemed a problem, the answer is to establish
limiting standards of fiat, based on agent, literature context, or policy realism.
THE RESOLUTION NEED ONLY BE SUFFICIENT TO CREATE

AN ADVANTAGE; IT NEED NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO FEND OFF
ALL DA'S.
The spike proves the DA is not intrinsic to the resolution.
NOTICE/FAIRNESS ISN'T A PROBLEM.

The number of spikes to any DA is not unlimited. Since the negative offers the
DA, they should be prepared for potential ways of solving it. The affirmative
also has no "notice" about what non-topical counterplans they can expect,
but they're expected to defend against all solutions to their advantage. Plan
focus expands negative ground by allowing topical counterplans.
FIAT DOESN'T EXCLUSIVELY DERIVE FROM "SHOULD."

If it did, no non-topical counterplans could be considered. Saying something
"should" be done always assumes some context. The affirmative argues the
topical parts of the plan should be done within the context of the other
changes the plan enacts.
ABUSE POTENTIAL OF EXTRA-TOPICAL SPIKES IS LIMITED.

They must be in the 1AC; they can't be abandoned, and the affirmative can't
win on the spike alone. Overly utopian spikes can be limited by other fiat
standards parallel to those on counterplans.
EXTRA-TOPICALITY IS NOT A VOTING ISSUE
TIME ALLOCATION EFFECTS AREN'T A REASON FOR A

BALLOT.
Debaters make arguments to get favorable time tradeoffs all the time. Every
debater in every round drops certain arguments
Punishment is a poor argument paradigm. It requires suspension of the

normal process of policy evaluation, so it should only be used against the
worst offenses, such as evidence falsification.
The punishment is excessive to the crime. If the extra-topical plank is

dropped from the round, the negative can then run the disadvantage it was
intended to answer.
The affirmative has also had to invest time in debating this issue. It hasn't
given them that much of an advantage.
Compared to the total round, the time distortion is small. This single
argument shouldn't be allowed to determine the whole debate.
ANALOGIES SUPPORT THE AFFIRMATIVE.

Courts sometimes strike down parts of a bill.
Elimination of the extra-topical plank could be regarded as a floor

amendment.
the analogy of counterplan competitiveness supports. Each part of the

counterplan must be competitive, not just the counterplan as a whole.
THE SEND THE PLAN BACK TO COMMITTEE ANALOGY IS

FLAWED.
The debate encompasses the whole policy process. We can imagine that the
plan was sent back to committee and returned to the floor within the scope of
the round.
Slavish reliance on legislative analogies is foolish. The judge is simply

endorsing or rejecting the plan at the end of the round, and s/he can easily
choose to just endorse its topical elements.
CHEAP SHOT NIT PICKING OF PLANS WOULD RESULT FROM

MAKING EXTRA-TOPICALITY A VOTING ISSUE.
The negative would have a huge incentive to root through plans looking for
something that is topically suspect. Funding and enforcement provisions
could always be challenged. The result is too much debate about topicality at
the expense of substantive policy.
Effects T
We Meet:
Our plan can be done immediately after passing and will, in fact, curtail
surveillance. This is what our entire aff it about.
If they read Extra Topical first:

They are just grasping at straws, trying to trick you, the judge, into voting for
something insignificant and untrue just because they have no other ground to
convince you on. If they cannot decide whether or not our plan is extra
topical or effects topical they obviously do not understand the round or our
affirmative.
If they dont read this T in the 1NC:

Isnt topicality supposed to be an A-Priory issue? If it is then why was it not
run in the 1NC? They are abusing their use of T by not bringing it up in their
first speech, putting more pressure on the 1AR when they obviously dont
really care about it. They have proven This T argument is not A-Priory. They
are trying to bind us, but really all they are proving is our aff it not effects
topical, because they have to set it up in order to try to convince you.
Counter Definition:
Policy Debate 101 pdf, NSDA (Everything You Need to Know About Policy
Debate: You Learned Here National Speech and Debate Association)
A second sub-issue Effects Topicality (FX), or that the plan achieves a

topical result only indirectly, not directly. The problem is that the FX plan
takes too many steps to reach a topical result, and because too many steps
were taken, the plan should be rejected as being too unpredictable and
hence, unfair, for the negative to be prepared to meaningfully or
educationally debate.
Counter Interpretation:
We are directly topical. I would like to point out that our definition does not
mention planks but rather the entire plan. If passed, our plan will curtail
surveillance by using the strict scrutiny standard, having congressional
oversight to block circumvention, and using the s-6 visa to decrease the
number of informants. We have 3 different examples of how our plan will
curtail surveillance. They have none in opposition.
Counter Standards:
Judge, please put every single one of these standards and
voters on your flow. Failure for the neg to forget or not
win even one of these arguments will immediately win us
effects topicality and not make it a vote for neg. I would
like to point out that just because we are arguing effects
topical good does not mean we admit to being effects
topical. It is both more answers on the flow as well as a
failsafe incase you, the judge, somehow agrees that we
are extra topical.
You have Disads that have internal links, why can the Aff
not have internal links as well?
More Real world- Everything is judged by its effects in policy making,
policy is consequentialist even for topicality.
Increase ground- every step I take gives the Neg more ground for
Disads and CPs because there is more substance to my case. They have more
content to criticize, not less.
No abuse: I dont actually take enough steps to result in realized abuse to

the neg. Dont vote on potential its like voting for a potential disadvantage.
Increases Education: We can learn more from effectual topicality by

opening everyones eyes to alternate causation
Enforcement: effects will always exist in the form of enforcement, thats

where Fiat comes in and makes us topical by assuming all our claims happen.
AT: Politics
Uniqueness Alt Triggers

There so many other unpopular plans in front of Congress that could be
divisive. Gun control, abortion, and industry regulations could all be incredibly
divisive.
Amount of Bills brought to congress every year

Gov track.us 2015 (Bills by Final Status
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics )
Congress: Enacted Laws, Passed Resolutions, Got A Vote, Failed Legislation,
Vetoed Bills (w/o Override) ,Other Legislation TOTAL 114th Jan 6, 2015
-present 93, 1% ,350 ,5% ,302 4% ,13 0% 3 0% 6,869 90%
7,630
Link Plan Popular

1. Muslim surveillance unpopular
Muslim Advocates, 4-15-2014, Timeline of Advocacy Against NYPD
Muslim Spying Program," Muslim Advocates,
http://www.muslimadvocates.org/timeline-of-muslim-advocates-advocacyagainst-nypd-muslim-spying-program/, Accessed: 7-1-2015, /Bingham-MB
The New York City Police Department had been spying on American Muslims
without any suspicion of wrongdoing for almost ten years when the program
was exposed by a group of investigative journalists. Unwarranted attention
by law enforcement is not new to Muslim communities throughout the
country, but the details revealed of the NYPDs massive surveillance program
were truly unprecedented. Civil rights, interfaith, and Muslim community
groups, as well as members of Congress, immediately began criticizing the
NYPDs practices and called for them to end. As soon as the program
became public, Muslim Advocates launched a legal and public advocacy
campaign that has included two public records requests, which turned into
litigation, letters calling for an investigation to three State Attorneys General
and the U.S. Attorney General, and the first lawsuit challenging the program
as unconstitutional. As NYPD Commissioner William Bratton announced the
dismantling of the unit that carried out the spying program, Muslim
Advocates will be holding him accountable to that promise by continuing its
legal and public advocacy campaign and seeking verification that the
Department discontinues its practice of monitoring law-abiding Muslims.
2. Plan popular
Julia A. Shearson (executive director of the Cleveland Chapter of the
Council on American-Islamic Relations) Tracked by Spies and Informers
March 24, 2009
http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2009/03/tracked_by_spies_and_informer
s.html
Most Americans likely want to be free of prowling informants and

provocateurs such as Monteilh. In fact, the average American, born with
liberty in his gut, has never much liked a government that snoops.
Although we want our government to investigate crime and to prevent
terrorism, we expect those investigations to stay within narrow
Constitutional limits. As Patrick Henry said, "The Constitution is not an
instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for
the people to restrain the government--lest it come to dominate our lives and
interests" and as George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is
not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful
master." It is not certain whether Washington or Henry would approve of the
FBI's renewed domestic intelligence powers, but it is certain they would

want the Congress and the new attorney general to monitor the FBI
through strict oversight.
3. Plan popular civil rights advocacy groups

Associated Press, 4-16-2014, End of NYPDs Muslim spying program
applauded by some," No Publication, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/end-ofnypds-muslim-spying-program-applauded-by-some/, Accessed: 7-1-2015,
/Bingham-MB
NEW YORK - Muslim groups and civil liberties advocates applauded the
decision by New York Police Department officials to disband a controversial
unit that tracked the daily lives of Muslims as part of efforts to detect terror
threats, but said there were concerns about whether other problematic
practices remained in place. The Demographics Unit, conceived with the help
of a CIA agent working with the NYPD, assembled databases on where
Muslims lived, shopped, worked and prayed. Plainclothes officers infiltrated
Muslim student groups, put informants in mosques, monitored sermons and
catalogued Muslims in New York who adopted new, Americanized surnames.
NYPD spokesman Stephen Davis confirmed Tuesday that detectives assigned
to the unit had been transferred to other duties within the department's
Intelligence Division. Linda Sarsour, the executive director of the Arab
American Association of New York, said she was among a group of advocates
at a private meeting last week with police at which the department's new
intelligence chief, John Miller, first indicated the unit - renamed the Zone
Assessment Unit - wasn't viable. She applauded the decision but said there's
still concern about the police use of informants to infiltrate mosques without
specific evidence of crime. "This was definitely a part of the big puzzle that
we're trying to get dismantled," Sarsour said. But, she added, "This doesn't
necessarily prove to us yet that these very problematic practices are going to
end." Another person at the meeting, Fahd Ahmed, legal and policy director
of Desis Rising Up and Moving, called the decision "a small step." He
questioned what had happened to the information gathered by the unit. "The
concern wasn't just about the fact that this data was being collected secretly
- it was about the fact that this data was being collected at all," he said. The
NYPD's decision to disband the unit was first reported in The New York Times.
An ongoing review of the division by new Police Commissioner William
Bratton found that the same information collected by the unit could be better
collected through direct contact with community groups, officials said. In a
statement, Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, called the move "a critical step
forward in easing tensions between the police and the communities they
serve, so that our cops and our citizens can help one another go after the real
bad guys." Since taking office, de Blasio has taken other steps toward
changing how the police department operates, like ending the city's appeal of
a judge's ruling ordering major reforms to the department's implementation
of a controversial street stop policy including the implementation of the firstever inspector general for the NYPD. After a series of stories by The
Associated Press detailing the extent of the NYPD's surveillance of Muslims,
two civil rights lawsuits were filed challenging the activities as
unconstitutional because they focused on people's religion, national origin
and race. Former Police Commissioner Ray Kelly had defended the
surveillance tactics, saying officers observed legal guidelines while
attempting to create an early warning system for terrorism. But in a
deposition made public in 2012, an NYPD chief testified that the unit's work
had never generated a lead or triggered a terrorism investigation in the
previous six years. In Washington, 34 members of Congress had demanded a
federal investigation into the NYPD's actions. Attorney General Eric Holder
said he was disturbed by reports about the operations, and the Department
of Justice said it was reviewing complaints received from Muslims and their
supporters. The AP's reporting also prompted an investigation by the CIA's
inspector general. That internal inquiry concluded that the CIA, which is
prohibited from domestic spying, hadn't broken any laws, but it criticized the
agency for allowing an officer assigned to the NYPD to operate without
sufficient supervision. The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York and
the California-based Muslim Advocates, which represented eight Muslims
from New Jersey in a 2012 lawsuit challenging the spying program, welcomed
the unit's dismantling but expressed concern it wouldn't stop the surveillance
in Muslim communities. "But nothing in the city's announcement definitively
suggests they will put an end to broad surveillance practices, which would
continue to be illegal regardless of which department within the NYPD might
be engaged in it," they said in a statement.
Impacts:
Extinction or climate change do NOT outweigh dehumanization.
Emily Stabile Credibility

Credibility http://www.phillipsandcohen.com/Attorneys/EmilyStabile.shtml
Emily Stabile joined Phillips & Cohen after graduating from the University of
California Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall). She was a Notes & Comments
Editor for the California Law Review and an Events Editor for the Berkeley
Journal of Gender, Law & Justice.
She has worked on qui tam cases involving healthcare fraud, government
procurement and the mortgage industry as well as whistleblower claims filed
under the IRS whistleblower program. While in law school, she worked as a
law clerk for the Human Rights Commission for San Francisco. She also
volunteered at the East Bay Community Law Center Tenants Rights
Workshop in Berkeley, California.
She is bar qualified in California
In-Round Abuse Only

1. Voting on potential abuse punishes me for something
that I might have done or something that someone
might do at some time. This forces the judge to vote
on something has did not happened in this round.
The judge only has jurisdiction over what actually
happens in the round, meaning unless abuse is
demonstrated there is no reason to vote. My
opponents arguments justify the judge voting for a
debater for arguments that would have turned my
case if they had been made.
2. This argument is infinitely regressive. There is
always the possibility for an argument to become
abusive later in the round. There is no way for the
judge to verify in the round if abuse will occur that
determination can only happen after the fact. Any
decision by the judge on what could happen would
thus, be outright intervention.
3. My opponent says that you are creating a norm if you
accept my argument but you can turn that. By voting
for this theory argument you legitimize debaters
twisting their opponents arguments in order to
construct an abuse story just so they can win on
theory. This destroys the purpose of theory to act, as
a check on abuse because its over use would render
it useless to that end. Meaning in order to ensure
that theory remains relevant we must have a check
on how far theory can go, in round abuse is that line.
4. If the ballot really influences debate practices the
judge should not vote on potential abuse. If the
punishment for actual abuse and potential abuse are
exactly the same the purpose of theory to act as a
check is destroyed. If debaters will be punished for
what they could do they have an incentive to actually
be abusive in round because it gives them the
strategic benefit that my opponent thinks is abusive
and there is no disadvantage.
5. Dont punish me for the mistakes that my opponent

makes. The fact that they cannot demonstrate actual
abuse only shows that they could not come up with
substantive answers to the position so they created
a scenario where abuse might occur. I should not be
punished for their inability to formulate responses
and for their strategic mistakes.
Inherency
1. We dont know politicians motives for proposing or not proposing a
plan if we did, we would be pretty much magical.
2. Our plan has never been presented to Congress in the form we have
given it. What we are saying with our plan popular cards is that if it
were to be presented, it would be extremely popular.
3. This debate should not be whether the plan is even popular or not,
which it is, but whether it should be passed. That is the purpose of fiat.
4. The status quo fails to solve the harms we have stated.
5. The status quo is insufficient at gleaning the best counter-terrorism
information.
6. Extend 1AC inherency cards we have them for a reason
What the FBI Does Now

The FBI goes to extremes to spy on the private lives of
innocent Muslims former informant Craig Monteilhs
story proves
Rahel Gebreye, March 2015, "Former Informant: FBI Encouraged Me To
Sleep With Muslim Women For Intel," Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/04/fbi-informant-craigmonteilh_n_680026.html
To Muslim mosque members in the Los Angeles area, Craig Monteilh was
a French Syrian looking to reconnect to his Islamic roots But behind the
devout facade
Monteilh was spying for the FBI, which instructed
him to go as far as sleeping with Muslim women to gain information.
known as
Farouk al-Aziz,
and convincing knowledge of Islam,
Monteilh joined HuffPost
Live to share his story and discuss how he went from a criminal to an FBI informant to a witness in a case against the Feds. Monteilh had his own brush with the law, having served time for using fraudulent checks.
"The FBI paid me to

infiltrate mosques in Los Angeles and Orange County in Southern California,
as a very broad surveillance operation to give them the personal information
of Muslims," he told
he even placed recording devices in the offices of imams and a local
Muslim Student Union. The FBI would then gather the data and share the intel
with the Office of Foreign Assets Control for the purpose of thwarting
potential terror attacks.
The FBI
trained me
to slowly integrate myself as
a Muslim male
The operation included even more extreme breaches of
privacy, with Monteilh going as far as dating and having sex with Muslim
women to extract intelligence.
His familiarity with criminals in Chino prison enticed the FBI to recruit him to root out organized crime and later seek out terrorists as part of Operation Flex.
host Josh Zepps on Monday. That "personal information" comprised of emails, cell phone numbers, names of known associates and where they attended
mosque. Monteilh said
Monteilh's informant role had an intense training process, during which he learned to "pretend to be Muslim." "
in the tenets of Islam, in the elementary principles of Arabic, and just to blend into the community and
," he said.
"I portrayed myself as a unmarried male, although I was married," he said. "Within the Muslim community, they would help me
to get a bride, so they would introduce me to single Muslim women. I would go out on dates and things like that. [My FBI handlers] instructed me, if I was getting good intel, to allow it to go into sexual relations."
The undercover plot eventually took an ironic turn when his extreme jihadist rhetoric alienated his targets, who reported him to the FBI. In 2007, the Islamic Center of Irvine filed a restraining order against him,
effectively blowing his cover. As Monteilh remembers, very few of his targets actually used similar jihadist rhetoric. The only time he heard extremist language was after some prodding and "inciting" on his part.
"They'd follow my lead," he said. Looking back on his undercover operation now, Monteilh said the monthly $11,200 compensation he received "clouded his judgement," making it tough for him to question the
I began to be conflicted because I

was spying on innocent people. They were not involved in criminal activity ,"
he said. "They were not espousing terrorist rhetoric, but I was still spying on
them and giving the FBI the information they wanted."
practice. Although he originally felt it was his "patriotic duty" to help the FBI operation, he had a change of heart. "
Monteilh has since spoken out against the FBI's controversial
informant program and even planned to testify in a class action suit against the FBI. The case was dismissed because it would risk exposing "state secrets."Muslims, not criminals.
1. FBI Lack of Federal Safeguards

Human Rights Commission, 2011
(Human Rights Commission, Racial and Religious Profiling, Surveillance,
& Intelligence Gathering, Community Concerns of Surveillance, Racial and
Religious Profiling of Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian
Communities and Potential Reactivation of SFPD Intelligence Gathering,
February 24, 2011)
Veena Dubal, Staff Attorney in the National Security and Civil Rights Program at Asian Law Caucus, testified at the hearing to share her
concerns about the harrowing accounts of McCarthyite tactics used by the
FBI
and JTTF against political activists and the Muslim
lack of oversight in federal government
community at large. She spoke of the

and asked for greater
transparency of local governments involvement with the federal government. This week the Inspector General, not some external
watchdog agency, our very own federal government made public a report that stated that since 9/11 the FBI has made some troubling
decisions, and in fact some of their probes have been improper, explained Ms. Dubal.9 The Inspector General's report concluded that in
some cases agents began investigations of people affiliated with activist groups for factually-weak reasons and in others it extended probes
without adequate basis and kept information on activist groups in its files. Former FBI agent, Michael German was quoted stating that,
the FBI was improperly spying on people's First Amendment protected

activity and that the FBI did not have enough internal controls to prevent
abuse. Ms. Dubal testified that the findings of this report came as no surprise to national security and human rights attorneys who had
watched as the situation worsened since December 2008 when FBI Director Mukasey introduced new guidelines which significantly
expanded the FBI's investigative techniques. These new guidelines: - allow agents to initiate assessments without a factual basis, - recruit
informants without a preliminary investigation, - profile individuals on the basis of race and religion, - conduct investigations at the request
of foreign agencieson U.S. Citizens, foreign agencies, and - data-mine personal information, all without oversight. Ms. Dubal was
especially concerned about federa
basis,
l agents ability to initiate assessments without any factual
opening the door to religious and racial profiling. She explained, *because individual agents no longer have to report opening or
there is no oversight
closing assessments to the FBI headquarters or the Department of Justice,

and there is incredible
room for abuse. San Francisco has felt the repercussions of these new guidelines. According to Dubal, the National Security and Civil Rights
Program at the Asian Law Caucus has seen dozens of clients, normal everyday Americans, who live in the Bay Area, who are regularly
visited by the FBI. She illustrated, I have clients who are small business owners, American citizens who are regularly visited by the FBI at
their place of work, in San Francisco. I have clients who are university students who are visited by FBI right outside of campus; I know an
educator who is regularly visited by FBI agents. What do all these people have in common? Nothing, except that they are all innocent
Americans who pay taxes, contribute to their community and the economy and who have immaculate criminal records, no criminal records
--- they just happen to be Muslims.
FBI Coercion and Denial of Immigration

(Human Rights Comession, Racial and Religious Profiling, Surveillance,
February 24, 2011)
Attorney and civil rights activist, Wazhma Mojaddidi, testified that her Muslim
clients face coercion and intimidation that her other clients do not. She
reported that the system had failed her clients and that their lives had been
forever affected by their very own government. Her clients were too afraid to
come forward for fear that telling their stories would make it worse for them.
In their stead, she provided their stories: [Client 1] I am a legal permanent
resident . . . I've lived in the U.S. with my wife and children for over 20 years.
My adult son had a green card application pending when I was contacted by
the FBI. . . .The agents told me if I wanted my son to get the green card then
I needed to become an informant for the FBI. I told them I would think about
it. They arranged another meeting. . . I told them at that time that I didn't
want to become an informant. They then told me that if I did not agree to
becoming an informant that they would prevent my son from receiving his
green card
. Now, years later, my son is still waiting for his green card. He should have received it; but the reason he has not received it is his case is caught up in 'security clearances.' There's
no reason why my son's case should be delayed. I believe that the FBI is punishing my son because I refused to become an informant for the FBI. [Client 2] I am a legal permanent resident and I am also Muslim.
My wife and I applied for naturalization so that we could become citizens . . five years ago. The process typically takes only six months. . . [J]ust months [after we applied], my wife and I went in for the interview;
we answered all of their questions and gave them all the documents they requested. My wife received her naturalization certificate soon after. My case was delayed. I was told it was caught up in security
clearances. I had to hire an attorney and pay thousands of dollars to file a complaint in federal court about the delay. The U.S. Citizen and Immigration Office then agreed to proceed with adjudication of my
case and called me in for another interview... two years after I'd first applied. . .While I was waiting for a decision to be made two FBI agents visited me. They told me that they could arrange for my application to
be quickly processed if I became an informant. I told them I was not interested. Soon after their visit I received notice that my application was denied because the government claimed I did not have 'good moral
character' because of a small tax error in one of my tax filings that I had already cleared with the IRS. My attorney filed another lawsuit in federal court; after I testified in a deposition about my experience with
the five year delay, the visit from the FBI agents and my impeccable moral character, the U.S. Attorney agreed to grant my naturalization and my case was dismissed in court. Ms. Mojaddidi testified that the FBI
continues to offer immigration or similar benefits to Muslims if they become FBI informants and threaten negative consequences to deny those benefits if they do not agree to become informants. The
has become a vehicle of abuse, harassment, and racial

profiling against Muslim applicants. Ms. Mojaddidi reported that a recent
requirement of good moral character for certain benefits
discussion forum of immigration attorneys across the country revealed that it

is only Muslims who are suffering from this level of scrutiny.
FBI sting operations and entrapment form a large portion

of terrorist convictions and cases, perpetuating
Islamophobia while placing unwarranted surveillance of
Muslims in a good light.
Berkowitz 14 (Bill Berkowitz, 7-29-2014, Buzzflash, Truth-Out, "Is the FBI
Creating Terrorists to Pad Counterterrorism Conviction Rates?,"
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/is-the-fbi-creating-terroriststo-pad-counterterrorism-conviction-rates/18788-is-the-fbi-creating-terroriststo-pad-counterterrorism-conviction-rates)
Let's start with a premise I think we can all agree with: There have been no 9/11-type attacks on United States soil since,
well, 9/11. Here's another statement we all probably agree with: The federal government has all sorts of arrows in its
quiver when it comes to gathering intelligence to thwart such attacks. And that is where it begins to gets dicey:
the government appears to be relying more and

more on perhaps the most twisted of those arrows; the use of informants, coerced and/or
rewarded, entrapment, and the sting. Since the September 2001 terrorist
attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the federal government has obtained more
than 500 federal counterterrorism convictions. According to a new Human
Rights Watch report (produced in association with Columbia Law School's Human Rights Institute), "nearly
50 percent of [those] ... convictions resulted from informant-based cases;
almost 30 percent of those cases were sting operations in which the
informant played an active role in the underlying plot." The report, "Illusion of
Justice: Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions," points out that, while "[m]any prosecutions have
properly targeted individuals engaged in planning or financing terror attacks... many others have targeted
individuals who do not appear to have been involved in terrorist plotting or
financing at the time the government began to investigate them. "Indeed, in
some cases the Federal Bureau of Investigation may have created terrorists
out of law-abiding individuals by conducting sting operations that facilitated
or invented the target's willingness to act." In addition, there is a good chance
that, without the government's active participation, many of those ensnared
by the government did not have the mental or intellectual capacity to plan,
finance and/or carry out a terrorist event. "Americans have been told that their government is
Unfortunately, in its counterterrorism project,
keeping them safe by preventing and prosecuting terrorism inside the US," said Andrew Prasow, Human Rights Watch's
deputy Washington director, in a statement. "But
take a closer look and you realize that many

of these people would never have committed a crime if not for law
enforcement encouraging, pressuring, and sometimes paying them to commit
terrorist acts." According to the report, entrapment, or what smells like entrapment, is
writ large over several of the cases. However, the report points out that proving entrapment is not an
easy task for defendants: "In theory, the defendants in these cases should be able to avoid criminal liability by making a
claim of 'entrapment.' However, US law requires that to prove entrapment a defendant show both that the government
This predisposition
inquiry focuses attention on the defendant's background, opinions, beliefs,
and reputation in other words, not on the crime, but on the nature of the
defendant. This character inquiry makes it exceptionally difficult for a
defendant to succeed in raising the entrapment defense, particularly in the
terrorism context, where inflammatory stereotypes and highly charged
induced him to commit the act in question and that he was not 'predisposed' to commit it.
characterizations of Islam and foreigners often prevail. Indeed, no claim of

entrapment has been successful in a US federal terrorism case to date. European
human rights lawinstructive for interpreting internationally recognized fair trial rights suggests that the current
"Illusion of Justice:
Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions" also "documented the
following patterns that raise serious human rights concerns":
"Discriminatory investigations, often targeting particularly vulnerable
individuals (including people with intellectual and mental disabilities and the
indigent), in which the government often acting through informants is actively
involved in developing the plot, persuading and sometimes pressuring the
target to participate, and providing the resources to carry it out. "Use of
overly broad material support charges, punishing behavior that did not demonstrate
formulation of the US defense of entrapment may not comport with fair trial standards."
intent to support terrorism. "Prosecutorial tactics that may violate fair trial rights, such as introducing prejudicial
evidence including evidence obtained by coercion, classified evidence that cannot be fairly contested, and
inflammatory evidence about terrorism in which defendants played no part; and limited ability to challenge surveillance
warrants due to excessive government secrecy. "Harsh
and at times abusive conditions of

confinement, which often appear excessive in relation to the security risk posed. These include:
"Prolonged solitary confinement and severe restrictions on communicating in
pretrial detention, possibly impeding defendants' ability to assist in their own
defense and contributing to their pleading guilty . "Excessive lengthening of
sentences and draconian conditions post- conviction , including prolonged solitary
confinement and severe restrictions on contact with families or others, sometimes
without explanation or recourse." Last year, I reviewed Trevor Aaronson's excellent book The Terror
Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terrorism (Ig Publishing, 2013) and wrote: " Aaronson found that
FBI informants and undercover agents were at the center of many of the
cases touted by the FBI as successes in thwarting terrorist plots. In fact, were
it not for the FBI, most of those plots would likely have fallen apart under the
weight of their own senselessness and ineptitude ." ".... After his extensive and exhausting
investigation, Aaronson found that 'the FBI has built the largest network of spies
ever to exist in the United States with ten times as many informants on the
streets today [as] ... during the infamous Cointelpro operations under FBI director J.
Edgar Hoover with the majority of these spies focused on ferreting out terrorism in Muslim communities.'" The Terror
Factory, which will be released in paperback on September 9, served as a springboard for the Human Rights Watch report,
and at least two other independent projects: Al Jazeera's July 20 documentary that "tells the story of three FBI informants
who posed as Muslims and infiltrated U.S. Muslim communities"; and HBO's recently released documentary Newburgh
Sting, "which looks at the case of the so-called Newburgh 4 and prolific FBI informant Shahed Hussain, who is the subject
of 'The Superinformant' chapter in The Terror Factory." Finally, there's a good chance we all might say "Amen" to a critical
clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law." Far too often, under the guise of combatting terrorism and preventing another 9/11, the government has
Using surveillance, coercion,

entrapment, and intimidation has not only resulted in the government
receiving less cooperation from very communities it seeks to enlist help, but
it is more likely to create terrorists where terrorists do not exist.
gone way beyond the boundaries of responsible law enforcement practices.
Sting Operations disproportionately target and do

violence upon Muslims and those marginalized by by
poverty and mental state.
Shah 14 (Naureen Shah, July 21,, 7-21-2014, "OPINION: The FBIs
counterterrorism sting operations are counterproductive," Aljazeera,
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/fbi-stingoperationscounterterrorismadeldaoud.html)
Adel Daoud is no Ferris Bueller. A Chicago suburban teen, he couldnt drive himself to the Jewel Osco grocery store
down the street without getting lost, let alone pull a Bueller and hoodwink his parents into letting him have the day off
Hes not a person with a complete

mind, his mother told me. Yet the FBI began targeting Daoud as a
terrorist mastermind shortly after his 18th birthday . At the time the
FBI began its sting operation, Daoud wasnt part of a terrorist cell,
nor was any group recruiting him. He was, though, on the Internet, looking for answers about
Islam and jihad. At home and at his local mosque, the Muslim teen was told that
jihad was nonviolent: It meant supporting your family by being a good son.
FBI undercover employees, finding Daoud online, did not affirm that
message. Instead, they worked with Daoud, ultimately driving him to
downtown Chicago to detonate a weapon of mass destruction
outside a bar. Chicagos Muslim communities were stunned by the Daouds arrest in September 2012. For
many, the first question was why. Why target as a terrorist-in-waiting a teen who was
plainly incapable of planning and conducting a terrorist attack? The second
question was one of fear: Will my child be the FBIs next target? As a report released
school. He is a D student and forgetful in the extreme.
today by Human Rights Watch and Columbia Law Schools Human Rights Institute documents, the FBIs tactics in some
terrorism sting cases are not only abusive but counterproductive. They instill fear of law enforcement instead of mutual
trust. And they potentially divert FBI resources from actual terrorism threats. Sting operations are nothing new, but the FBI
It is
deploying informants and undercover FBI agents to mosques and
community centers around the country in what sometimes appear to
be virtual fishing expeditions. In some cases, the FBI has instructed
informants to strike up conversations about jihad with anyone who
will listen. These investigations appear to pick off the lowesthanging fruit, including the mentally ill and the poor, who are
vulnerable to manipulation. In one case, the subject of The Newburgh
Sting, an HBO documentary premiering this week, an informant promised a
45-year-old African-American man $250,000 to participate in a fake attack.
After losing his job at Walmart, the man accepted the offer. For every terrorism bust the FBI claims
based on such tactics, there is a cost. Deploying informants and
conducting surveillance without reasonable suspicion has sent chills
through many American Muslim communities. Some parents with whom we spoke
feared the FBI might recruit their teenage kids to become informants on their communities. Others said they
feared that strangers in their mosques and community centers could be
undercover FBI agents or infiltrators, hunting for youth to entrap in fake
terrorist plots. This kind of fear in any context and no matter its
actual merit is a recipe for bad policing, since distrust of law
enforcement can deter citizens from reporting a crime tip or fully
cooperating in bona fide crime investigations. The government has racked up
is using significantly more aggressive tactics in American Muslim communities than it has in others.
hundreds of convictions based on terrorism stings. Multiple studies have found that nearly half of federal terrorism
convictions since the 9/11 attacks resulted from informant-based cases. Some may be lawful and justifiable, yet almost 30
In
too many cases, the government, often acting through informants, developed
the fake terrorism plot, persuaded and sometimes pressured the targeted
individuals to participate and provided the resources to carry it out. The FBIs
wisdom in pursuing these cases, rather than investigating threats and individuals who were actually operational, is
questionable at best. Similarly questionable is the governments expansive
surveillance and collection of information about all Americans, including
percent of these convictions were sting operations in which the informant played an active role in the underlying plot.
American Muslims, which we continue to learn about through revelations from National Security Agency
whistleblower Edward Snowden. Rather than helping FBI analysts connect the dots, the
flood of data is impairing the FBIs ability to properly assess and respond to
threat information it receives. While we cant expect the FBI to prevent every
terrorist attack, recent ones like the Boston Marathon bombing show the need
for a sober re-evaluation of the agencys methods. Unfortunately, the Justice
Department and the FBI appear unwilling or unable to critically evaluate their
track record. Last week Attorney General Eric Holder urged U.S. allies to
follow the FBIs lead and adopt the same counterterrorism sting tactics. Before
the U.S. exports these terrorism tactics, it should reckon with their costs.
FBI are scaring Muslims from their mosques with fear of

surveillance
Watanabe, 09( Teresa Watanabe, LA Times reporter since 1989, LA Times, 2009
Muslims say FBI surveillance has a chilling effect on their free speech and religious
practices, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/01/local/me-muslim1 )\
The Islamic Center of Irvine is a beige stucco building that blends into the rows of
office buildings surrounding it. But last week, it became the most publicized mosque
in California with disclosures that the FBI sent an informant there to spy and
collect evidence of jihadist rhetoric and other allegedly extremist acts by a
Tustin man who attended prayers there. The revelations dismayed mosque members like Omar Turbi, 50, and his 27-year-old son who shares
his name. After Friday prayer service last week, while hundreds of others scurried back to work, the pair stood with their backs to a wall and
mulled over the news. "It gives you a little bit of apprehension about who you trust," the elder Turbi said. "Makes you think twice about what
you say; what if people misunderstand you?" Turbi's fears were echoed by other Muslims throughout Southern California last week. Some say a
climate of suspicion toward them, fueled by 9/11 and underscored by the

latest disclosures of FBI surveillance, is inhibiting their freedoms of speech
and faith. According to Muslim leaders, some people are avoiding mosques, preferring to pray at home. Others are reducing donations
to avoid attracting government attention or paying in cash to avoid leaving records. And some mosques have asked speakers to refrain from
political messages in their sermons, such as criticism of U.S. foreign policy, said Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on
American-Islamic Relations in Anaheim. "Some average Muslims interested only in praying are avoiding mosques for fear of somehow being
"Everybody is afraid, and it is leading to an

infringement of the free practice of our religion."
monitored or profiled," Ayloush said.
The latest anxiety wave was triggered by an FBI agent's testimony last week that an informant was sent into several Orange County mosques
and helped collect evidence against Ahmadullah Sais Niazi. The Afghanistan-born Niazi, 34, is scheduled for arraignment this month on
A man claiming to be that

informant, Irvine resident Craig Monteilh, said last week in interviews and court
documents that he served the FBI as a paid informant from July 2006 to October
2007 and used concealed audio and video equipment to record thousands of
hours of conversations with Muslims in homes, restaurants and mosques in Irvine, Tustin, Mission Viejo and
charges of perjury, naturalization fraud and other acts related to lying about ties to Al Qaeda.
elsewhere. But Ayloush and other Muslim leaders said that FBI scrutiny of the Muslim community -- and efforts to recruit informants -- began
years ago. The FBI declined to comment. Both Ayloush and Shakeel Syed of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, an umbrella
organization of 68 area mosques, said
numerous Muslims have reported to them attempts by
the FBI to recruit them as informers. In virtually all cases, they said, the
Muslims in question had immigration and other legal problems or were
applying for green cards. "We will make your problems vanish if you
cooperate," Syed said the FBI told Muslims. Suspecting widespread surveillance of
their community, several American Muslim organizations and their leaders filed a
Freedom of Information Act request, followed in 2007 by a lawsuit against
the federal government, demanding the release of all information collected
on them. Muslims have also complained of FBI interrogations about their charitable
contributions, asking why were they donating and who was receiving their money. At
one Los Angeles-area mosque, nearly every donor was quizzed by the FBI,
and the mosque subsequently experienced a steep decline in donations, Ayloush said. Leaders at other mosques also say their contributions
are down, although most attribute much of the decline to the recession. The Islamic Center of Corona Norco, for instance, has experienced a
decline in donations of 30% to 50% in the last three to four years, which board
member Rafe Husain attributed both to the economy and what he called a climate of fear. "People feel tense and
uncomfortable," Husain said. "I've talked to some people who try to avoid mosque activity." Since 9/11, federal authorities have also shut
down at least six of the Muslim community's major charitable
organizations, accusing them of involvement in terrorist financing. The actions
have impeded Muslims from fulfilling the duties of their faith, Syed said, because charitable giving is not a voluntary act in Islam but a religious
obligation. The latest tensions have further frayed relations between the FBI and Muslims. Since 9/11, the two sides had worked to develop a
FBI unilaterally broke off

ties with the American-Islamic council a few weeks ago, issuing a cryptic statement that the
partnership, forming a Multi-Cultural Advisory Committee to meet monthly. But the
agency would limit contact until "certain issues" were addressed by CAIR's national headquarters in Washington.
FBI Restrictions (Or lack of them)

FBI Lack of Federal Safeguards
February 24, 2011)
Veena Dubal, Staff Attorney in the National Security and Civil Rights Program
at Asian Law Caucus, testified at the hearing to share her concerns about the
harrowing accounts of McCarthyite tactics used by the FBI and JTTF against
political activists and the Muslim community at large. She spoke of the lack
of oversight in federal government and asked for greater transparency of local governments
involvement with the federal government. This week the Inspector General, not some external
watchdog agency, our very own federal government made public a report that stated that since 9/11 the
FBI has made some troubling decisions, and in fact some of their probes have been improper,
explained Ms. Dubal.9 The Inspector General's report concluded that in some cases agents began
investigations of people affiliated with activist groups for factually-weak reasons and in others it
extended probes without adequate basis and kept information on activist groups in its files. Former FBI
agent, Michael German was quoted stating that, the
FBI was improperly spying on

people's First Amendment protected activity and that the FBI did not have
enough internal controls to prevent abuse . Ms. Dubal testified that the findings of this
report came as no surprise to national security and human rights attorneys who had watched as the
situation worsened since December 2008 when FBI Director Mukasey introduced new guidelines which
significantly expanded the FBI's investigative techniques. These new guidelines: - allow agents to initiate
assessments without a factual basis, - recruit informants without a preliminary investigation, - profile
individuals on the basis of race and religion, - conduct investigations at the request of foreign agencies
on U.S. Citizens, foreign agencies, and - data-mine personal information, all without oversight. Ms.
Dubal was especially concerned about federal agents
ability to initiate assessments
without any factual basis, opening the door to religious and racial profiling. She explained,
*because individual agents no longer have to report opening or closing assessments to the FBI
headquarters or the Department of Justice, there is no oversight and there is incredible room for
abuse. San Francisco has felt the repercussions of these new guidelines. According to Dubal, the
National Security and Civil Rights Program at the Asian Law Caucus has seen dozens of clients, normal
everyday Americans, who live in the Bay Area, who are regularly visited by the FBI. She illustrated, I
have clients who are small business owners, American citizens who are regularly visited by the FBI at
their place of work, in San Francisco. I have clients who are university students who are visited by FBI
right outside of campus; I know an educator who is regularly visited by FBI agents. What do all these
people have in common? Nothing, except that they are all innocent Americans who pay taxes, contribute
to their community and the economy and who have immaculate criminal records, no criminal records --they just happen to be Muslims.
FBI Has barely any restraints on how it acquires and uses

informants
Stabile 2014

Available at:
Cromitie demonstrates that the FBI lacks substantial restraints on how it

recruits and uses informants. Currently, there are four restrictions on how the
FBI recruits informants: (1) internal FBI limitations, (2) constitutional limitations, (3)
the entrapment defense and the outrageous government conduct doctrine, and (4)
enforcement of nondeportation agreements in plea bargains. Because these
limitations have neither curtailed the FBIs mismanagement of informants
nor ensured a high degree of accuracy in information obtained, these
restrictions have failed to protect both the public from terrorism and
informants from abuse
First Restriction: Attorney General Guidelines

Stabile 2014
Available at:
The Attorney Generals Guidelines on FBI Confidential Human Sources (Guidelines),

issued in 2006 by the Department of Justice, are agency guidelines, not regulations,
and as such have no binding legal effect. Much of the problem of FBI informant misuse
stems from this fact. The Guidelines outline the rules the FBI should follow in undercover investigations
involving informants, which include documenting new informants and recording agreements made. The
Guidelines are also subject to review and modification by the Attorney General in accordance with federal
laws, and are afforded great deference by the courts. The major problems with the Guidelines, however,
lack consequences, are not subject to judicial review, and are not
followed by agents. While the Guidelines may have internal consequences for FBI agents who
are that they
violate them, they have no meaningful effect beyond internal regulation and cannot be enforced by the
public via judicial review. Judicial review for violations only occurs when criminal prosecutions reveal the
FBIs activities in the investigation. However, the informants in these cases typically remain confidential,
and any inquiry into their actions does not extend beyond the handling agents conduct and the
recruitment methods used Evidence shows that in many cases, FBI agents fail to follow the Guidelines
when recruiting and handling informants. A 2005 study conducted by the Department of Justice Office of
the Inspector General found that the FBI did not provide enough support to agents to properly follow the
pre-2006 Attorney General Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants. In fact ,
noncompliance with the guidelines was a problem in 87 percent of the

cases the Inspector General reviewed. In particular, agents failed to properly review
the suitability of potential informants, properly document informants illegal
activities, and notify informants of their limitations. Given the high levels of
noncompliance and agents nearly unlimited discretion in extending immigration
rewards, agent abuse is likely also high. Immigration rewards appear only once in
the Guidelines, yet this single reference exemplifies the impunity with which law enforcement procures
informants. The Guidelines state that [n]o promises or commitments can be made, except by the United
States Department of Homeland Security, regarding the alien status of any person or the right of any
person to enter or remain in the United States. The Guidelines also note that informants should receive
this information if and when they have any issues regarding immigration status. While acknowledging
that FBI agents may only offer immigration benefits to informants pursuant to DHSs agreement, the
Guidelines do not answer the questions raised by this arrangement. Unlike monetary rewards, for which
the Guidelines establish a number of rules regarding proper payment procedures and conditions, it is not
clear under what circumstances immigration rewards must be documented and whether they are subject
to conditions similar to those of monetary rewards. Their brief appearance in the Guidelines shows the
FBIs recognition of immigration benefits as a method to elicit informant cooperation, but details on their
use are nonexistent. This absence of information indicates that agents may possess vast discretion when
using immigration rewards to recruit informants. It also indicates that executing these rewards is ultimately
in the hands of DHS.
Second restriction: Constitutional Limitations

Stabile 2014
Available at:
In theory, both the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment restrict the FBIs use of informants in terrorism investigations .
However, neither Amendment has actually limited the Agencys recruitment
tactics when dealing with subjects facing immigration-related pressures to

serve as informants. The Fourth Amendments prohibition against unreasonable
searches and seizures does not offer any substantive restrictions on the
FBIs use of informants in terrorist investigations. In criminal
investigations where the Fourth Amendment does apply, it places few restrictions on
the use of information gathered by informants. To obtain a warrant based on
intelligence gathered by an informant, the information must be reliable in
establishing the requisite probable cause. In matters of national security however,
the search standard is less stringent than the probable cause standard used in
criminal investigations. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has never held
that the Fourth Amendment applies to national security investigations . In
particular, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) shields federal
agents from standard criminal warrant requirements when carrying out

electronic surveillance and searches. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a
secret court created by FISA to issue warrants in national security investigations,
only requires probable cause that the target of the electronic surveillance is a
foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Hence, because agents do not
have to produce evidence of criminal activity before initiating

electronic or physical surveillance, they are able to use informants more
freely. Under FISA, the Attorney General can also authorize surveillance for up
to a year without court order. Furthermore, in 1982, President Reagans
Executive Order No. 12,333 identified the FBI as the primary gatherer of domestic
intelligence and held that the Attorney General holds the power to carry out
warrantless searches and surveil agents of foreign powers. Executive Order No.
12,333 essentially paved the way for the FBIs use of informants to conduct
domestic surveillance of foreign agents, including members of foreign

terrorist organizations, without adhering to the restrictions inherent in the use
of informants in domestic criminal investigations. In domestic criminal
investigations, agents are required by law to corroborate informants intelligence and
credibility before a warrant is issued. However, under Executive Order No. 12,333,
this corroboration is not required in terrorism investigations . For informants facing
deportation and immense pressure to cooperate, these lax warrant requirements
remove an important check on the validity of their intelligence. The requirements
also give the FBI more opportunities to abuse its power. Although no
court has explicitly found Executive Order No. 12,333 constitutional, no court
has found it unconstitutional and thus it remains good law . Indeed, the
Northern District of Illinois found that FBI reliance on the Order in conducting physical
searches for foreign intelligence gathering was reasonable. The Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment has provided a way to avoid deportation to some
informants facing deportation under the state-created danger doctrine. The doctrine
allows for recovery and injunctive relief for civil rights violations . It holds that
the government has a constitutional duty to protect a person against injuries
inflicted by a third-party when it affirmatively places the person in a position of
danger the person would not otherwise have faced. To establish a successful claim
under this doctrine, a valid relationship must have existed between the plaintiff and
state; the state must have created the opportunity that ultimately harmed the
plaintiff; the state must have acted in willful disregard for the plaintiffs safety; and
the harm must have been foreseeable. Notably, given its nearly exclusive use in
domestic criminal cases, the state-created danger doctrine has limited use
for immigrant informants. The First and Third Circuits have declined to apply the
danger doctrine in deportation cases because it intrudes on Congresss plenary
power over immigration. The Fifth and Ninth Circuits, however, have left the doctrine
open for potential use by immigrant informants. Nevertheless, even if the danger
doctrine was applied in immigration cases, many of the terrorism informants in
the United States lack ties to actual terrorist groups in or outside of the United
States and thus are not subject to threat of retaliation from actual terrorist groups if
deported. Hence, the state-created danger doctrine may not help many
terrorism informants avoid deportation. Additionally, the state-created danger
theory only protects informants after recruitment , and provides no benefits to
informants when negotiating the terms of their agreement with the FBI . While
the knowledge that informants can later enforce their agreements may encourage
more careful engagement with potential informants, ultimately bolstering informants
ability to vindicate their agreements with the government, the danger theory
creates no incentive for the FBI to only recruit informants with established
ties to terrorist organizations. In fact, because the danger doctrine is likely only
useful when informants have preexisting ties to terrorist organizations, the doctrine
may steer the FBI away from recruiting those with established ties
because doing so would provide these informants with a way to

enforce their agreements. Nevertheless, until courts actually extend the
danger doctrine to deportation cases, the protective value of this theory is
unknown.
Third Restriction: Entrapment Defense

Stabile 2014
Available at:
The entrapment defense and the claim of outrageous government conduct are also
possible sources of restriction on the FBIs use of informants. These protect
defendants who claim to lack the necessary predisposition for criminal

activity but whom the government induced to commit criminal acts . The test
for entrapment used by most jurisdictions including the federal courts places the
burden on defendants to show lack of predisposition to commit the alleged crimes.
The entrapment defense succeeds when the criminal design originates with the
officials of the Government, and they implant in the mind of an innocent
person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission in
order that they may prosecute. The mere provision of materials and opportunities by
the government for the commission of a crime is not sufficient unless the
governments action actually implants the criminal design in the mind of the
defendant. In contrast, outrageous government conduct claims focus on
government action. In United States v. Russell, the Supreme Court acknowledged that
we may some day be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law
enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely
bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction. Unlike
entrapment, outrageous government conduct is not an affirmative defense. Rather, it
seeks dismissal based on government violation of due process. To prevail, an
individual must show that the governments conduct offended fundamental fairness
and shocked the universal sense of justice. A court has never found outrageous
government conduct where defendants were predisposed to commit crimes by the
acts of an informant. The use of the entrapment or outrageous government
conduct defense may raise questions about the behavior of the informant and the
government agents instructions to the informant. While the entrapment defense
may allow a defendant to escape criminal liability, an examination of

government relations with informants may call for public and political
limitations on the FBIs dealings with informants.203 Usually, because law
enforcement values the secrecy of its dealings with informants, evidence about
informant recruitment and handling only surfaces after egregious
cases involving informants acting as agent provocateurs. For example,
in Cromitie, the defendant argued that the government entrapped and subjected him
to outrageous conduct.205 Although neither claim ultimately prevailed, Cromitie
exposes how far the government may go to set up an individual for a crime, including
offering a car and a quarter million dollars to participate in terrorist acts. Cases like
Cromitie do little to restrict the FBIs dealings with informants . If courts were
more receptive to claims of entrapment and outrageous government conduct, law
enforcement agencies would be threatened by the risk of exposure, which in turn
might encourage them to curtail their aggressive tactics. Nevertheless, most
terrorism investigations and cases involving terrorist defendants

never go to trial, making Cromitie an unusual case. In terrorism cases,
defendants must overcome an unusually heavy burden because irrespective of the
governments conduct or the defendants vulnerability, committing or assisting in the
commission of terrorist acts is always considered evidence of a predisposition to
terrorism. Cromitie demonstrates that even though courts acknowledge the
governments outrageous conduct, courts may nevertheless find that a defendants
agreement to participate in terrorist acts demonstrates the necessary predisposition.
The fact that the FBI suffered no repercussions for aggressively

recruiting Cromitie shows that entrapment and outrageous
government conduct claims effectively do not restrain the FBIs use
of aggressive terrorism informant recruitment tactics.
Fourth Restriction: Non-deportation agreements in Plea

Bargaining
Stabile 2014
Available at:
Nondeportation agreements have also failed to effectively restrain the FBIs

use of informants via immigration law. In the United States, most criminal cases are
resolved by plea bargains. Before the 1970s, plea bargaining was conducted in relative secrecy and deals
between the parties were not recorded. In the 1970s, the Supreme Court held that if prosecutors reneged
on plea bargains, petitioners were entitled to specific performance, resentencing, or withdrawal of the
guilty plea. Traditionally, courts have treated nondeportation agreements and plea bargains as contracts.
Thus, when the prosecution does not follow through with the promised benefits of a plea agreement,
defendants may enforce the agreement as though it were a contract. Further, nondeportation agreements
are similar to plea bargains in that the defendant agrees with the government to some detriment in
exchange for a benefit. Due to these similarities, until the 1990s the Eighth and Ninth Circuits routinely
enforced plea bargains when informants were promised immigration benefits in exchange for information.
In addition to the standard contract elements of offer, acceptance, and consideration, two additional
elements must have been present in the agreement in order to establish an enforceable claim against the
government. First, the government agent must have had actual authority to ensure government
performance. Second, agency principles must have been present in the agreement. Agency is present
when one person, namely the agent, consensually acts on behalf of anotherthe principal. Hence, an
agreement entered into by the prosecutor, as the agent, creates a contract between the principal (the
immigration official) and the third party (the informant). Nevertheless, in 1996 the Department of
immigration officials could not

be held responsible for prosecution-made plea agreements in criminal
Justice issued regulation 28 C.F.R. 0.197 which stated that
proceedings or investigations that involved immigration laws. Further, in order for agreements to count
under 28C.F.R.0.197, there must be written authorization from DHS. Cases that have addressed 28
C.F.R. 0.197 since its enactment have affirmed it. For instance, in Bao Tai Nian v. Holder, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed petitioners deportation and held that a letter from an Assistant United States Attorney
presumably promising nondeportation had no bearing on the case because according to existing
regulation, absent written authorization from the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), the INS shall not be bound by cooperation agreements that government agencies may
reach with alien witnesses. Similarly, in Frimpong v. Holder, petitioner alleged that a federal prosecutor
had promised him relief from deportation in exchange for information against petitioners coconspirators.
There, the court dismissed his argument because there was no evidence of written authorization from DHS
FBI offer
of nondeportation as an incentive does not bind the FBI to
performance. Considering the Guidelines, various constitutional limits, the
for the agreement, as required by the regulation. Effectively, unless authorized by DHS, an
entrapment defense, and the near complete unenforceability of nondeportation

agreements, the FBI has great discretion and little potential liability when
recruiting informants. Very little prevents the FBI from pursuing aggressive
recruiting tactics like probing an individuals background for immigration violations
and using these as ways to elicit cooperation. Once the informant cooperates, almost
nothing prevents the FBI from disregarding the promise of immigration benefits.
Today, nothing adequately restrains the FBIs recruitment practices,

leaving informants particularly vulnerable to coercion and thus more
likely to provide faulty information.
Entrapment
Entrapment and Preemptive Prosecution
(Human Rights Comession, Racial and Religious Profiling, Surveillance,
February 24, 2011)
Stephen Downs, attorney and one the founders of Project SALAM, a group
formed to document and protest against the entrapment and preemptive
prosecution of Muslims urged the Commission to listen carefully to the
stories and statement of members of the Muslim community and to ask how
such intolerant, hostile, and illegal acts by our own government can occur in
America when the rule of law is supposed to protect everyone equally. He
also urged the Commission to ask Congress to implement the
recommendations of the Inspector General and appoint a special prosecutor
to review all of the terrorism cases to determine the prosecution is valid and
fair. - Preemption Doctrine Mr. Downs testified that the US government
prosecutes innocent people to prevent them from possibly supporting crime
in the future. He explained that this approach to law enforcement was
adopted by the FBI and the Justice Department after 9/11 as the new
paradigm of law enforcement that would focus on preventing terrorism
rather than merely punishing it. Project SALAM grew out of the 2006
prosecution of an Imam in Albany, New York, Yassin Aref, on terrorism-related
charges. Mr. Downs was a member of the defense team and recalled that,
The evidence at the trial indicated that Mr. Aref was a peaceful man who
never said anything to show he was aware of a terrorist plot or wanted to be
part of it. He was essentially framed in a sting operation by the government
for a crime he had not committed and was convicted by a jury and sentenced
to 15 years. Mr. Downs testified that the prosecution held a press
conference on March 8, 2008 to try to convince the media, which had been
critical of the lack of evidence in the Aref case, that the government had a
basis to proceed against Mr. Aref. When a reporter asked if the government
believed Mr. Aref was actually a terrorist, the prosecutor made this response:
Did he actually himself engage in terrorist acts? Well we didnt have the
evidence of that, but he had the ideology... Our investigation was concerned
with what he was going to do here and in order to preempt anything else we
decided to take the steps that we did. Mr. Downs testified that this startling
statement confirmed what they had come to belief, that *by profiling Muslim
ideology, the U.S. government targets Muslims who might be security risks
to be prosecuted for faked or contrived crimes in order to preempt them from
possibly supporting criminal activity in the future. Project SALAM was formed
to document this abuse of law, and on the Project SALAM web site we have
compiled a database of hundreds of such preemptive prosecution cases.
Problems In the SQ
Mistrust of Law Enforcement in Status Quo
February 24, 2011)
Supervisor David Chiu spoke to the importance of law enforcement and
community cooperation. In San Francisco we pride ourselves on our
diversity, on the amazing international community that we are and we also
pride ourselves on doing everything we can to foster cooperation between
our diverse communities and law enforcement. I can tell you as a former
criminal prosecutor that without that level of cooperation, that level of trust,
everything falls apart. But unfortunately, we also know that surveillance only
serves to continue to drive wedges when cooperation is what is needed
most. Shakeel Syed expressed the following concern regarding Joint
Terrorist Task Forces. The mandates of local and federal law enforcement
organizations are different and hence call for different approaches. For
example, traditional local enforcement attempts to foster an environment of
community involvement, like neighborhood watch. Such an approach
engenders a common goal to keep communities safe. The FBI's traditional
goal is to conduct covert surveillance which is dramatically different from
engendering trust among the community and working with the community as
partners. The federal and local partnership in the context of counterterrorism [turns] the community from partners into suspects; treating
Muslims as inherent suspects by advocating for policies and programs such
as mapping, is exactly the opposite; it undermines and impedes the safety of
all citizens.
Racial Profiling and the lack of Policies against it

ACLU, 14 (United States Compliance with the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, American Civil Liberties
Union, 11-29 August 2014,
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2014.07.09_cerd_shadow_report_final.pdf )
Racial profiling in law enforcement is a persistent problem in the United

States. Although top U.S. officials have condemned racial profiling, noting that it can leave a
lasting scar on communities and individuals and is bad policing, federal policy
fails to protect against it.
the U.S. Department of Justice
has failed to issue a revisio
1 In particular, despite repeated calls by civil society,
n to its 2003 Guidance on the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement.2 Although the U.S. government states that the purpose of the
Guidance is to ban racial profiling, the current Guidance has the perverse effect of tacitly authorizing the profiling of almost every minority community in the United States. The Guidance exempts from its ban on
racial profiling practices that are related to protecting the integrity of the Nations borders and investigating or preventing threats to national security or other catastrophic events (including the performance of
duties related to air transportation security). Furthermore, the Guidance does not ban profiling based on religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. A stronger, fundamentally revised Guidance is necessary
because racial and ethnic profiling persists at the federal, state, and local levels, as the ACLU has described in previous reports to the Committee.3 Examples of profiling include: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Local FBI offices have collected demographic data to map where

people with particular racial or ethnic makeup live, basing this data
collection on crude stereotypes about the types of crimes different racial
and ethnic groups
(FBI) racial mapping:
supposedly commit. This profiling is largely possible due to an exemption in the Guidance for investigating or preventing threats to national security.
Mistrust in Muslim Communities has not been adequately

addressed
ICAAD, 14 (The International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination (ICAAD) was founded for the purpose of combating
structural discrimination globally and promoting human rights norms consistent with public international law. ICAAD works to strengthen legal
systems by bridging gaps in the implementation of laws and policies. ICAAD has worked with government agencies, including the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ), to help identify how minority communities are adversely impacted by the systemic flaws in documenting and
preventing hate crimes in the United States. ICAAD works to target and remedy these systemic failings, which contribute to high rates of
bias-motivated violence and murder because government resources are not being allocated to train, monitor, and prevent biasmotivated
crimes against particularly vulnerable communities., Perpetuating Discrimination: How the U.S. Governments Compliance with the
Underreporting of Hate Crimes Leads to a Failure to Protect Minority Groups and Effectively Combat Hate Crimes, 11-29 August 2014,
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/USA/INT_CERD_NGO_USA_17772_E.pdf )
These factors and others contribute to an astounding 65% of hate crimes cases being unreported. The
government plays an important role in ameliorating the conditions that contribute to underreporting,
including managing the level of trust between law enforcement and communities. This concern was partly
addressed in the proposed End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA), which previously failed to pass Congress and
was reintroduced in May of 2013. This has forestalled progress towards bridging the trust gap because
communities are still being disproportionately surveilled (Muslims and Arabs), stop and frisked (Latinos
and Blacks), and profiled at airports by being secondarily searched 100% of the time (Sikhs).27 When twothirds of hate crimes go unreported, it is not merely a statistical aberration, it is a structural failure that
the government has a responsibility to address.
Islamophobia Examples
Most Islamophobic time since 9/11
BIT, 15 (( Bridge Team Initiative- Based in Georgetown Universitys Prince
Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, The Bridge
Initiative is a multi-year research project that connects the academic study of
Islamophobia with the public square, December 21, 2015,
Islamophobia in 2015: The Good, the Bad, and the Hopeful,
http://bridge.georgetown.edu/author/admin/ )
Looking back at the last twelve months, it can initially appear that Islamophobia was pretty bad in 2015. And indeed it was. Attacks against
Muslims in the United States and their institutions have occurred in rapid succession. Meanwhile, leading politicians and the voting public have
expressed increasingly anti-Muslim views. Even though FBI hate crime statistics for this year wont be released for some time, the current
2015 could be Americas most

Islamophobic year since 9/11. Despite the bleak picture, 2015 also witnessed some positive shifts in the way
climate of hostility towards Muslims in the United States indicates that
the media and the public dealt with and responded to Islamophobia. As prejudice towards and discrimination against Muslims intensified and
gained more media attention, many journalists, activists, and ordinary Americans felt compelled to do something about it. Watch
In the wake of the attacks across

Paris and in San Bernardino, the country witnessed a surge of mosque
vandalisms, physical attacks against those perceived to be Muslim, and death
threats against entire Muslim communities. Desecrated Qurans and pig heads were left outside some
Islamophobia in 2015: The Year in Review What Went Wrong This Year
mosques, while others were targeted with bullets and fire-bombs. A Muslim cab driver was shot, as was a store clerk who now remains in
critical condition. A Muslim teenager died after falling off a roof in Seattle, an incident many in his community fear was a hate crime. Some
women who wear headscarves reconsidered their hijab after numerous women reported verbal and violent harassment. But incidents like
Muslims were targeted

and in several cases, murdered throughout 2015. The shooting of
three Muslim students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina is the most prominent
example. According to data collected by the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR), Islamophobic incidents at mosques jumped in 2015.
As of December 17, there were 71 incidents across the country, including
vandalism, threats, harassment, and biased zoning proceedings for
communities seeking to build mosques. This number is the highest CAIR
has recorded since it started counting in 2009, and is three times higher than the total number of mosque incidents last year.
these didnt only occur after high-profile attacks like those in Paris and San Bernardino.
All of this occurred against the backdrop of national conversations that asked, How Islamic is ISIS? and within the context of broader public
debates over the Syrian refugee crisis and national security. On the Internet and networks like Fox News, dubious polls claiming to report high
levels of ISIS support among Muslims spread like wildfire. Long before Donald Trump cited one of these polls in calling for a temporary ban on
Muslim immigration to the US, he and other presidential candidates made troubling statements about Islam and its followers, and attended
events held by some of the countrys most active anti-Muslim groups. Polling data from 2015 revealed that Americans had complicated views
about Islam and Muslims. While 51 percent said they viewed Muslims living in the United States the same as any other community, 56
percent also thought the values of Islam are at odds with American values and way of life. Many survey results showed a stark division
Republicans expressing concern about Muslims more frequently

than Democrats. A majority of GOP voters, for instance, expressed approval
for the Islamophobic positions and policies put forward by candidates Donald
Trump and his rival Ben Carson, who said in September that a Muslim should
not be president. Two-thirds of likely Republican voters agreed with
Trumps proposed ban on Muslims. Both Carson and Trump saw
significant increases in support in primary states following their respective
comments. Then there were the armed demonstrations outside mosques
across the country, and business owners that declared their stores
Muslim-free zones. These populist movements mirrored the activities of similar groups in Canada, Australia, and
across party lines, with
Europe. When organizing his mosque protests in the U.S., militiaman Jon Ritzheimer claimed he had contacts in these places, where groups
like PEGIDA and Reclaim Australia have orchestrated large demonstrations.
Hate crimes against Muslim Increase

LICHTBLAU, 15 (DECEMBER 17, 2015, ERIC LICHTBLAU, Crimes Against
Muslim Americans and Mosques Rise Sharply, New York Times,
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/us/politics/crimes-against-muslimamericans-and-mosques-rise-sharply.html?
em_pos=large&emc=edit_nn_20151218&nl=morningbriefing&nlid=73146567&_r=1&referer=)
WASHINGTON Hate crimes against Muslim Americans and mosques across
the United States have tripled in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris and
San Bernardino, Calif., with dozens occurring within just a month, according
to new data. The spike includes assaults on hijab-wearing students; arsons
and vandalism at mosques; and shootings and death threats at Islamicowned businesses, an analysis by a California State University research group
has found. President Obama and civil rights leaders have warned about
anecdotal evidence of a recent Muslim backlash, particularly in California. But
the analysis is the first to document the rise, amid a crescendo of anti-Islamic
statements from politicians. The terrorist attacks, coupled with the ubiquity
of these anti-Muslim stereotypes seeping into the mainstream, have
emboldened people to act upon this fear and anger, said Brian Levin, a
criminologist at California State University, San Bernardino. Interactive
Feature | 'Do You Know Me? Do You Know My Heart?' New York City Muslims
respond to Donald Trumps call to bar followers of Islam from entering the
United States. Mr. Levin runs a hate-crimes research group at the university,
the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, which produced the analysis
and provided the results to The New York Times. In recent years, there has
been an average of 12.6 suspected hate crimes against Muslims in the United
States a month, based on F.B.I. data analyzed by the research group. But the
rate of attacks has tripled since the attacks in Paris on Nov. 13 by Islamic
State operatives, with 38 attacks regarded as anti-Islamic in nature,
according to the analysis, which was based on reports from the news media
and civil rights groups. Eighteen of the episodes have come since the
shooting in San Bernardino on Dec. 2 by a Muslim couple who were
supporters of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, which left 14
people dead. The frequency of the recent attacks has not reached the levels
seen in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
when there were hundreds of attacks on Muslims, and some Sikhs mistaken
for Muslims, but Mr. Levin said they were similar types of hate-crime attacks.
Im saddened by this but not surprised, he said. Whenever we see
intergroup conflicts making headlines, we often see a spike in hate crime
accompanying it. A week after the Paris attacks, a sixth-grade girl in the
Bronx was reportedly attacked by three boys who tried to take off the hijab
she was wearing, punched her and called her ISIS. Days later, a college
student in a parking lot in San Diego reported a similar assault, with her
attacker yelling anti-Muslim slurs. In Pittsburgh, a passenger in a cab shot the
driver, who was Muslim, in the back after the passenger angrily asked him
about ISIS and mocked the Prophet Muhammad, the authorities said. And in
Anaheim, Calif., a bullet-riddled copy of the Quran was left outside an Islamic
clothing store. The most recent episode cataloged by the San Bernardino
research group came Tuesday, when a man reportedly pulled a knife on a
Muslim woman at a carwash and threatened her. He was arrested, as the
attackers have been in a number of other cases, but many of the episodes
remain under investigation by federal and local authorities. We are always
monitoring that kind of situation, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch told
reporters last month. We are always on the lookout for backlash against any
individuals for any reason real or perceived. Ibrahim Hooper, a
spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the tripling of
hate crimes identified by the San Bernardino researchers corroborated
anecdotal evidence his group had collected. Were seeing so many of these
things happening that its unbelievable, he said in an interview. Its off the
chart, and I dont think weve seen the end of it. Follow the New York
Timess politics and Washington coverage on Facebook and Twitter, and sign
up for the First Draft politics newsletter. RELATED COVERAGE Obama
Counters Anti-Muslim Talk by Welcoming New Citizens DEC 15, 2015 Muslim
Parents on How They Talk to Their Children About Hatred and Extremism DEC
15, 2015 Video: Obama Delivers Speech on Terrorism DEC 6, 2015 Obama
Calls for End to Bigotry, in Implicit Rebuke of Donald Trump DEC 9, 2015
Obama Says of Terrorist Threat: We Will Overcome It DEC 6, 2015 Video:
Trump Reaffirms Urge to Halt Muslims DEC 7, 201
Islamophobia is the genocide of People who look like

Muslims Specific examples prove
Hussain 12 , Murtaza Hussain is a Toronto-based writer and analyst focused on issues related to
Middle Eastern politics., 12-31-2012, "Anti-Muslim violence spiralling out of control in America," No
Publication, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/20121230135815198642.html
On the evening of December 27, an Indian immigrant to America named

Sunando Sen was pushed by a stranger onto the subway tracks in New
York City and struck and killed by an oncoming train . Sen had called New York
home for years, and after years of hard work and struggle had recently managed to achieve his lifelong
goal of opening a small business of his own, a copy shop in Upper Manhattan. His roommate, MD Khan
expressed shock at the death of his friend, a soft spoken man who liked to stay up late watching comedy
shows and listening to music: "He was so nice, gentle and quiet It's broken my heart." The following
day, the NYPD announced the arrest of Erika Menendez, a 31-year-old woman who had been spotted on
security footage fleeing the scene after Sen had been pushed. Upon being detained and taken to a 112th
Menendez confessed to Sen's murder and

revealed as her motivation a desire to commit violence against
Muslims. As she told detectives: "I pushed a Muslim off the train tracks
because I hate Hindus and Muslims Ever since 2001 when they put
down the Twin Towers, I've been beating them up." Sunando Sen was
not a Muslim, but as a brown-skinned foreigner living in the United
States, he was targeted and killed in an act of hate which is the byproduct of an ongoing campaign of bigotry and demonisation against
Muslims living in America. Muslim-Americans, as well as Hindus,
Precinct police station for questioning,
Sikhs and others who purportedly "look Muslim" have been

humiliated, assaulted and in many cases murdered by individuals often
galvanised to violence by politicians and media figures who have enthusiastically engaged in public
hatemongering against the Muslim community in the country. Anti-Muslim violence increases The 9/11
attacks precipitated a surge in hate crimes, but even as the events themselves recede further into history,
the level of hatred and violence

directed at Muslim communities is paradoxically increasing.
Within the
past month, in New York alone, police have suspected racial hatred as being the motive behind several
crimes. This includes a string of murders specifically targeting Middle Eastern storekeepers in Brooklyn,
a 78-year old Iranian immigrant named Rahmatollah

Vahidipour, was shot to death while closing his boutique and whose
lifeless body was then dragged to a backroom and covered over with
merchandise from his store. Within the same week as Vahidipour's murder another
Muslim man was viciously beaten by two men who preceded their
attack by asking him whether he was "a Hindu or a Muslim", while
another man was stabbed several times outside of a mosque in a
random attack by an assailant who screamed "I'm going to kill you
Muslim", while repeatedly plunging a knife into his victims' body. Far
the last of whom,
from being aberrations, these incidents are in line with national statistics which show
anti-Muslim
violence in America nearing record highs,
a trend which comes in tandem with highly public

campaigns against mosque construction as well as fear-mongering by politicians and media figures
regarding alleged plots by Muslim-Americans to override the constitution and impose Islamic law on the
country. The US election cycle also saw Muslims used as convenient targets for politicians seeking office,
House of Representatives Republican Joe Walsh

who told a cheering crowd at a campaign rally that "Muslims are here trying to kill
Americans everyday", before making a baseless and highly incendiary claim that
radical Islam had "infiltrated" the Chicago suburbs and that Muslims there were
planning an attack that would "make 9/11 look like child's play" . While working the crowd
with one example being incumbent Illinois
into hysterics was a convenient campaign strategy for Walsh, just days later the Muslim community
A man opened fire on an Illinois

mosque while it was packed with hundreds of congregants for
Ramadan. The next day, another mosque was hit with an acid bomb
thrown at a window while worshippers had gathered for night
services.
experienced the consequences of his rhetoric.
NYPD surveillance of Muslims

Bartosiewicz, 13 (Bartosiewicz, Petra, March 8, 2013, The Nation, NYPD
Surveillance of Muslims Has Created a Climate of Fear
https://www.thenation.com/article/nypd-surveillance-muslims-has-createdclimate-fear/ _)
A new report released last week by a coalition of Muslim civil liberties groups
paints a grim picture of the targeting of Muslims in the NYPDs post-9/11 antiterrorism surveillance operations. The report, Mapping Muslims: NYPD
Spying and its Impact on American Muslims, tells how the NYPDs extensive
surveillancealways in the name of national securityhas created a climate
of fear and distrust among Muslims, has had a chilling effect on their ability to
worship freely at mosques, and has deterred organization around Muslim civil
rights issues. Report co-author Diala Shamas, an attorney with Creating Law
Enforcement Accountability and Responsibility (CLEAR), said the research,
which included 57 interviews with Muslims living in the New York City area, is
a response to long held concerns that the NYPD is infringing on the
constitutional freedoms of Muslims. We wanted to show the communitys
response to the NYPDs claim that this surveillance is harmless, said
Shamas. (CLEAR is a project run out of the City University of New Yorks
School of Law.) Among the reports key findings: individuals reported heavy
surveillance of the citys mosques as places of suspected radicalization,
which has made individuals wary when attending services; and the fear of
being targeted by law enforcement has led to self-censorship and decreased
involvement in community groups like Muslim Student Associations. A
particular concern cited in the report is the departments deployment of an
unknown number of undercover informants throughout the city,. You look at
your closest friends and ask: are they informants? said one respondent
Shamas says CLEAR along with the Muslim American Civil Liberties Coalition
and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund were inspired to
write the report after a 2011 Associated Press investigative series revealed
that the NYPDs counter-terrorism efforts in and around New York City post
9/11 were heavily focused on surveillance of Muslims. The series described a
secret Demographic Unitsince renamed the Zone Assessments Unit"
within the departments Intelligence Division, which focuses on tracking
individuals from predominantly Muslim ancestries of interest. The NYPDs
counterterrorism strategy, which was developed in part by former and current
CIA officials, has focused on intelligence collection intended to thwart
potential terrorist plots through the heavy scrutiny of so-called Muslim hot
spots such as mosques. While there has been much debate over the
departments focus on Muslims in its counter-terrorism strategy, the response
from the citys Muslims has been muted. Many are afraid to speak out,
according to the Mapping Muslims report. Most of those interviewed are
identified under pseudonyms, and say they feel intimidated by the police
scrutiny. Respondents described overt surveillance such as unmarked police
cars outside the mosques. Others said the fear that they might be targeted
by law enforcement has led them to avoid discussions of politics in public
places like cafes. Still others said fear of looking and acting Muslim has led
them to avoid wearing traditional Islamic clothing such as headscarves.
Theres always been a sense of stereotyping about dress, said one
community organizer. But now the veil thing has become more than just
about being different. It has become charged with suspicion. The NYPDs
use of undercover informants in terrorist-related sting operations in the past
decade has further added to the wariness of Muslims in speaking about
political issues or even mentioning the word jihad in public for fear of
eliciting further surveillance. Free speech isnt a privilege that Muslims
have, said Ahsan Samad, a 26-year-old interviewee from Brooklyn. The
result, said respondents in the report, has been increased difficulty in
organizing politically to criticize the NYPDs policies. Almost every rally and
public forum Ive attended in the last year begins with some type of
disclaimer or call-out of informants and undercovers who might be in
attendance and recording the conversation, said Cyrus McGoldrick, a
community organizer. Most speakers dont even know if such a disclaimer
protects them in any way, but I feel it to be a necessary announcement so
that the audience participants are conscious of the environment in which we
are organizing. The report documents how the NYPD surveillance program
has damaged the departments relationship with the Muslim community,
leading to a breakdown in trust that makes the community less likely to turn
to law enforcement for help in filing complaints or reporting hate crimes.
Shamas, whose organization, CLEAR, has been running Know-Your-Rights
workshops for individuals approached by law enforcement, says that the
Muslim community has tried to enter into a dialogue with the NYPD
but has not been successful so far. The report, which makes
recommendations to the NYPD to overhaul its counterterrorism program,
including disbanding the Zone Assessments Unit and ending blanket
surveillance of the citys Muslims, was intended in part to start a dialogue
with the police. The NYPD did not respond to a request for comment from The
Nation, but said in a statement issued by spokesman Paul Browne that the
department protects the rights of all New Yorkers and has made certain both
its counterterrorism and intelligence programs and procedures pass
constitutional muster.
Women throws Coffee at Muslim for Praying

Serena, 15 (December 17, 2015, Joseph Serena, State worker videotaped
throwing coffee on Muslim man is charged with hate crime, LA Times,
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-state-worker-muslim-coffeehate-crime-20151217-story.html )
Alameda County prosecutors filed hate crime charges against a California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation employee who was filmed
ridiculing a Bay Area Muslim man and throwing coffee at him. Denise Slader, a
program technician with the departments Adult Parole Operations, was charged Wednesday with
misdemeanor counts of battery and committing a hate crime and is due in court next month, according to
the criminal complaint. About 3 p.m. Dec. 6, Slader was filmed interrupting a prayer service at Lake
Chabot in Castro Valley, officials said. See the most-read stories this hour >> Rasheed Albeshari, 31,
and his friends were playing volleyball and praying at the park a Sunday ritual for the three friends.
Slader approached them and began talking ... trash, mostly about religion, Albeshari said. Thats when
Albeshari said he decided to take out his cellphone and record the encounter with Slader. He later posted
the video on Facebook. Slader was recorded saying, The
people you tortured are going to

be in eternity and heaven. You are very deceived by Satan. Your mind has
been taken over, brainwashed and you have nothing but hate . See more of our
top stories on Facebook >> The video shows an East Bay Regional Park District ranger approaching
Slader and telling her she was acting inappropriately. As Slader and Albeshari exchanged words over the
cellphone camera, she reached over and struck him, district spokesman Carolyn Jones said. After hitting
him, Slader threw coffee on him, Jones said. Albeshari is listed as the victim in the complaint. A park
official got between the pair to stop the situation from escalating, Jones said. Slader was not arrested or
cited, but a report was taken and sent to the Alameda County district attorney's office, Jones said. This
kind of intolerance is totally unacceptable.
It's just appalling on 50 different levels. -
Carolyn Jones, district spokesman This kind of intolerance is totally unacceptable, Jones said. Its just
appalling on 50 different levels. Calling the episode unusual, she said East Bay residents use the
districts 120,000 acres of park space daily for prayer, peace and solace, especially in this day and age.
In the days after the incident, Slader was still employed with the Department of Corrections, but her
actions were under review, department spokesman Luis Patino said. We expect all of our employees to
treat everyone with dignity and respect both on and off the job, he said in a statement. NEWSLETTER:
Get the day's top headlines from Times Editor Davan Maharaj >> Corrections officials did not have an
immediate update on the investigation. Albeshari was born in Tennessee and moved to Yemen with his
family as a child. He returned to the U.S. several years ago at the request of his father, who said Son, go
back to your country; thats where you can find your future, according to Albeshari. Get the essential
California headlines delivered free >> Albeshari flew to North Carolina before moving to San Francisco.
Albeshari said he had never encountered any form of racism, including based on his his religion, before this
months incident. He believes Sladers actions may have been fueled by the shooting rampage in San
Bernardino and billionaire businessman and presidential candidate Donald Trumps comments about
Muslims. Soon after Albeshari posted his video on Facebook, he said he was surprised to see an
outpouring of support from strangers. Its just overwhelming, he said. I think thats what makes this
nation great: tolerance and acceptanc
Muslim Hate crimes have tripled

NORTON, 15 (BEN NORTON, December 18, 2015, Anti-Muslim hate crimes have
tripled in the U.S. since the Paris attacks, Salon,
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/18/anti_muslim_hate_crimes_have_tripled_in_the_u_s_
since_the_paris_attacks/ )
Hate crimes against Muslim Americans and mosques have tripled in the U.S. since the Nov. 13 Paris
attacks, according to new research by California State University, San Bernardinos Center for the Study of
Hate and Extremism. These crimes include arsons, shootings, assaults, vandalism, and death threats.
In the month since the Paris attacks, there have been at least 38 anti-Muslim hate crimes in the U.S. Before
the November attacks, there was an average of 12.6 suspected hate crimes against Muslim Americans
each month, according to the FBI. The only other time there were more anti-Muslim hate crimes in the
U.S. was in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The director of the Center for the Study of Hate and
Extremism, criminologist Brian Levin, told the New York Times, The terrorist attacks, coupled with the
ubiquity of these anti-Muslim stereotypes seeping into the mainstream, have emboldened people to act
upon this fear and anger. A previous study conducted by the leading Muslim civil rights organization the
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) found that, from the beginning of 2015 up to Dec. 8,
American mosques and Islamic centers were the scene of at least 63 acts of vandalism, harassment, and
anti-Muslim bigotry. A CAIR spokesman noted, however, that this figure is likely drastically underestimated.
California State University, San Bernardinos new study better reflects the rapid increase in hate crimes.
In the past few weeks, there have often been multiple anti-Muslim attacks in the U.S. every single day.
Salon recently compiled a list of some of the most extreme of such hate crimes. On Thanksgiving, a man
in Pittsburgh shot a taxi driver in his own cab with a rifle for being Muslim. In Queens, New York, a man
shouting I kill Muslims beat a deli owner. CAIRs Washington, D.C. office was evacuated by police on
Dec. 10, after the group received threatening hate mail that read Die Muslims, die and contained a
foreign substance first believed to be poisonous. An arsonist set fire to a California mosque, while a
North Dakota restaurant owned by Muslim Somali refugees was defaced with Nazi graffiti and then
firebombed. On Dec. 12, a store clerk of Indian descent in Grand Rapids, Michigan was shot in the face
by a robber who called him a terrorist and insisted he was a member of ISIS.e.
Racial Profiling and chilling because of Muslim Roots

ACLU, No Date (HAMID HASSAN RAZA, American civil Liberties Union, No
Date, https://www.aclu.org/bio/hamid-hassan-raza )
Hamid Hassan Raza is an American citizen living with his wife and child in
Brooklyn, New York. He serves as imam at Masjid Al-Ansar, a Brooklyn
mosque, where he leads prayer services, conducts religious education
classes, and provides counseling to members of the community. The New
York City Police Department has subjected Imam Raza to
suspicionless surveillance since at least 2008, and, as a result, he has
had to take a range of measures to protect himself. For example, he
records his sermons out of fear that an officer or informant will misquote
him, or take a statement out of context. He also steers clear of certain
religious topics or current events in his sermons and conversations, so as to
avoid statements that the NYPD or its informants might perceive as
controversial. Imam Razas knowledge and fear of suspicionless police
scrutiny have diverted his time and attention from ministry and counseling
while chilling his ability to speak on topics of religious and
community importance. The NYPDs unlawful surveillance prevents Imam
Raza from fulfilling his duty as a religious minister, educator, and scholar in
the Masjid Al-Ansar community.20
Islamophobia
Unwarranted surveillance of Muslims propagates
Islamophobia and categorizes all Muslims as terrorists
Goldman et. al, 2013 (Adam is a analyst for the Associated Press. NYPD designates
mosques as terrorism organizations. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nypd-designates-mosques-terrorismorganizations. Date Accessed- 07/13/15. Anshul Nanda.)
They're terrorists. They all must be fanatics," said Abdul Akbar Mohammed, the imam for the past eight
The New York

Police Department has secretly labeled entire mosques as terrorist
organizations, a designation that allows police to use informants to record sermons and spy on imams,
often without specific evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Designating an entire mosque as a
terrorism enterprise means that anyone who attends prayer services there is
a potential subject of an investigation and fair game for surveillance. Since the
9/11 attacks, the NYPD has opened at least a dozen "terrorism enterprise
investigations" into mosques, according to interviews and confidential police documents. The
years at the Masjid Imam Ali K. Muslim in Newark. "That's not right." NEW YORK (AP)
TEI, as it is known, is a police tool intended to help investigate terrorist cells and the like. Many TEIs
stretch for years, allowing surveillance to continue even though the NYPD has never criminally charged a
mosque or Islamic organization with operating as a terrorism enterprise. The documents show in detail
hunt for terrorists, the NYPD investigated countless innocent New

York Muslims and put information about them in secret police files. As a tactic,
how, in its
opening an enterprise investigation on a mosque is so potentially invasive that while the NYPD conducted
interviews with federal law

enforcement officials. This strategy has allowed the NYPD to send
undercover officers into mosques and attempt to plant informants on the
boards of mosques and at least one prominent Arab-American group in Brooklyn, whose executive
at least a dozen, the FBI never did one, according to
director has worked with city officials, including Bill de Blasio, a front-runner for mayor. De Blasio said
Wednesday on Twitter that he was "deeply troubled NYPD has labelled entire mosques & Muslim orgs terror
groups with seemingly no leads. Security AND liberty make us strong." The revelations about the NYPD's
massive spying operations are in documents recently obtained by The Associated Press and part of a new
book, "Enemies Within: Inside the NYPD's Secret Spying Unit and bin Laden's Final Plot Against America."
The book by AP reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman is based on hundreds of previously unpublished
police files and interviews with current and former NYPD, CIA and FBI officials. The disclosures come as
the NYPD is fighting off lawsuits accusing it of engaging in racial profiling while combating crime. Earlier
this month, a judge ruled that the department's use of the stop-and-frisk tactic was unconstitutional. The
American Civil Liberties Union and two other groups have sued, saying the Muslim spying programs are
unconstitutional and make Muslims afraid to practice their faith without police scrutiny. Both Mayor Mike
Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly have denied those accusations. Speaking Wednesday
on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Kelly reminded people that his intelligence-gathering programs began in the
wake of 9/11. "We follow leads wherever they take us," Kelly said. "We're
not intimidated as to
wherever that lead takes us. And we're doing that to protect the people of
New York City." ___ The NYPD did not limit its operations to collecting
information on those who attended the mosques or led prayers. The department
sought also to put people on the boards of New York's Islamic institutions to fill intelligence gaps. One
confidential NYPD document shows police wanted to put informants in leadership positions at mosques and
other organizations, including the Arab American Association of New York in Brooklyn, a secular socialservice organization. Linda Sarsour, the executive director, said her group helps new immigrants adjust to
life in the U.S. It was not clear whether the department was successful in its plans. The document, which
appears to have been created around 2009, was prepared for Kelly and distributed to the NYPD's
debriefing unit, which helped identify possible informants. Around that time, Kelly was handing out
medals to the Arab American Association's soccer team, Brooklyn United, smiling and congratulating its
players for winning the NYPD's soccer league. Sarsour, a Muslim who has met with Kelly many times, said
she felt betrayed. "It
creates mistrust in our organizations," said Sarsour, who was
born and raised in Brooklyn. "It makes one wonder and question who is sitting on the boards of
the institutions where we work and pray." ___ Before the NYPD could target mosques as terrorist groups,
it had to persuade a federal judge to rewrite rules governing how police can monitor speech protected by
the First Amendment. The rules stemmed from a 1971 lawsuit, dubbed the Handschu case after lead
plaintiff Barbara Handschu, over how the NYPD spied on protesters and liberals during the Vietnam War
era. David Cohen, a former CIA executive who became NYPD's deputy commissioner for intelligence in
2002, said the old rules didn't apply to fighting against terrorism. Cohen told the judge that mosques
could be used "to shield the work of terrorists from law enforcement scrutiny by taking advantage of
restrictions on the investigation of First Amendment activity." NYPD lawyers proposed a new tactic, the
TEI, that allowed officers to monitor political or religious speech whenever the "facts or circumstances
reasonably indicate" that groups of two or more people were involved in plotting terrorism or other violent
crime. The judge rewrote the Handschu rules in 2003. In the first eight months under the new rules, the
NYPD's Intelligence Division opened at least 15 secret terrorism enterprise investigations, documents
show. At least 10 targeted mosques. Doing so allowed police, in effect, to treat anyone who attends
Sermons, ordinarily protected by the First

Amendment, could be monitored and recorded. Among the mosques
targeted as early as 2003 was the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge. "I have never felt
prayer services as a potential suspect.
free in the United States. The documents tell me I am right," Zein Rimawi, one of the Bay Ridge mosque's
leaders, said after reviewing an NYPD document describing his mosque as a terrorist enterprise. Rimawi,
59, came to the U.S. decades ago from the Israeli-occupied West Bank. "Ray Kelly, shame on him," he
said. "I am American." It was not immediately clear whether the NYPD targeted mosques outside of New
York City specifically using TEIs. The AP had previously reported that Masjid Omar in Paterson, N.J., was
identified as a target for surveillance in a 2006 NYPD report. ___ The NYPD believed the tactics were
necessary to keep the city safe, a view that sometimes put it at odds with the FBI. In August 2003, Cohen
asked the FBI to install eavesdropping equipment inside a mosque called Masjid al-Farooq, including its
prayer room. Al-Farooq had a long history of radical ties. Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian sheik
who was convicted of plotting to blow up New York City landmarks, once preached briefly at Al-Farooq.
Invited preachers raged against Israel, the United States and the Bush administration's war on terror. One
of Cohen's informants said an imam from another mosque had delivered $30,000 to an al-Farooq leader,
and the NYPD suspected the money was for terrorism. But Amy Jo Lyons, the FBI assistant special agent in
charge for counterterrorism, refused to bug the mosque. She said the federal law wouldn't permit it. The
NYPD made other arrangements. Cohen's informants began to carry recording devices into mosques under
investigation. They hid microphones in wristwatches and the electronic key fobs used to unlock car doors.
Even under a TEI, a prosecutor and a judge would have to approve bugging a mosque. But the informant
taping was legal because New York law allows any party to record a conversation, even without consent
from the others. Like the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge, the NYPD never demonstrated in court that alFarooq was a terrorist enterprise but that didn't stop the police from spying on the mosques for years. And
under the new Handschu guidelines, no one outside the NYPD could question the secret practice. Martin
Stolar, one of the lawyers in the Handschu case, said it's clear the NYPD used enterprise investigations to
justify open-ended surveillance. The NYPD should only tape conversations about building bombs or plotting
attacks, he said. "Every Muslim is a potential terrorist? It is completely unacceptable," he said. "It really
tarnishes all of us and tarnishes our system of values." ___ Al-Ansar Center, a windowless Sunni mosque,
opened in Brooklyn several years ago, attracting young Arabs and South Asians. NYPD officers feared the
mosque was a breeding ground for terrorists, so informants kept tabs on it. One NYPD report noted that
members were fixing up the basement, turning it into a gym. "They also want to start Jiujitsu classes," it
said. The NYPD was particularly alarmed about Mohammad Elshinawy, 26, an Islamic teacher at several
New York mosques, including Al-Ansar. Elshinawy was a Salafist a follower of a puritanical Islamic
movement whose father was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center attacks,
according to NYPD documents. The FBI also investigated whether Elshinawy recruited people to wage
violent jihad overseas. But the two agencies investigated him very differently. The FBI closed the case
after many months without any charges. Federal investigators never infiltrated Al-Ansar. "Nobody had any
information the mosque was engaged in terrorism activities," a former federal law enforcement official
recalled, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the investigation.
The NYPD wasn't convinced. A 2008 surveillance document described Elshinawy as "a young spiritual
leader (who) lectures and gives speeches at dozens of venues" and noted, "He has orchestrated camping
trips and paintball trips." The NYPD deemed him a threat in part because "he is so highly regarded by so
many young and impressionable individuals." No part of Elshinawy's life was out of bounds. His mosque
was the target of a TEI. The NYPD conducted surveillance at his wedding. An informant recorded the
wedding, and police videotaped everyone who came and went. "We have nothing on the lucky bride at
this time but hopefully will learn about her at the service," one lieutenant wrote. Four years later, the
NYPD was still watching Elshinawy without charging him. He is now a plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit, which
was also filed by the Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility project at CUNY School of
Law and the New York Civil Liberties Union. "These new NYPD spying disclosures confirm the experiences
and worst fears of New York's Muslims," ACLU lawyer Hina Shamsi said. "From houses of worship to a
wedding, there's no area of New York Muslim religious or personal life that the NYPD has not invaded
through its bias-based surveillance policy." ___ Online: Documents TEI Discontinuance:
http://apne.ws/146zqF9 Informant Profiles: http://apne.ws/1aNfuyH Elshinawy Surveillance:
http://apne.ws/15fau4D Handschu Minutes: http://apne.ws/1cenpD6 ___ AP's Washington investigative
team can be reached at DCinvestigations@ap.org Follow Goldman and Apuzzo at
http://twitter.com/adamgoldmanap and http://twitter.com/mattapuzzo
Islamophobia legitimizes the violation of human rights

and oppression of the otherthis causes the worst
forms of structural violence
Arinc, 2013 (Bulent is a Deputy Prime Minister. Islamophobia is an attack against
human dignity, says deputy PM. http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/. Date
Accessed- 07/14/15. Anshul Nanda)
Islamophobia is a violation of human rights, Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc said
on Thursday. "Regardless of how we handle Islamophobia, it is a violation of
human rights and an attack against human dignity. The communication strategies
that trigger this violation won't contribute to world peace," Arinc said at the Grand Tarabya
Hotel in Istanbul. Speaking at The International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media,
organized by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Office of the Prime Minister
Arinc said that conflating Islam

with terrorism and totalitarianism leads societies to approach each other with
suspicion. He went on to He stressed that there are no religious principles that
prevent Muslims from embracing democracy. Arinc called Islamophobia,
which he said is spreading like a virus, "a tool for oppressing Muslim
societies." The The oppression is pursued by those who believe that Islam and
democracy are incompatible, is to turn countries that combine Islam and democracy into
Directorate General of Press and Information (BYEGM),
problematic states, he continued. Saying that the ruling Justice and Development Party's (AK
Party) unique example disproves the clash-of-civilizations theory, Arinc stressed the
attention the party pays to multiculturalism and its adoption of a view that
welcomes different cultures. Islamist terrorist organizations are the only terror groups
whose religion is taken into account, he said, adding that many nations perceive Islam as
being behind terror attacks and deal with Muslim countries differently when it comes to
terrorism issues. "When
Muslims are the matter of discussion, terms like

'militant, radical Islamist businessmen and Islamofascism are used in
conversations. Though [it defends] freedom at every opportunity, the
language the West uses is quite surprising on the Islam issue ," Arinc said,
arguing that Western prejudices impact discussions on the issue. Calling on the Muslim world
to make more efforts to shatter the prejudices against it, Arinc demanded that Western
societies take legal measures to prevent the escalation of Islamophobia. Many superficial
reports on Islam unnecessarily occupy the agenda, Arinc said, adding that Islamophobia in the
media harms its reliability and objectivity. "The gray area between incitement and freedom of
expression in international media should be clearer," he added. Speaking at the same
Islamophobia
is one of the most challenging issues facing the international community and
a threat to global peace and security. It stands in stark contradiction to universal
meeting, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary-general of the OIC, described
values as well as to the international community's commitment to developing a culture of

peace and harmony among different cultures, civilizations and faiths, according to Ihsanoglu.
Islamophobia is defined as "the dread, hatred and hostility towards Islam and Muslims
perpetrated by a series of closed views that imply and attribute negative and derogatory
stereotypes and beliefs to Muslims" in the Runnymede report, "Islamophobia: A Challenge for
Us All." The report added that Islamophobia is based on "an outlook or world-view involving an
unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and
discrimination." A report by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
(EUMC) titled "Summary Report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001"
documents acts of discrimination and racism against Muslims in 15 EU member countries. The
report's findings show that "Islamic communities and other vulnerable groups have become
targets of increased hostility since 11 September .
A greater sense of fear among the

general population has exacerbated already existing prejudices and fuelled
acts of aggression and harassment in many European member states ."
The defining characteristic of 21st century American

politics is Islamophobia. The security sphere has been
altered- political fears of Muslims determine and dictate
proposals and actions. This xenophobic politics justifies
the worst of orientalist violence racism, internment, and
torture come to be seen as acceptable in Bushs words,
a domestic crusade against Islam is made possible.
Ali 12
(Yaser Ali, JD in law from UC Berkeley, Managing Attorney at Yaser Ali Law and was the Judicial Law
Clerk in the US Court of Appeals, Shariah and CitizenshipHow Islamophobia Is Creating a Second-Class
Citizenry in America, August 1 2012, http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=4176&context=californialawreview) //mL
There was a clear discursive shift in Islamophobic discourse after 9/11. What was
previously considered unacceptable speech now permeated the discourse. During this
time, pundits and public officials construed the stereotypical Muslim male
personifying all the Orientalist tropes and characteristics Lewis and Huntington described in
the 1990sas the primary threat to American security .97 The discursive shift
transcended political affiliation. One prominent conservative columnist, Ann Coulter, wrote on
September 12, 2001, We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert
them to Christianity. We werent punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler
and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. Thats war.
And this is war.98 Richard Cohen, writing in the Washington Post one month after 9/11, added:
One hundred percent of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 mass murder were
Arabs. Their accomplices, if any, were probably Arabs too, or at least Muslims.
Ethnicity and religion are the very basis of their movement. It hardly makes sense,
therefore, to ignore that fact and, say, give Swedish au pair girls heading to the
United States the same scrutiny as Arab men coming from the Middle East.99
Politicians, too, appeared to be competing as to who could look strongest on national defense. Attorney
General John Ashcroft, one of the most vociferous critics of Islam in public office at the time, stated, Islam
is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God
sends his son to die for you.100 In a speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, he stated: Let the
terrorists among us be warned: if you overstay your visaeven by one daywe will arrest you. If you
violate a local law, you will be put in jail and kept in custody as long as possible. We will use every
available statute. We will seek every prosecutorial advantage.101 Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Republican
Senator from Georgia, went even further, stating that homeland security would be improved by turning the
Perhaps the most

notorious and destructive comment was President Bushs description of the War on
Terror as a crusade,103 a statement that outraged Muslims around the world and led
to intense damage control efforts on the part of the White House.104 Although it was
conceivably just an ill advised and unintentional statement by the President, the comment
nonetheless suggested that the collective enemy was Islam; and further, to some
Muslims, it engendered strong notions of the Middle Ages, when Christian armies
embarked on numerous battles with an expressed goal of conquering Muslim
lands.105 Professor Victor Romero describes how the underlying rhetoric after 9/11 was
sheriff loose to arrest every Muslim that comes across the state line.102
reminiscent of that used toward the Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl
Harbor.106 He cites a quote from General DeWitt, the chief enforcer of the internment camps: Further
evidence of the Commanding Generals attitude toward individuals of Japanese ancestry is revealed in his
voluntary testimony on April 13, 1943, in San Francisco before the House Naval Affairs Subcommittee to
Investigate Congested Areas: . . . I dont want any of them (persons of Japanese ancestry) here. They are
a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty. The west coast contains too many vital
installations essential to the defense of the country to allow any Japanese on this coast . . . . The danger of
the Japanese was, and is nowif they are permitted to come back espionage and sabotage. It makes no
difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not
necessarily determine loyalty . . . . But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off
the map. Sabotage and espionage will make problems as long as he is allowed in this area . . . . 107 As
described above, the language employed by General DeWitt was indeed strikingly similar to that used
As a result of this framing, the average Muslim in

America was presumptively considered disloyal and a threat, irrespective of his or her
formal citizenship status. In fact, according to one poll, less than half of the
respondents during the period shortly after 9/11 believed that American Muslims
were loyal to the United States.108 In one particularly troubling Gallup Poll shortly
after 9/11, one-third of respondents supported such drastic measures as the
internment of Arab Americans or the special surveillance of Arabs living in the United
States.109 This biased public perception was no doubt a necessary precursor to the
large-scale encroachment on civil liberties that targeted American Muslims in the
following months and years. 2. Ramifications for the Muslim Community The repercussions of
such statements were severe in both the private and public spheres. Muslims were
cast as disloyal outsiders and noncitizens. Under the broad umbrella of national security
policy, the government institutionalized numerous civil liberties violations, including
intrusive airport inspections, increased FBI surveillance and warrantless
wiretapping, the use of agents provocateurs in mosques, and, in some cases,
even torture and suspension of habeas corpus rights.110 Within two months of
9/11, law enforcement officials detained more than 1200 individuals in dragnet
searches, most of whom were from the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa.111
In 2004 alone, the FBI initiated a campaign to interview 5000 Muslim men to obtain
leads on terrorist attacks.112 The government detained countless others as material witnesses,
against American Muslims after 9/11.
but neither the exact number nor the names of such persons have been revealedagain for national
security purposes.113 Similarly, whereas before 9/11 President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft
publicly denounced racial profiling tactics,114 their positions quickly changed after 9/11. 115
Public
sentiment on the issue followed suit, with over half of Americans polled approving
racial profiling at airports nearly two weeks after the attacks.116 The government
seizing on the public endorsement of discriminatory policies toward Muslims at the
timeimplemented four distinct practices of targeting people who appeared
Muslim: profiling airline passengers, secret arrests , the institution of new racebased immigration policies, and selective enforcement of generally applicable
immigration laws.117 Airlines frequently removed Muslim passengers from flights
without causeeven removing one of President Bushs Secret Service agents because
he looked Muslim.118 Professor Muneer Ahmad cites two particularly egregious examples of profiling.
The first involved a United Airlines pilot refusing to fly a U.S. citizen of Egyptian origin out of Tampa,
Florida, because his name was Mohammad, and the second was a situation in Austin, Texas, where
passengers applauded as two Pakistani men were removed from a flight.119
1. ANALYTICS: Islamophobia is a form of structural

violence enabling systematic oppression and vast
death tolls globally through the racialized
dehumanization of Muslim victims that continues
unopposed
2. Prefer this impact structural violence is invisible
and exponential and you have an ethical duty to
challenge it
Nixon 11
(Rob, Rachel Carson Professor of English, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor, pgs. 2-3)
we urgently need
to rethink-politically, imaginatively, and theoretically-what I call "slow violence." By slow
violence I mean a violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of delayed destruction
that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is typically not viewed as
violence at all. Violence is customarily conceived as an event or action that is
immediate in time, explosive and spectacular in space, and as erupting into instant
sensational visibility. We need, I believe, to engage a different kind of violence, a violence that
is neither spectacular nor instantaneous, but rather incremental and
accretive, its calamitous repercussions playing out across a range of temporal scales. In so doing, we
also need to engage the representational, narrative, and strategic challenges posed by the relative
invisibility of slow violence. Climate change, the thawing cryosphere, toxic drift,
Three primary concerns animate this book, chief among them my conviction that
biomagnification, deforestation, the radioactive aftermaths of wars, acidifying oceans, and a host of other
slowly unfolding environmental catastrophes present formidable representational obstacles that can hinder
our efforts to mobilize and act decisively. The long dyings-the staggered and staggeringly discounted
casualties, both human and ecological that result from war's toxic aftermaths or climate change-are
Had Summers advocated

invading Africa with weapons of mass destruction, his proposal would have
fallen under conventional definitions of violence and been perceived as a
military or even an imperial invasion. Advocating invading countries with mass
forms of slow-motion toxicity, however, requires rethinking our accepted
assumptions of violence to include slow violence. Such a rethinking requires
that we complicate conventional assumptions about violence as a highly visible act
that is newsworthy because it is event focused, time bound, and body bound. We need to account
for how the temporal dispersion of slow violence affects the way we perceive
and respond to a variety of social afflictions-from domestic abuse to posttraumatic stress and, in
underrepresented in strategic planning as well as in human memory.
particular, environmental calamities. A major challenge is representational: how to devise arresting stories,
slow
violence is often not just attritional but also exponential, operating as a major
threat multiplier; it can fuel long-term, proliferating conflicts in situations
where the conditions for sustaining life become increasingly but gradually
degraded.
images, and symbols adequate to the pervasive but elusive violence of delayed effects. Crucially,
3. Domestic surveillance is a war on muslims waged

through technology only a new approach can
reverse the invisibility of violence against Muslims by
the state
Huhtinen and Rantapelkonen 7, (Aki-Mauri. and Rantapelkonen,
Jari. "The War Against the Other and the Us - Political and Philosophical
Problems of Postmodern Worlds Atmosphere" Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention,
Hilton Chicago .Feb 28, 2007 Online <PDF>.2011-03-13
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p178927_index.html) //EMerz
Thanks to the information revolution warfare has lost much of its
effectiveness and all its glamour. The war of the information age has become
an apocalyptic digital game between Western superpowers and the
fundamentalism-oriented poorer part of the world. This asymmetric
totalitarian framework reflects an attitude that gives no chance to
understanding the Other. As Emmanuel Levinas has said: the relationship
with the Other is not produced outside of the world, but puts in question the
world possessed. The difference between the Other and the Us does
not depend on different properties, such as technological standards,
but on an inevitable orientation of starting oneself toward the Other. [] Most
terrorists have been invisible, as only a few of them have been convicted in
courtrooms. Yet more innocent civilians and ordinary citizens have been killed
in the total and fundamental war, even with use of high-tech war machine as
precision weapons. Also our own citizens have been targeted by spy
organizations in case somebody is thinking or reading books that may
indicate suspicious activity. As the 9/11 showed, there was a distinctive new
feature: a privatised form of organized violence which was earlier impossible
took place worldwide in information networks. The 9/11 united we, a
hope of the future against the other, and a relic of the past. In
addition to asking who is the other one can ask Who are we. Right after
the 9/11, the French newspaper Le Monde answered the questions: We are
all Americans.
4. Islamophobia is racism, pure and simple

Musharbash 14 [Yassin Musharbash, 12-10-2014, "Islamophobia is racism, pure and simple,"
Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/10/islamophobia-racism-dresden-protestsgermany-islamisation]
traditional
racist arguments are now more likely to come in the form of abuse
on the basis of religion. The argument is often that Jews share the same values
Of course, Islamophobia cant be laughed away and ours is just small way of dealing with it. But whats clear is that
as Christians, and Vietnamese immigrants are good at integrating, but for Muslims
neither is true; plus, they want to take over. Which is why their religion is in
fact an ideology; which is why it is OK to be against it; which in turn

makes you a freedom fighter. Whats feeding this? Clearly 9/11 and other Jihadist terrorist attacks play a role.
But thats not all. There is fear of losing out economically, for which Muslims
are scapegoated; theres the challenge of living in a society
changing rapidly in the light of globalisation; theres anger about
the increasing visibility of immigrants. The organisers of the Dresden demonstrations claim to be
responding to street fights between Salafists and Kurds that broke out in western Germany a few weeks ago. But framing this and other
problems as part of a phenomenon of Islamisation is ridiculous. And yet it is time we started to take this seriously. Those people in the streets
of Dresden may be nonviolent but they have been infected with a smug contempt for a minority, and may embolden the more radical fringes
Politicians here have sensed that something is building. But until

very recently, they mostly just maintained that peoples grievances should be taken
seriously, rather than criticising the racist sentiment that came with their
complaints. This needs to change now. It needs to be made clear that
of the Islamophobic spectrum.
Islamophobia
is no legitimate expression of
anger or frustration and most certainly nothing to be
proud of. Its racism, plain and simple.
in Germany
5. Islamophobia takes root at a level deeper than

politics- the systemic notion of Western superiority
and Muslim irrationality is generated by culture and
media, dictates policy, and creates broader militant
sentiments that violently oppresses those who dont
fit the normalized notion of an Americansurveillance in the context of counter-terrorism
efforts is a mechanism influenced by right wing fear
mongering
Kumar 2013 [Deepa, (Associate Professor of Middle Eastern Studies @ Rutgers), "Twelve Years
Post 9/11, Islamophobia Still Runs High ," Truthout, http://www.truth-out.org/video/item/18759-twelveyears-post-9-11-islamophobia-still-runs-high#, Accessed 7/13/15, AX]
Islamophobia is basically the term, the name given to anti-Muslim racism. It is

it involves making generalizations about an entire group
based on the actions of a few through this mythical understanding of what
Islam is supposed to be. DESVARIEUX: Okay. And we should mention that there was a poll that
KUMAR:
a form of prejudice. And
was conducted by the Arab American Institute that found that American attitudes towards Arab and
Muslims, specifically for Republicans and Romney voters in this last presidential election, were rated to be
strongly negative. Does this mean that Islamophobia is only a problem of right-wingers or conservative
voters? KUMAR: Absolutely not. I think it is true that larger numbers of conservative voters are racist. They
are racist not just in terms of their attitude towards Arabs and South Asians, but also to a whole host of
But in fact
Islamophobia is far more systemic than that. That is to say, the idea of a Muslim
enemy, the idea of a terrorist enemy is one that actually goes back a couple of decades but
was brought to light after 9/11 by the political elite , by our political leaders. So in fact it
is built into the system of U.S. foreign policy in this country. And to simply look at
the far right and to ignore the fact that it has larger implications in terms of justifying
U.S. foreign policy would be really to have only an incomplete picture of what is at work in this form
other groups. So it's true that this idea sort of concentrated within those ranks.
of racism. DESVARIEUX: Okay. Let's talk about the mass media and how they depict Islam since 9/11. Can
you describe for us how the mass media has depicted Islam? KUMAR: Well, basically,
the trauma of
9/11, the fact that, you know, 3,000 Americans died meant that it enabled the U.S. media to
actually draw on stereotypes that have been , you know, propped up by Hollywood,
by the news media, and so on for a few decades before that. And that was the idea that
these are crazy, irrational people. They are all apparently driven by Islam to
violence. And so we should lock them up, we should be suspicious of them,
we should detain them at airports, and so on and so forth. And so that's what
you saw in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. And this show called 24, which your viewers
may know, is--it's about a lot of things [incompr.] that it's about justifying the building of a
national security state and justifying practices like torture and so on and so forth.
DESVARIEUX: Okay. And also the story of the day, of course, is Syria, and everyone's attention is drawn to
Syria. Can you describe for us just how does Islamophobia play a role in any of the arguments for
intervention in Syria, really? KUMAR: Okay. It doesn't play a direct role in that. It is-- the
idea of
humanitarianism has a long history in the United States. The idea that there
are victims all over the world, that the U.S. government has then got to make
war in order to, you know, somehow defend them, this goes back all the way to the SpanishAmerican war of 1898, which was supposed to be about rescuing Cubans. And similarly, you see these
sorts of justifications given. You know, Vietnamese need to be defended. In Iraq, it was babies, apparently,
who were being bayoneted in Kuwait, and therefore the U.S. needed to intervene and defeat Iraq in 1991.
what
makes it particularly potent in this case is that after 9/11 what you see is the
Bush administration projecting this idea of clash of civilizations, which is basically
the notion that we in the West are democratic, we are rational, we are civilized, we
are, you know, all things wonderful, and they in the East are barbaric, they're
misogynistic, and so on and so forth, and therefore we have an obligation, what
used to be called the white man's burden, to go off and rescue them. And so you see
some of that language, which is the idea that Arabs cannot bring democracy by
themselves, they cannot make change, and so we need to intervene. So it's a
combination both of the victim narrative, which has a long history, combined with this
language of clash of civilizations. DESVARIEUX: Okay. And how does this fit into domestic policy?
How do they work Islamophobia into domestic policy? KUMAR: Right. I mean, the
comparison I make in the book and that I'm actually working on in the next book is that the U.S.
government, and U.S. imperialism in particular, always needs an enemy. That is, when there
is no humanitarian cause, an enemy is an extremely useful way to justify wars
abroad, as well as the policing of dissent at home. So, for instance, during the
Cold War we had been menacing enemy of the Soviet Union, against whom both a hot and a Cold War
had to be waged. And, of course, this justified, then, McCarthyism, because there's
always a reflection of the external enemy inside, and these people have to be
rounded up, blacklisted, and so on and so forth. So that's the logic back then, and, of
course, it was entirely about a politics of fear. Today we have the same sort of thing. After
9/11, the war on terror comes into being precisely about fighting endless
wars. Remember, back in 9/11 the Bush administration was going to start with Afghanistan, go to Iraq,
and then Iran, Syria, and so on and so forth. It didn't work out that way. But the idea was to drum
up this fear of this menacing terrorist enemy, which justified wars all over the
world in order to gain the U.S.'s interest in [incompr.] particularly in the oil-rich
region in the Middle East. You asked me about domestic politics. Always there was a
reflection of the domestic in terms of the international threat. And so what
you've seen is innocent Muslims--and often actually not even Muslims, people from the
So this idea of humanitarianism has a long history within the foreign policy establishment. But
Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, some of them Sikhs, some some of them Hindus, some of them
being racially profiled because that is the logic that comes

out of this. I have a whole chapter in the book about how the legal system has been
reworked so as to justify things like indefinite detention, things like torture, things like
deportation. And, frankly, the infiltration of agents into our schools, into my school,
into colleges, and so forth. So, you know, it's truly horrific the extent to which
Muslim Americans and people who look Muslim have been demonized
since 9/11. DESVARIEUX: How do you sort of categorize or interpret these votes by different states to
ban sharia law? What's your take on that? KUMAR: Yes. This is actually the work of a far right
wing Islamophobic network. These people have been active for the last two
decades, and they get, you know, funding to the tune of $45-$50 billion over the
last seven, eight years. These people hold the view that there are no moderate
Muslims, all Muslims are somehow connected to Islamist organizations --Hamas
Christians, and so on,
or the Muslim brotherhood and so on. And even though they pretend to be moderate, right--this is the
language some of these people use--in fact they are involved in a conspiracy to take over the United
States and to replace the Constitution with sharia law. Of course, this is nonsense,
this is complete
conspiracy theory. But these are the people. They are lawyers, they are academics, they
are people in the military, they are people in the security establishment. They are responsible for
this campaign where, you know, about half a dozen to a dozen states across the U.S. have
adopted these laws. It's a process of fearmongering, and it enables the right
wing to actually grow in their ranks and promote this kind of hate.
Modern Islamophobic policies create a state of bare life and otherization,

waging a perpetual war on difference
Wise 1
(Tim Wise, Writer, lecturer, antiracism activist, author, and was an adjunct professor at the Smith
College School of Social Work and was an advisor to the Fisk University Race Relations Institute,
Rationalizing Racism: Panic and Profiling After 9/11, December 10 2001,
http://www.alternet.org/story/12065/rationalizing_racism%3A_panic_and_profiling_after_9_11?
paging=off#bookmark) //mL
complaints about such measures may seem trivial. 'What's the big deal?' ask
some. Isn't security worth the mild inconvenience to those singled out? But as with
all other racial profiling, the present incarnation is every bit as unjust and irrational.
Despite calls from many quarters for more profiling, under the rubric of good "common sense," the fact
remains that it is not sensible at all. To single out persons of a particular nationality or
ethnicity, or to heighten one's suspicion of such a group is blatantly unjust. It is in
fact plainly racist, as such generalized suspicion, fear, and mistreatment never seem
to attach to white folks, no matter what profile we may fit. After the Oklahoma City
bombing, white men were not singled out, held incommunicado, rounded up for
questioning, nor quizzed when trying to rent moving vans. Indeed, I rented a Ryder truck
To many,
shortly after McVeigh blew one of their fleet sky-high, along with the Murrah Building. And despite being a
white guy, with short hair, no one said a word to me, nor asked for a deposit up front, just in case I decided
to load it up with fertilizer and ammonium nitrate and take out a city block. Although white supremacist
and militia groups most certainly came in for additional scrutiny in the aftermath of McVeigh's act of mass
notice the difference between that response and what is happening now: in
the former instance, only very specific kinds of white people became possible
suspects. In the latter case, there is a general response of fear towards all persons
fitting the physical, ethnic, and religious description of the terrorists. Even the
bombing of Afghanistan can be viewed as racially selective . After all, if the attackers of
murder,
9/11 had been members of the Irish Republican Army, it is simply inconceivable that
we would have ripped up the real estate of Dublin as punishment. So despite the
cavalier claims by many whites that anti-Arab profiling is no big deal, and that they
would be happy to be profiled if white guys had been behind the attacks in
September, the fact remains, whether willing or not, they would never have had to
worry about such a response. And that's the point.

assumptions behind Islamophobia creates a
transformative and liberatory pedagogy that enables
agency and challenges racist dynamics
As an anti-racism scholar and educator, fellow colleagues and I realized from as early as

methodology for conducting anti-Islamophobia education, it was necessary to
develop some discursive foundations, arrive at a definition of Islamophobia, and






institutionalized racism.
negative attitudes are

greater social justice in both schools and society. Another key goal of antiIslamophobia education involves the need to demystify stereotypes . Since 9/11,
doesnt value education for girls or Black students wont succeed. These

Impacts Islamophobia Torture

1. Islamophobia is direct motivation for torture and war.
Hudson 10.
(Adam, journalist from Stanford, Stanford Progressive, Imperialism,
Islamophobia, and Torture, http://web.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgibin/?p=893)
Racism is not just an individual problem of prejudice or hate. It is an ideology used to justify
systems of hegemony and oppression. It creates a binary between the Self
and the Other. The Self is ascribed all positive aspects of humanity, such as rationality, intelligence,
high culture, and credit for creating the benefits of modern civilization. The Other is ascribed all negative
By categorizing
certain groups as inferior others, hegemonic powers rob those people of
their humanity, thus, making it easier to commit acts of brutality against
them for imperial interests. Racism, under the banner of manifest destiny, was used to justify
aspects of humanity, such as irrationality, primitivity, criminality, and barbarity.
the genocide committed against the Native Americans that made room for American territorial expansion.
Racism was used to justify the enslavement of millions of black Africans whose free labor was exploited to
work on plantations and build the American economy. Despite the advancements made during the civil
rights movement, racism still exists in many areas of American life, such as the disproportionate number of
African-Americans and Latinos in prison, de facto housing segregation, inequality in the education system,
and police brutality committed against people of color. Some of the most recent cases of police brutality
were the deaths of 22-year-old Oscar Grant in Oakland[xvi] and 7-year-old Aiyana Jones in Detroit[xvii]
both of whom were African-American. Americas wars against Afghanistan and Iraq serve to maintain
The racist dehumanization

of Muslims, Arabs and South Asians is committed to justify Americas wars
and acts of torture primarily against people from countries whose populations
are predominantly Muslim and black and brown-skinned , such as Iraq, Afghanistan,
and Yemen. It is not difficult to witness the manifestations of Islamophobia and
anti-Arab racism in American society. It exists within the media and underlies the sophistry of
American global hegemony and access to key resources such as oil.
politicians and leading intellectuals. Muslims, Arabs and South Asians are always suspected of being
terrorists, similar to how black and Latino people are suspected of being drug-dealers, gang members and
Racism is the fundamental ideological motivation behind Americas

wars and use of torture. The key task now is to end Americas use of torture
and, more broadly, eliminate racism and imperialism; a daunting task but a necessary
criminals.
one, nevertheless. First, it is important for everyone, of all races, to see and treat every other person as a
human being. Despite our cultural differences, we are part of one human family. Second, it is crucial that
we hold our political leaders accountable for authorizing acts of torture and starting wars. At Stanford, we
can start by pressuring our government to hold current Professor and former National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice, and other government officials, accountable for authorizing torture and engaging in
aggressive wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Third, it is vital that we work to build institutions that foster
peace instead of war and sustain humanity rather than destroy it. To build a better future for humanity is
by no means an easy task. But a million-mile journey begins with one step. Lets make that first step.
2. Islamophobia justifies the torture of many innocent

people.
Hudson 10.

One key element of American imperial history is its use of torture, which can be traced back to Americas
an analysis of torture, especially in the post-9/11 era,

is very uncommon in mainstream political discourse. As such, before I proceed, it is
important to dispel the current myths about torture propagated in the mainstream media. As is well
known, the United States has tortured hundreds of detainees suspected of
being involved in terrorism. It is hard not to notice when the former Vice President brags about
personally authorizing the use of torture on national television[v]. These acts included waterboarding, physical beatings, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and, in some
cases, murder[vi]. The primary justification is that torture is a necessary tool
to extract information from people who might know about impending threats of
terrorism. Politicians (both Republican and Democrat), intellectuals, pundits and other leaders argue
that America faces a new kind of threat. America is up against extremist, religious
fanatics who hate the United States and wish to kill innocent Americans.
treatment of African slaves. Such
Current domestic and international laws and law enforcement tactics are not sufficient to subdue this
threat. As Alberto Gonzalez said to former President George W. Bush, the Geneva Conventions are
As a result, the United States must be

willing to torture terrorist suspects in order to extract vital information that
could prevent the next terrorist attack. This apocalyptic mindset has
impacted the current American psyche and post-9/11 American foreign policy .
obsolete in this new war against terrorism.[vii]
Since the war is against a nebulous enemy, the war against terrorism is essentially a permanent war.
Despite the compelling arguments used to justify torture, adopting an objective view of the facts rips them
asunder. First, there is little to no evidence to prove that torture is a useful interrogation technique. In fact,
the evidence that does exist proves the opposite that torture is ineffective because the suspect will say
anything, whether its true or not, in order to make the torture stop. Ali Soufan, an intelligence official who
interrogated Guantanamo terror suspect Abu Zubaydah, stated[viii]that conventional interrogation
techniques compelled Zubaydah to provide actionable intelligence. It was only after Zubaydah was
most of the
people detained, usually indefinitely, in places like Guantanamo Bay and CIAowned black sites are not diehard terrorists. The vast majority of them are
innocent. Even President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and other high
government officials may have been aware of this[ix]. Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to
waterboarded several times that he could not provide useful intelligence. Second,
former Secretary of State Colin Powell said that Cheney had absolutely no concern that the vast majority
of Guantanamo detainees were innocentIf hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to
detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.
War on Terror justified this tragedy.
The apocalyptic mindset of the broader
Islamophobic Education
Education is necessary to combat Terrorism and
Islamophobia
Hanley, 15 (Delinda C. Hanley, April 2015, American Muslims Examine
Causes and Suggest Ways to Halt Radicalization, Washington Report on
Middle East Affairs, http://www.wrmea.org/2015-march-april/americanmuslims-examine-causes-and-suggest-ways-to-halt-radicalization.html )
Talib M. Shareef, imam of Masjid Muhammad, the Nation of Islams

mosque in Washington, DC, agreed with Mogahed. This is all about
education, stated Shareef, who served 30 years in the U.S. Air Force.
The literacy rate in the Muslim world is shocking, he acknowledged,
but Americans also are uninformed about Islam and the Middle East.
After 9/11 Muslims in the armed forces heard disparaging comments
about ragheads and were made to feel uncomfortable in the military
environment. Imam Shareef was tasked with educating personnel
about the rich history of Islam. He also urged Americans to give proper
attention to people who are suffering in the world. The French attack
has opened up hurtful wounds from 9/11, he added, and put patriotic
Muslim Americans on the defensive. Its not OK to disrespect others,
the imam said, and its not OKto separate society. On Jan. 23, the
day after the Muslim leaders important press conference (which,
incidentally, was not reported by U.S. media), Secretary of State Kerry
told leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland that it
would be a mistake to link Islam to criminal conduct rooted in
alienation, poverty, thrill-seeking and other factors. We have to keep
our heads, Kerry said. The biggest error we could make would be to
blame Muslims for crimes that their faith utterly rejects. Kerry
described terror groups as a form of criminal anarchy, a nihilism,
which illegitimately claims an ideological and religious foundation.
This fight will not be decided on the battlefield, he told Davos
attendees, but in the classrooms, workplaces, places of worship of the
world. It will also be decided when nations come together and make
progress on multiple international and domestic fronts. The desire for
freedom, civil rights and justice is universal. Its simply easier to
describe radical ideology as Islamic. It gets leaders off the hook in
dealing with injustice.
Modern Islamophobic policies create a state of bare life and Otherization,
waging a perpetual war on difference
Wise 1
(Tim Wise, Writer, lecturer, antiracism activist, author, and was an adjunct professor at the Smith
College School of Social Work and was an advisor to the Fisk University Race Relations Institute,
Rationalizing Racism: Panic and Profiling After 9/11, December 10 2001,
http://www.alternet.org/story/12065/rationalizing_racism%3A_panic_and_profiling_after_9_11?
paging=off#bookmark) //mL
complaints about such measures may seem trivial. 'What's the big deal?' ask
Isn't security worth the mild inconvenience to those singled out? But as with all
other racial profiling, the present incarnation is every bit as unjust and irrational.
Despite calls from many quarters for more profiling, under the rubric of good "common sense," the fact
remains that it is not sensible at all. To single out persons of a particular nationality or
ethnicity, or to heighten one's suspicion of such a group is blatantly unjust. It is in
fact plainly racist, as such generalized suspicion, fear, and mistreatment never seem
to attach to white folks, no matter what profile we may fit. After the Oklahoma City
bombing, white men were not singled out, held incommunicado, rounded up for
questioning, nor quizzed when trying to rent moving vans. Indeed, I rented a Ryder truck
To many,
some.
shortly after McVeigh blew one of their fleet sky-high, along with the Murrah Building. And despite being a
white guy, with short hair, no one said a word to me, nor asked for a deposit up front, just in case I decided
to load it up with fertilizer and ammonium nitrate and take out a city block. Although white supremacist
and militia groups most certainly came in for additional scrutiny in the aftermath of McVeigh's act of mass
notice the difference between that response and what is happening now: in
the former instance, only very specific kinds of white people became possible
suspects. In the latter case, there is a general response of fear towards all persons
fitting the physical, ethnic, and religious description of the terrorists. Even the
bombing of Afghanistan can be viewed as racially selective . After all, if the attackers of
9/11 had been members of the Irish Republican Army, it is simply inconceivable that
we would have ripped up the real estate of Dublin as punishment. So despite the
cavalier claims by many whites that anti-Arab profiling is no big deal, and that they
would be happy to be profiled if white guys had been behind the attacks in
September, the fact remains, whether willing or not, they would never have had to
worry about such a response. And that's the point.
murder,
The modern Islamic body is racialized and defined by its differences,

providing the justifications for domestic subordination of Muslims- our
educational opposition to Islamophobic ideologies challenges the process of
otherization.
Jamal 08
(Amaney Jamal, Edwards S. Sanford Professor of Politics at Princeton University and director of
the Mamdouha S. Bobst Center for Peace and Justice, Civil Liberties and the Otherization of Arab and
Muslim Americans, Race and Arab Americans Before and After 9/11: From Invisible Citizens to Visible
Subjects, 2008, https://books.google.com/books?
id=Qbgw2ZwvT8kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Race+and+Arab+Americans+Before+and+After+9/11:+Fro
m+Invisible+Citizens+to+...&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMI07_Wn9ngxgIVSakeCh2caA2d#v=
onepage&q=Race%20and%20Arab%20Americans%20Before%20and%20After%209%2F11%3A%20From
%20Invisible%20Citizens%20to%20...&f=false, al)
Why is there so much support for policies that so apparently are anathema to basic American values?
Several hypotheses can plausibly explain support for taking away the civil rights and liberties of Muslim
and Arab Americans. They range from a general sense of vulnerability to more specific anti-Muslim
attitudes and predispositions. While the former can be explained away as general fear and worry in the
For if the American population is

willing to support infringements on civil liberties by reason of misperceptions that
characterize Arabs and Muslims as enemy Others, then we must also address the
larger phenomenon of racialization or otherization of Arabs and Muslims in
mainstream American culture. This racialization process essentially sees Muslims and
aftermath of the attacks, the latter, I argue, is far more troubling.
Arabs as different from and inferior to whites, potentially violent and threatening, and
therefore deserving of policies that target them as a distinct group of people and
criminalize them without evidence of criminal activity. The binary logic of us versus
them, based on a constructed myth of racial difference, permeates U.S. society and
provides the lenses through which group differences are organized, imagined, and
understood. In the case of the denial of Muslim and Arab American civil liberties,
unequal access to civil liberties is justified through a racial logic that is not always
based on an association between phenotype and backwardness but still follows
various historical patterns of racism in the United States. U.S. history is rife with
examples of immigrants being targeted and denied the benefits of citizenship
because of their appearance and cultural backgrounds. Nadine Naber reminds us of this
history, arguing that these non-immigrant groups, whether blacks, Asians, or Mexicans, have been denied
the benefits of citizenship based on the assumption that they are unassimilable and foreign (2006, 241).
The single most durable explanation of widespread support for ethnic civil liberty
infringement, I argue, rests on the racialization of Muslim and Arab Americans as the
enemy Other. Here, I use the term racialization to describe the perception and
production of an inherent threatening difference between us and them that
provides a scaffold legitimating and supporting the violation of the ethnic minoritys
civil liberties. Although racialization has its roots in domestic politics the findings of
this chapter also demonstrate that geopolitical realities shape the ways average
Americans construct images of the Arab and Muslim Other in their midst. Both
domestic politics and existing geopolitical realities, especially when the homelands of
those othered populations are sites of U.S. military campaigns, combine to justify
the domestic subordination of less-tolerated populations.
We ought to use the debate round as a site to formulate counter-hegemonic

strategies of knowledge production- the plan offered a substantial
challenge to the Islamophobic tendencies guiding US federal policyviolence has manifested itself in scholarship, and combatting that is a
necessary precondition to breaking it down in reality
Jones 99
(Richard, Professor International Politics @ Aberystwyth University, Security, Strategy, and

Critical Theory, p. 155-162, wcp)
The central political task of the intellectuals is to aid in the construction of a

counterhegemony and thus undermine the prevailing patterns of discourse and
interaction that make up the currently dominant hegemony . This task is accomplished
through educational activity, because, as Gramsci argues, every relationship of
hegemony is necessarily a pedagogic relationship (Gramsci 1971: 350). Discussing the
relationship of the philosophy of praxis to political practice, Gramsci claims: It [the theory] does not tend
to leave the simple in their primitive philosophy of common sense, but rather to lead them to a higher
conception of life. If it affirms the need for contact between intellectuals and simple it is not in order to
restrict scientific activity and preserve unity at the low level of the masses, but precisely in order to
construct an intellectual-moral bloc which can make politically possible the intellectual progress of the
mass and not only of small intellectual groups. (Gramsci 1971: 332-333). According to Gramsci, this
attempt to construct an alternative intellectual-moral bloc should take place under the auspices of the
Communist Party a body he described as the modern prince. Just as Niccolo Machiavelli hoped to see a
prince unite Italy, rid the country of foreign barbarians, and create a virtu-ous state, Gramsci believed that
the modern price could lead the working class on its journey toward its revolutionary destiny of an
emancipated society (Gramsci 1971: 125-205). Gramscis relative optimism about the possibility of
progressive theorists playing a constructive role in emancipatory political practice was predicated on his
belief in the existence of a universal class (a class whose emancipation would inevitably presage the
emancipation of humanity itself) with revolutionary potential. It was a gradual loss of faith in this axiom
that led Horkheimer and Adorno to their extremely pessimistic prognosis about the possibilities of
progressive social change. But does a loss of faith in the revolutionary vocation of the proletariat
necessarily lead to the kind of quietism ultimately embraced by the first generation of the Frankfurt
School? The conflict that erupted in the 1960s between them and their more radical students suggests not.
Indeed, contemporary critical theorists claim that the deprivileging of the role of the proletariat in the
struggle for emancipation is actually a positive move. Class remains a very important axis of domination in
society, but it is not the only such axis (Fraser 1995). Nor is it valid to reduce all other forms of domination
for example, in the case of gender to class relations, as orthodox Marxists tend to do. To recognize
these points is not only a first step toward the development of an analysis of forms of exploitation and
exclusion within society that is more attuned to social reality; it is also a realization that there are other
forms of emancipatory politics than those associated with class conflict.1 This in turn suggests new
possibilities and problems for emancipatory theory. Furthermore, the abandonment of faith in revolutionary
parties is also a positive development. The history of the European left during the twentieth century
provides myriad examples of the ways in which the fetishization of party organizations has led to
bureaucratic immobility and the confusion of means with ends (see, for example, Salvadori 1990). The
failure of the Bolshevik experiment illustrates how disciplined, vanguard parties are an ideal vehicle for
totalitarian domination (Serge 1984). Faith in the infallible party has obviously been the source of
strength and comfort to many in this period and, as the experience of the southern Wales coalfield
demonstrates, has inspired brave and progressive behavior (see, for example, the account of support for
the Spanish Republic in Francis 1984). But such parties have so often been the enemies of emancipation
that they should be treated with the utmost caution. Parties are necessary, but their fetishization is
History furnishes examples of progressive developments that have

been positively influenced by organic intellectuals operating outside the bounds of a
particular party structure (G. Williams 1984). Some of these developments have occurred
in the particularly intractable realm of security . These examples may be considered
as resources of hope for critical security studies (R. Williams 1989). They illustrate that
ideas are important or, more correctly, that change is the product of the dialectical
interaction of ideas and material reality. One clear security-related example of the role of
potentially disastrous.
critical thinking and critical thinkers in aiding and abetting progressive social change is the experience of
the peace movement of the 1980s. At that time the ideas of dissident defense
intellectuals (the alternative defense school) encouraged and drew strength from peace
activism. Together they had an effect not only on short-term policy but on the
dominant discourses of strategy and security, a far more important result in the long
run. The synergy between critical security intellectuals and critical social movements and the potential
influence of both working in tandem can be witnessed particularly clearly in the fate of
common security. As Thomas Risse-Kappen points out, the term common security originated in the
contribution of peace researchers to the German security debate of the 1970s (Risse-Kappen 1994: 186ff.);
it was subsequently popularized by the Palme Commission report (Independent Commission on
Initially, mainstream defense intellectuals dismissed

the concept as hopelessly idealistic; it certainly had no place in their allegedly hardheaded and
realist view of the world. However, notions of common security were taken up by a number
of different intellectuals communities, including the liberal arms control community in the United
Disarmament and Security Issues 1982).
States, Western European peace researchers, security specialists in the center-left political parties of
Western Europe, and Soviet institutchiks members of the influential policy institutes in the Soviet Union
such as the United States of America and Canada Institute (Landau 1996: 52-54; Risse-Kappen 1994: 196-
able to take advantage of

public pressure exerted through social movements in order to gain broader
acceptance for common security. In Germany, for example, in response to social movement
200; Kaldor 1995; Spencer 1995). These communities were subsequently
pressure, German social organizations such as churches and trade unions quickly supported the ideas
Similar pressures even had

an effect on the Reagan administration. As Risse-Kappen notes: When the Reagan administration
brought hard-liners into power, the US arms control community was removed from policy influence. It was
the American peace movement and what became known as the freeze campaign
that revived the arms control process together with pressure from the European allies. (Rissepromoted by peace researchers and the SPD (Risse-Kappen 1994: 207).
Kappen 1994: 205; also Cortright 1993: 90-110). Although it would be difficult to sustain a claim that the
combination of critical movements and intellectuals persuaded the Reagan government to adopt the
it did at least have a

substantial impact on ameliorating U.S. behavior. The most dramatic and certainly the
rhetoric and substance of common security in its entirety, it is clear that
most unexpected impact of alternative defense ideas was felt in the Soviet Union. Through various
East-West links, which included arms control institutions, Pugwash conferences, interparty contacts, and
a coterie of Soviet policy analysts and advisers were drawn

toward common security and such attendant notions as nonoffensive defense (these links are
even direct personal links,
detailed in Evangelista 1995; Kaldor 1995; Checkel 1993; Risse-Kappen 1994; Landau 1996 and Spencer
1995 concentrate on the role of the Pugwash conferences). This group, including Palme Commission
member Georgii Arbatov, Pugwash attendee Andrei Kokoshin , and Sergei Karaganov, a senior adviser who
was in regular contact with the Western peace researchers Anders Boserup and Lutz Unterseher (Risse-
then influenced Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachevs subsequent

championing of common security may be attributed to several factors. It is clear, for example, that new
Soviet leadership had a strong interest in alleviating tensions in East-West relations in
order to facilitate much-needed domestic reforms (the interaction of ideas and material
reality). But what is significant is that the Soviets commitment to common security led to
significant changes in force sizes and postures. These in turn aided in the winding
down of the Cold War, the end of Soviet domination over Eastern Europe, and even
the collapse of Russian control over much of the territory of the former Soviet Union .
Kappen 1994: 203),
At the present time, in marked contrast to the situation in the early 1980s, common security is part of the
common sense of security discourse. As MccGwire points out, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) (a common defense pact) is using the rhetoric of common security in order to justify its expansion
This points to an interesting and potentially important

aspect of the impact of ideas on politics. As concepts such as common security, and
collective security before it (Claude 1984: 223-260), are adopted by governments and military
services, they inevitably become somewhat debased. The hope is that enough of the
residual meaning can survive to shift the parameters of the debate in a potentially
progressive direction. Moreover, the adoption of the concept of common security by official circles
into Eastern Europe (MccGwire 1997).
provides critics with a useful tool for (immanently) critiquing aspects of security policy (as MccGwire 1997
demonsrates in relation to NATO expansion). The example of common security is highly instructive. First, it
critical intellectuals can be politically engaged and play a role a significant

in making the world a better and safer place. Second, it points to potential
future addressees for critical international theory in general, and critical security
studies in particular. Third, it also underlines the role of ideas in the evolution in
society. CRITICAL SECURITY STUDIES AND THE THEORY-PRACTICE NEXUS Although most proponents of
indicates that
one at that
critical security studies reject aspects of Gramscis theory of organic intellectuals, in particular his
exclusive concentration on class and his emphasis on the guiding role of the party, the desire for
engagement and relevance must remain at the heart of their project. The example of the peace movement
suggests that critical theorists can still play the role of organic intellectuals and that this organic
relationship need not confine itself to a single class; it can involve alignment with different coalitions of
social movements that campaign on an issue or a series of issues pertinent to the struggle for
Said captures this broader orientation

when he suggests that critical intellectuals are always tied to and ought to remain
an organic part of an ongoing experience in society: of the poor, the disadvantaged, the
emancipation (Shaw 1994b; R. Walker 1994). Edward
voiceless, the unrepresented, the powerless (Said 1994: 84). In the specific case of critical security
this means placing the experience of those men and women and communities
for whom the present world order is a cause of insecurity rather than security at the
center of the agenda and making suffering humanity rather than raison detat the
prism through which problems are viewed. Here the project stands full-square within the critical
theory tradition. If all theory is for someone and for some purpose, then critical
security studies is for the voiceless, the unrepresented, the powerless , and its
purpose is their emancipation. The theoretical implications of this orientation have already
been discussed in the previous chapters. They involve a fundamental reconceptualization of
security with a shift in referent object and a broadening of the range of issues
considered as a legitimate part of the discourse. They also involve a reconceptualization of strategy
within this expanded notion of security. But the question remains at the conceptual level of
how these alternative types of theorizing even if they are self-consciously aligned to the
studies,
practices of critical or new social movements, such as peace activism, the struggle for human rights, and
the survival of minority cultures can become a force for the direction of action. Again,
Gramscis work is insightful. In the Prison Notebooks, Gramsci advances a sophisticated analysis of how
dominant discourses play a vital role in upholding particular political and economic orders, or, in Gramscis
terminology, historic blocs (Gramsci 1971: 323-377). Gramsci adopted Machiavellis view of power as a
centaur, ahlf man, half beast: a mixture of consent and coercion. Consent is produced and reproduced by a
ruling hegemony that holds sway through civil society and takes on the status of common sense; it
becomes subconsciously accepted and even regarded as beyond question. Obviously, for Gramsci, there is
nothing immutable about the values that permeate society; they can and do change. In the social realm,
ideas and institutions that were once seen as natural and beyond question (i.e., commonsensical) in the
West, such as feudalism and slavery, are now seen as anachronistic, unjust, and unacceptable. In Marxs
well-worn phrase, All that is solid melts into the air. Gramscis intention is to harness this potential for
change and ensure that it moves in the direction of emancipation. To do this he suggests a strategy of a
war of position (Gramsci 1971: 229-239). Gramsci argues that in states with developed civil societies,
social change
requires a slow, incremental, even molecular, struggle to break down the prevailing
hegemony and construct an alternative counterhegemony to take its place. Organic
such as those in Western liberal democracies, any successful attempt at progressive
intellectuals have a crucial role to play in this process by helping to undermine the natural,
commonsense, internalized nature of the status quo. This in turn helps create political space within
which alternative conceptions of politics can be developed and new historic blocs created. I contend that
Gramscis strategy of a war of position suggests an appropriate model for proponents of critical security
studies to adopt in relating their theorizing to political practice. THE TASKS OF CRITICAL SECURITY STUDIES
If the project of critical security studies is conceived in terms of war of position, then
the main task of those intellectuals who align themselves with the enterprise is to
attempt to undermine the prevailing hegemonic security discourse. This may be
accomplished by utilizing specialist information and expertise to engage in an immanent
critique of the prevailing security regimes, that is, comparing the justifications of those
regimes with actual outcomes. When this is attempted in the security field, the
prevailing structures and regimes are found to fail grievously on their own terms.
Such an approach also involves challenging the pronouncements of those
intellectuals, traditional or organic, whose views serve to legitimate, and hence
reproduce, the prevailing world order. This challenge entails teasing out the often
subconscious and certainly unexamined assumptions that underlie their arguments
while drawing attention to the normative viewpoints that are smuggled into
mainstream thinking about security behind its positivist faade. In this sense,
proponents of critical security studies approximate to Foucaults notion of specific
intellectuals who use their expert knowledge to challenge the prevailing regime of
truth (Foucault 1980: 132). However, critical theorists might wish to reformulate this sentiment along
more familiar Quaker lines of speaking truth to power (this sentiment is also central to Said 1994) or
even along the eisteddfod lines of speaking truth against the world. Of course, traditional strategists can,
and indeed do, sometimes claim a similar role. Colin S. Gray, for example, states that strategists must be
prepared to speak truth to power (Gray 1982a: 193). But the difference between Gray and proponents of
critical security studies is that, whereas the former seeks to influence policymakers in particular directions
without questioning the basis of their power, the latter aim at a thoroughgoing critique of all that
critical theorists base their critique

on the presupposition, elegantly stated by Adorno, that the need to lend suffering a
voice is the precondition of all truth (cited in Jameson 1990: 66). The aim of critical security
traditional security studies has taken for granted. Furthermore,
studies in attempting to undermine the prevailing orthodoxy is ultimately educational. As Gramsci notes,
every relationship of hegemony is necessarily a pedagogic relationship (Gramsci 1971: 350; see also
by criticizing the hegemonic

discourse and advancing alternative conceptions of security based on different
understandings of human potentialities, the approach is simultaneously playing apart in
eroding the legitimacy of the ruling historic bloc and contributing to the development
of a counterhegemonic position. There are a number of avenues of avenues open to critical
security specialists in pursuing this educational strategy. As teachers, they can try to foster and
encourage skepticism toward accepted wisdom and open minds to other possibilities.
They can also take advantage of the seemingly unquenchable thirst of the media for
the discussion of critical pedagogy in Neufeld 1995: 116-121). Thus,
instant pundistry to forward alternative views onto a broader stage. Nancy Fraser
argues: As teachers, we try to foster an emergent pedagogical counterculture . As
critical public intellectuals we try to inject our perspectives into whatever cultural or
political public spheres we have access to (Fraser 1989: 11). Perhaps significantly, support for
this type of emancipatory strategy can even be found in the work of the ultrapessimistic Adorno, who
argues: In the history of civilization there have been not a few instances when
delusions were healed not by focused propaganda, but, in the final analysis, because
scholars, with their unobtrusive yet insistent work habits, studied what lay at the root
of the delusion. (cited in Kellner 1992: vii) Such unobtrusive yet insistent work does not in itself
create the social change to which Adorno alludes. The conceptual and the practical dangers of
collapsing practice into theory must be guarded against. Rather, through their
educational activities, proponent of critical security studies should aim to provide
support for those social movements that promote emancipatory social change . By
providing a critique of the prevailing order and legitimating alternative views, critical
theorists can perform a valuable role in supporting the struggles of social
movements. That said, the role of theorists is not to direct and instruct those movements with which
they are aligned; instead, the relationship is reciprocal. The experience of the European, North American,
and Antipodean peace movements of the 1980s shows how influential social movements can become
when their efforts are harnessed to the intellectual and educational activity of critical thinkers. For
Pugh cites the

importance of the visits of critical intellectuals such as Helen Caldicott and Richard Falk
in changing the countrys political climate and encouraging the growth of the
antinuclear movement (Pugh 1989: 108; see also Cortright 1993: 5-13). In the 1980s peace
example, in his account of New Zealands antinuclear stance in the 1980s, Michael C.
movements and critical intellectuals interested in issues of security and strategy drew strength and succor
from each others efforts. If such critical social movements do not exist, then this creates obvious
difficulties for the critical theorist. But even under these circumstances, the theorist need not abandon all
hope of an eventual orientation toward practice. Once again, the peace movement of the 1980s provides
evidence of the possibilities. At that time, the movement benefited from the intellectual work undertaken
in the lean years of the peace movement in the late 1970s. Some of the theories and concepts developed
then, such as common security and nonoffensive defense, were eventually taken up even in the Kremlin
and played a significant role in defusing the second Cold War. Those ideas developed in the 1970s can be
seen in Adornian terms of the a message in a bottle, but in this case, contra Adornos expectations, they
were picked up and used to support a program of emancipatory political practice. Obviously, one would be
nave to understate the difficulties facing those attempting to develop alternative critical approaches
within academia. Some of these problems have been alluded to already and involve the structural
constraints of academic life itself. Said argues that many problems are caused by what he describes as the
Academics are now so

constrained by the requirements of job security and marketability that they are
extremely risk-averse. It pays in all senses to stick with the crowd and avoid the
exposed limb by following the prevalent disciplinary preoccupations , publish in certain
prescribed journals, and so on. The result is the navel gazing so prevalent in the study of
international relations and the seeming inability of security specialists to deal with
the changes brought about by the end of the Cold War (Kristensen 1997 highlights the
search of U.S. nuclear planners for new targets for old weapons ). And, of course, the
pressures for conformism are heightened in the field of security studies when
governments have a very real interest in marginalizing dissent . Nevertheless,
opportunities for critical thinking do exist, and this thinking can connect with the
practices of social movements and become a force for the direction of action . The
growing mmphasizedmngmation of academic life (Said 1994: 49-62).
experience of the 1980s, when, in the depths of the second Cold War, critical thinkers risked demonization
and in some countries far worse in order to challenge received wisdom, thus arguably playing a crucial role
in the very survival of the human race, should act as both an inspiration and a challenge to critical security
studies.
Centering our praxis in this space is key ---interrogating

Islamophobia in educational settings is critical to
establishing a critical consciousness that enables larger
political projects
15, Issue 1]
The
the awakening for bigger political projects against injustices in our society. In
attitudes. Education settings can be the first arena in which battles can be
fought against Islamophobia. It is to education that our attention should be
directed. (162)
Deconstructing and interrogating flawed assumptions

behind Islamophobia creates a transformative and
liberatory pedagogy that enables agency and challenges
racist dynamics
As an anti-racism scholar and educator, fellow colleagues and I realized from as early as

or even naming issues of racism and Islamophobia . In fact, the discursive






greater social justice in both schools and society. Another key goal of antiinstitutionalized racism.
Islamophobia education involves the need to demystify stereotypes . Since 9/11,


Centering our praxis in this space is key ---interrogating

Islamophobia in educational settings is critical to
establishing a critical consciousness that enables larger
political projects
15, Issue 1]
The
the awakening for bigger political projects against injustices in our society . In
attitudes. Education settings can be the first arena in which battles can be
fought against Islamophobia. It is to education that our attention should be
directed. (162)
Deconstructing and interrogating flawed assumptions

behind Islamophobia creates a transformative and
liberatory pedagogy that enables agency and challenges
racist dynamics
As an anti-racism scholar and educator , fellow colleagues and I realized from as early as








greater social justice in both schools and society. Another key goal of antiIslamophobia education involves the need to demystify stereotypes . Since 9/11,
institutionalized racism.

Individual epistemological interrogation is keyinternalized racist stereotypes and implicit biases require
active challenging
Feingold and Lorang 2012 [Jonathon (J.D. graduate of UCLA School of Law) and Karen
(J.D. graduate of UCLA School of Law), Defusing Implicit Bias, UCLA Law Review Discourse 2012,
LexisNexis, AX]
accusations of racial profiling often require or rely on

evidence of conscious intent. Though presumptively unconstitutional, racial [*220] profiling is
Like allegations of racism,
often justified on policy grounds as a rational form of racial discrimination. Racial profiling is rational in the
sense that it relies on perceived statistical correlations between a particular racial group and a
For instance, when New York officials conduct covert

surveillance on Muslim communities, the decision is based on a conscious
belief that the targeted individuals are more likely to engage in terrorism than
the general population. Understood in this way, a successful claim of racial profiling requires proof
of a conscious decision to discriminate against the targeted group because of their race. These
examples of racism defenses and racism allegations illustrate the central role
that evidence of conscious intent plays in our public dialogue. Even within the
disparate treatment theory of racial discrimination, however, such an approach fails to
take into account recent findings from the fields of psychology and
social cognition that complicate the way we may think about racially
motivated acts. These findings reveal that implicit biases, often undetectable
through introspection [*221] and self-reporting, cause us to treat others differently
because of their race. To gain a more accurate sense of the role played by implicit biases, we
begin by disaggregating the concepts of explicit and implicit biases. Both explicit and implicit
biases are the result of social cognitions. n73 Cognitions are thoughts or
feelings, and "[a] social cognition is a thought or feeling about a person or a
corresponding trait or behavior.
social group, such as a racial group." n74 Explicit biases are thoughts or
feelings that we are aware of and are able to identify through introspection. n75 We
commonly, though not always, "agree with and endorse our explicit [biases]." n76 Racism
allegations, and the corresponding racism defenses, often reflect our familiarity with explicit biases.
Racism defenses regularly rely on the type of evidence offered by Zimmerman's father, while those
alleging racism correspondingly search for the smoking-gun quote or document that will reveal racist
intent. n77 The national focus on Zimmerman's possible use of the pejorative term "coon" provides one
Implicit bias research shows

that traditional understandings of conscious intent fail to tell the
whole story. Implicit biases "pop[] into mind quickly and automatically
without conscious volition." n79 Unlike explicit biases, implicit biases are difficult to
identify because of introspective limitations and our own self-monitoring. n80 In
fact, we are usually unaware of, or mistaken about, the sources of our implicit biases and
the influence they have on our judgment and behavior. n81 Implicit biases
may actually include "thought[s] or feeling[s] that we would reject
as inaccurate or inappropriate upon self-reflection." n82 This disassociation
between implicit and explicit biases means that we may honestly believe we hold positive
[*222] attitudes about a particular racial group, yet we simultaneously hold
negative attitudes toward that same group at an implicit level . n83 This explains
such example of evidence common to a racism allegation. n78
why being Hispanic, growing up in a multiracial household, having Black friends, and honestly professing
antiracist ideals does not preclude the possibility that an individual might hold implicit negative attitudes
about Blacks. To circumvent challenges posed by our inability to access implicit biases, psy-chological tests
have been designed to measure our unconscious cognitions. These tests have relied on various linguistic
cues, physiological responses, microfacial movements, neurological activity, and "reaction times when
completing various tasks." n84 Perhaps the most well-known test is the Implicit Association Test (IAT),
which measures reaction times for sorting stimuli into categories. n85 The IAT consistently reveals "implicit
attitudes in favor of one social group over another." n86 For many Americans, implicit biases manifest "in
the form of negative beliefs (stereotypes) and attitudes (prejudice) against racial minorities." n87 Because
many people hold implicit biases, the real question becomes whether these biases influence or predict
behavior. Jerry Kang summarizes the prevailing wisdom on this point: There is now persuasive evidence
implicit bias against a social category, as measured by instruments such as the IAT,
predicts disparate behavior toward individuals mapped to that category. This
occurs notwithstanding contrary explicit commitments in favor of racial equality. In
other words, even if our sincere self-reports of bias score zero, we would
still engage in disparate treatment of individuals on the basis of
race, consistent with our racial schemas. Controlled, deliberative,
rational processes are not the only forces guiding our behavior. That we
that
are not even aware of, much less intending, such race-contingent behavior does not magically erase the
harm. n88 [*223] In fact, studies have shown that "[a]utomatic associations influence behavior by both
professionals and laypeople in employment, medical, voting, law enforcement, and countless other
most troubling, and especially relevant to Trayvon's death, evidence suggests

that police officers and private citizens unconsciously rely on race when
making decisions about whether or not to shoot. n90 Part III proceeds by detailing the potentially
contexts." n89 Perhaps
deadly combination of implicit bias and guns.
Informants Good
Over 60 percent of ISIS related arrests involve informants.
Key to the war on terror.
The Wall Street Journal In U.S. ISIS Cases, Informants Play a Big
Role April 21, 2015 http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-u-s-isis-casesinformants-play-a-big-role-1429636206
Officials say the use of informants is invaluable and say there are strict
guidelines to ensure they dont plant the idea for a crime in a suspects
head. Agents and prosecutors are well-trained and are wholly mindful of the
law with respect to the entrapment issue, said Paul Bresson, an FBI
spokesman. About 60% of the cases against Americans on ISIS-related
charges have involved informants, versus under 30% in terrorism indictments
overall since 9/11, according to an analysis by the Center on National
Security at Fordham Universitys School of Law. The FBI said it couldnt verify
those numbers. The informants arent always inserted from outside. In
criminal charges filed against six Minnesota men on Monday, federal agents
relied on an informant who had allegedly conspired and tried to travel to
Syria with some of the men. The six men havent entered pleas. Last month,
the 9/11 Review Commission, which studied five high-profile terrorist attacks
since 2001, concluded that informants didnt help prevent or respond to any
of them. Others say informants help stop violent terror plots before they get
too far. Using confidential informants is just a tried and true proven effective
method todisrupt threats, said Robert McFadden, a former
counterterrorism agent and a senior vice president at Soufan Group, a
security intelligence consultancy.
The threat of home grown terror is high and growing.

Must use every means necessary, including informants
David Inserra ( Research Associate for Homeland Security and Cyber
Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National
Security Policy, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National
Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation) and Charles D.
Stimson (Manager of the National Security Law Program and Senior Legal
Fellow in the Davis Institute at The Heritage Foundation. He served as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs) Three Terrorist Plots
Disrupted in Three Weeks: 66th Islamist Plot Reconfirms Scope of Threat
April 16,2015 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/04/threeterrorist-plots-disrupted-in-three-weeks-66th-islamist-plot-reconfirms-scopeof-threat
On Friday, April 10, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Topeka, Kansas,
arrested John T. Booker Jr., as he prepared a car bomb for use against the
nearby Fort Riley Army post. Booker, a 20-year-old U.S. citizen who goes by
the name Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, expressed a desire to support the
Islamic State by engaging in violent jihad here in the U.S.[1] Through the
use of confidential informants, the FBI tracked Bookers statements,
plans, and actions, and arrested him before the public was in
danger. This homegrown, lone-wolf terrorist plot is the 66th known Islamist
terrorist plot or attack aimed at the U.S. homeland since 9/11. It is also the
third terrorist plot that has been foiled in the past 17 days, and the fourth in
the past four months in which the plotter expressed support for ISIS. This
surge in terrorism demonstrates yet again that the threat of terrorism
continues to be very real, and that stopping terrorists before they attack is
more critical than ever. The Plot John Booker was accepted into the Army in
February 2014, but before he entered basic training the FBI became aware of
multiple messages on Facebook in which he claimed to be excited to wage
jihad. When interviewed, Booker admitted that he enlisted in the United
States Army with the intent to commit an insider attack against American
soldiers like Major Nidal Hassan had done at Fort Hood, Texas.[2] As a result,
Booker was not allowed to join the military. Starting in October of 2014,
Booker began to communicate with an FBI confidential informant, and
repeatedly expressed to [the informant] his desire to engage in violent jihad
on behalf of ISIL.[3] Booker told the informant of his desire to go to the
Middle East to join ISIS and kill Americans. As their conversations continued
into November, Booker showed the informant videos of suicide bombers and
spoke fondly of them. When the informant indicated that he had a cousin who
could get Booker overseas, Booker excitedly accepted the offer and
expressed a willingness to wage jihad in the U.S. to prove his dedication.[4]
In December 2014, Booker told the informant that he was thinking about
attacking American soldiers at a nearby military base with a gun or a
grenade, believing it justified by the Koran. Then in February, Booker
referenced an ISIS propaganda video and expressed a desire to create a
similar video. Booker thought that capturing and killing an American soldier in
the U.S. would scare this country and warn it that we will be coming after
American soldiers in the streetswe will be picking them off one by one.[5]
In March, the confidential informant introduced Booker to his cousin,
another informant; the two told Booker that the cousin was a sheik planning
terrorist attacks. Booker said that he had studied suicide bombing and
wanted to build and detonate a truck bomb, following in the footsteps of an
American called Jihad Joe, who died as a suicide bomber in Syria.[6] Booker
then filmed a video threatening the U.S. and rented a storage unit for
gathering bomb components.[7] By the end of March, Booker began
purchasing bomb materials and gathering information on military targets,
settling on Fort Riley. Booker provided the bomb components to the
confidential informants, believing that they would provide the explosive
material, which was actually inert. He then proclaimed that I am going to do
this Friday, meaning April 10, and prepared a second threatening video. On
April 10, the two informants drove to Fort Riley and, as Booker was arming
the inert bomb, FBI agents arrested him.
Public Supports use of informants

Jeffrey M. Jones (Quotes Gallop Poles) Americans Still Say Liberties Should
Trump Anti-Terrorism June 10, 2015
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183548/americans-say-liberties-trump-antiterrorism.aspx
Some congressional critics of government anti-terrorism methods, most

notably Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, argue that the government has too many
powers in this area that violate citizens' rights. The majority of Americans,
55%, disagree, saying they do not believe such government programs
violate their civil liberties. But that leaves a sizable minority of 41% who
do feel the government is violating their civil liberties. Gallup asked this
question for the first time in the June 2-7 poll, so it is not possible to know
whether these views differ from those in the past. Although members of key
subgroups vary in the extent to which they believe government efforts to
prevent terrorism violate their civil liberties, all groups fall below the majority
level. Men are closest at 49%, and are much more likely than women (33%)
to believe government anti-terrorism programs violate their civil liberties.
There are no differences by political party, although political liberals are more
likely than conservatives to say these programs infringe on their liberties.
Across age groups, senior citizens are less likely than younger Americans to
believe the programs violate their civil liberties.
Informants are key to stopping terror plots. Authorities

have nothing more than educated guess work without
them
Sean Alfano JFK Terror Plot Informant Crucial To Case June 4, 2007
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jfk-terror-plot-informant-crucial-to-case/
The informant who helped break up the plot to bomb the jet fuel pipeline that
supplies John F. Kennedy Airport was so convincing that the suspects gave
him unfettered access to their operation, federal authorities said. He made
several overseas trips to discuss the plot, even visiting a radical Muslim
group's compound in Trinidad. Perhaps more important, the suspects were
convinced he was guided by a higher purpose: The ringleader believed the
informant "had been sent by Allah to be the one" to pull off the bombing,
according to a federal complaint. The case demonstrated the growing
importance of informants in the war on terrorism, particularly as
smaller radical groups become more aggressive. On Monday, the
longtime leader of the Trinidadian Muslim group denied it had any connection
to the plot. "I know nothing about these men and I have nothing to do with
whatever they are being charged for," Yasin Abu Bakr, the leader of Jamaat al
Muslimeen, told The Associated Press. Bakr declined to say whether he knew
any of the suspects. U.S. authorities said the alleged plotters traveled to
Trinidad to secure support from Jamaat al Muslimeen. The accused
mastermind, Russell Defreitas, 63, is now in custody in New York, where he
will have a bail hearing on Wednesday. But two other suspects, Kareem
Ibrahim and Abdul Kadir, a former member of Guyana's Parliament, will fight
extradition to the United States, their lawyer, Rajid Persad, told a Trinidadian
court on Monday. The two made their initial court appearance there on one
count each of conspiracy to commit a terrorist act against the government of
the United States. The judge set a bail hearing for next Monday and an
extradition hearing on Aug. 2. Authorities in Trinidad are still seeking a fourth
suspect, Abdel Nur. While the intent to inflict major damage was apparent,
CBS News terrorism consultant Paul Kurtz said the men were "a long way off
from actually being able to carry out the plot." Tom Corrigan, a former
member of the FBI-New York Police Department Joint Terrorism Task Force,
said the Kennedy Airport case and the recent plot to attack Fort Dix
illustrated the need for inside information. Six men were arrested in a plot to
attack soldiers at the New Jersey military base after an FBI informant
infiltrated that group. "These have been two significant cases back-to-back
where informants were used," Corrigan said. "These terrorists are in our own
backyard. They may have to reach out to people they don't necessarily trust,
but they need for guns, explosives, whatever." Without informants,
Corrigan said, investigators are often left with little more than
educated guesswork. "In most cases, you can't get from A to B without an
informant," said the ex-NYPD detective. "Most times when an informant tells
you what is going on, speculation becomes reality. What an investigator
thought or presumed is happening is (often) really happening."
Muslim informants have stopped no less than 23 terror

plots in the last 15 years
Aziz Poonawalla (member of the Dawoodi Bohra Muslim community who
participates in FBI informant programs) Muslim informants prevent domestic
terror: the data 2012
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/cityofbrass/2012/02/muslim-informantsprevent-domestic-terror-the-data.html
Ever since 9-11, accusations against muslim Americans have been made that
we do not condemn terrorism. In fact, we have been doing better than
condemning it we have been actively preventing it, in cooperation with the
FBI and local law enforcement agencies. We are the first line of defense. Here
is the proof: a list of domestic terror plots from October 2001 to January 2012
where muslim informants helped prevent the attack and helped prosecute
the perpetrators:
October 2001: The conviction of Portland 7 case was substantially helped after a local police officer encountered the suspects engaged in target practice. The
police officer was sent to the area after a local citizen notified police he heard gunfire. September 2002: Members of the Lackawanna 6 are arrested. FBI first becomes aware of their activities in June 2001 when a
local Muslim community member tips off the FBI. April 2003: A citizen notifies local police after he mistakenly receives a suspicious package sent by anti-government terrorist William Krar. The tip-off starts a
Federal investigation eventually leads to Krars arrest and the discovery of small arms and chemical weaponry. June 2003: FBI receives two tips from community members notifying them military-style training
being conducted suspect by Ali Al-Tamimi. The tips start an investigation leading to the arrest of the Paintball 11 in Northern Virginia. August 2004: James Elshafay and Shahwar Matin Siraj are arrested largely
based on the controversial use of an informant in the investigation. However NYPD were first notified of Siraj after a Muslim community member anonymously notifies New York police about consistently troubling
rhetoric coming from the suspect. February 2006: Muslim community members in Ohio provide information help into arrest and eventually convict 3 suspects planning attacks in Iraq. August 2006: British
authorities arrest a group of British Muslim violent extremists suspected of plotting to blow up several airplanes over the Atlantic. Authorities first become aware of the plot based on a tip from a Muslim community
member. November 2006: Neo-Nazi terrorist Demetrius Van Crocker is arrested after an investigation is set in motion by a tip-off from a concerned citizen. November 2006: Adnan Babar Mirza, a Pakistani
national studying in Houston, TX and is arrested for illegal firearms training and possession. Adnan come to the attention of the FBI when local Houston community members tip them off about Adnans activities and
alleged intentions. October 2008: Neo-Nazis Daniel Cowart and Paul Schesselman are arrested by local police, who received a tip from a concerned friend of the two suspects, before seeking to go on a shooting
spree against African-Americans. July 2009: Mosque leaders in Raleigh, North Carolina contact law enforcement to notify them of violent, threatening action considered to be dangerous leading to the arrest of
Daniel Boyd and 6 other individuals. September 2009: Queens Imam Ahmad Afazali, a community liaison to the NYPD, helps local police and the FBI in the investigation and arrest of suspect Najibullah Zazi. Though
Zazi is initially accused of tipping off Zazi to police surveillance, information in the court complaint and corroborating reporting from mainstream media sources found this notion to be false. (Afzali was, however,
deported on charges of lying to FBI agents, but subsequent media reporting also strengthens Afzalis claims that he was scapegoat for getting caught up in a turf battle between NYPD and FBI officials.) November
2009: Five Virginia Muslim youth are arrested in Pakistan, allegedly seeking to join a terrorist group, after family members told American federal authorities they went missing. March 2010: Michigan Militia member
and Muslim convert Matt Savino refuses aid to a fugitive member of the Hutaree Militia and instead helps law enforcement authorities track him down. April 2010: Senegalese Muslim Alioune Niass first spots the
suspicious vehicle used as a bomb to attack Times Square in New York City. Clues from the vehicle and defused explosive immediately led to the suspect, Faisal Shahzads, arrest. June 2010: Suspects Mohammed
Mahmoud Alessa and Carlos Eduardo Almonte are arrested, after the FBI first receives an anonymous report in 2006 from one of the suspects family members. News reports indicate one of Alessas family members
provided the tip. October 2010: Former Hawaii resident Abdel Hamid Shehadeh is arrested for attempting to join the Taliban. Local media noted that the Muslim Association of Hawaii assisted law enforcement
agencies in the case and that it has in the past reported suspicious activities. October 2010: Farooque Ahmed is arrested on charges of allegedly attempting to bomb the Washington, DC metro railway system.
The FBI first learns of Ahmeds intentions from a community tip-off. October 2010: An attempt by Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to bomb Western targets using air cargo transportation is prevented by US and
European authorities. Intelligence that prevented the plot came from ex-militant Jabr al-Faifi, who voluntarily handed himself into Saudi authorities. November 2010: Mohamed Osman Mohamud is arrested for
attempting to bomb a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. The New York Times notes, In the Oregon [Mohamud] case, the FBI received a tip from a Portland Muslim. December 2010: Antonio
Martinez is arrested for attempting to bomb a military recruiting center in Maryland. Statements from Justice Department officials indicate a Muslim community member reported Martinez to the FBI during its
ongoing investigation. June 2011: Two Al-Qaeda inspired violent criminals planning to attack a military installation in Seattle are arrested by law enforcement. FBI officials first become aware of the planned attack
after a fellow Muslim who was trying to be recruited into the conspiracy went to Seattle Police and informed them of the plot. January 2012: Violent Al-Qaeda sympathizer Sami Osmakac is arrested for planning to
attack several sites in Tampa, Florida using guns and explosives. The U.S. Attorney for Central Florida noted, This investigation was also predicated, in part, by assistance from the Muslim community. This data
Muslim communities helped U.S.

security officials to prevent nearly 2 out of every 5 Al-Qaeda plots
threatening the United States since 9/11. Muslim communities helped
law enforcement prevent 1 out of every 2 of all Al-Qaeda related plots
threatening the U.S. since the December 2009 underwear bomber plot. This
is an important parallel trend to the recent spike of arrests. It also highlights
the importance of partnering with society through good relations and
community oriented policing
was compiled by MPAC in a detailed and exhaustive report (PDF link) in the executive summary, they note:
Informants Bad (dont to use in

our AFF!)
Informants Not key

Informants damage Intelligence Efforts
Stabile 2014
Available at:
Many argue that tactics like recruiting informants through immigration law and
surveilling mosques are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, and that national
security must be the nations top priority, whatever the cost. These arguments fail to
recognize that when informants lack a specific target and direction, the
gathered intelligence does not necessarily enhance the nations

security. Instead, the FBIwith little concern for the actual gravity of the original
threat posed by the suspectcreates an elaborate terrorism plot for the
surveillance targets to participate in.100 After 9/11, many individuals who
showed no signs of violence or extremism prior to involvement with
informants and government-created plots have been prosecuted under
terrorism charges.101 Until the informants provided the means, these
individuals did not have the finances or the proper connections to
conceive and carry out these terrorism plans. Although orchestrating these
plots makes the FBIs preventative stance appear successful in the public eye, it
diverts law enforcement resources from focusing on real targets. Moreover,
Professor David A. Harris claims that the unregulated use of informants in mosques
and other religious and cultural settings can also do great damage because it
poses the risk of cutting off our best possible source of intelligence: the
voluntary, cooperative relationships that have developed between law
enforcement and Muslim communities.102 Having community members report
suspicious information to the FBI may be a more effective way of obtaining reliable
terrorism intelligence from these communities.103 For example, in the few domestic
terrorist prosecutions where a terrorist attack plan actually existed prior to informant
involvement, community members who had noticed something amiss were the first
to alert the FBI and identify the subjects.104 In fact, since 9/11, community
members have assisted law enforcement in stopping potential

terrorism plots in a number of cases.105 A recent example, the case of Umar
Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber, shows that the attempted bombing
could have been prevented had law enforcement heeded the warnings that
Abdulmutallabs father gave the CIA at the U.S. embassy in Nigeria.106 As the
president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and former criminal prosecutor,
David Chiu testified regarding the Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian
communities in San Francisco: [W]ithout that level of cooperation, that level of trust,
everything falls apart....[S]urveillance only serves to continue to drive wedges
when cooperation is what is needed most.107 Analogous to the way

informants in mosques target vulnerable individuals despite these individuals lack of
connection to terrorist organizations or predilection for extremism, a 2011 study by
the Migration Policy Institute demonstrates a similar phenomenon within other
communities.108 The 287(g) initiative, named after the section of the Immigration
and Nationality Act that authorized it, allows ICE to enter into memorandums of
agreement with state and local law enforcement agencies, empowering these
agencies to directly enforce immigration laws.109 However, the study found that half
of the jurisdictions using 287(g) did not direct their enforcement efforts toward
serious or violent offenders,110 as the 287(g) initiative had originally envisioned.111
Instead, these jurisdictions sought to deport as many offenders as possible regardless
of the severity of the crime.112 Study respondents believe that 287(g) program
activities affect the community in distinct and adverse ways, including by causing
declines in Latino immigrant populations, [creating] avoid[ance of] public places by
these populations, chang[ing] [] driving behavior, [creating] fear and mistrust of the
police and other authorities, and reduc[ing] crime reporting.113 These behaviors
were more acute in jurisdictions with nontargeted enforcementwhere any offense
could constitute grounds for deportation.114 Just as Latino immigrant communities
became distrustful of law enforcement and withdrew from crime reporting when
threatened with deportation, so did Muslim and Middle Eastern communities when
threatened with FBI surveillance of communal spaces. As the study notes, these
operations can generate widespread distrust of police. Such distrust in turn
prompts immigrants to change their behavior to avoid contact with police and other
authorities.115 In order to procure accurate intelligence from any community, a
relationship of trust and respect between law enforcement and the

community must exist.116 However, from the mass arrest and detention of
Muslims shortly after 9/11 to the ongoing allegations of ethnic and religious profiling
today,118 the federal government has made serious errors in dealing with
Muslim and Middle Eastern communities since 9/11 . While the government
recognizes that community policing119 is the best way to obtain reliable
intelligence,120 the FBI is caught between two contradictory strategies and must
choose between sending informants into mosques without reasonable suspicion, and
gaining the trust and cooperation of Muslim and Middle Eastern communities. As one
congregant in a surveilled mosque observed, The FBI wants to treat the Muslim
community as a partner while investigating us behind our backs . . . . They

cant have it both ways.121 While it is unrealistic to think that the FBI will stop
using informants in these communities, a more restrained use of informants based on
reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing would mitigate perceived damages to
community relations. Requiring the FBI to have preexisting reasonable
suspicion would add credibility to the agency and alleviate some of the fear
surrounding terrorism investigations involving informants . By virtue of their
connections and daily interactions, those active in a particular community are in the
best position to notice when others in the community act strangely. Unlike informants
who may be new to the community and who other members may view with
suspicion, well-established community members may already know what is going on
in their community and can more accurately spot genuine threats. Notably, the
argument that Muslims and Middle Easterners are in the best position to provide
accurate intelligence on terrorist activities within their respective communities risks
fueling the governments conflation of those communities with terrorism.122
However, in analyzing how best to procure counterterrorism intelligence, it would be
amiss not to recognize the FBIs and other law enforcement agencies heavy focus on
Muslim and Middle Eastern communities. This is largely due to most recognized
foreign terrorist organizations being based out of the Middle East or having
Islamic ties.123 Law enforcement efforts, immigration law, surveillance policies, and
pre-9/11 incidents like the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center have categorized
the typical terrorist as male, Middle Eastern, and devoutly Muslim.124 The reality is
that even though recently immigrated Muslims and Middle Easterners have become
synonymous with terrorism, terrorists come from various ethnicities, religions, and
communities.125 While acknowledging and attempting not to replicate that
stereotype, this Comment seeks to recommend ways to improve the relationship
between law enforcement and potential terrorism informants who typically belong to
the same religion or ethnicity as those they surveil. The governments focus on
Muslim and Middle Eastern communities as potential breeding grounds for terrorist
groups also directs the focus of this Comment. However, this Comment resists the
broad characterization of these communities as prone to extremism and violence. In
fact, a recent statistical analysis of terrorism activity after 9/11 discredits the
stereotype that Muslims and Middle Easterners account for most of the terrorism
within the United States.126 In total, the report found that U.S.-originated
non-Muslims accounted for 107 post-9/11 plots while U.S.-originated

Muslims accounted for 49.127 Conversely, the report found that cooperation
with Muslim communities helped prevent 40 percent of all Al-Qaeda plots after
9/11.128 As the report notes, [a] singular focus on Muslim terrorists is both bad for
national security and civil society . . . . [N]umerous studies and experts have stated
that there is no reliable terrorist profile.129 When compared to the actual threat
posed by members of Muslim and Middle Eastern communities, then, the FBIs
explicit target of Muslim and Middle Eastern communities is excessive.
Informants in Muslim communities have been ineffective

at counter terrorism
Privacy Journal, 2013
Evidence of Intrusive Spying on Muslims in U.S., Anonymous. Privacy
Journal39.4 (Feb 2013): 1,4-7. Proquest, /Bingham-MB
Shocking assertions of police surveillance in the anti-terrorism age against

law-abiding citizens, most of them Muslims, came from two different sources
this month. Both sources said that the spying was expensive, excessive,
invasive, unconstitutional, and ultimately ineffective in identifying
terrorism suspects. Lawyers representing the New York Civil Liberties Union
filed papers in federal court in Manhattan Feb. 4 seeking to stop the N.Y.
Police Department from creating dossiers on innocent Muslim New Yorkers
and to end the police department's ability to initiate investigations into
Muslims when there is no belief that they have engaged or are about to
engage in unlawful activity or an act of terrorism. The lawyers said that this
violates a 1985 court order and consent decree in a previous lawsuit,
Handschu v. Special Services Division, S.D.N.Y., Index No. 71 Civ. 2203 (CSH),
which requires the police to meet certain standards before spying on law-
abiding citizens and organizations engaged in political activism. Documents

in the case say that police are monitoring Muslims in public places including
restaurants, bookstores and mosques in the absence of any evidence of
unlawful or terror related activities. According to statements by
complainants, the police collect information on where Muslims live, shop,
work and pray by infiltrating student groups, placing informers in mosques,
photographing activities, noting license-plate numbers and cell-phone
numbers, monitoring prayer groups and cataloging every Muslim who uses an
Americanized name. The NYPD's actions were so "flagrant and persistent,"
the attorneys said, that a new court appointed auditor should supervise their
activities. The complaint focuses on a specific spy department in the NYPD,
built with the help of the CIA (and possibly with the cooperation of Israeli
security), previously called the Demographics Unit and later renamed the
Zone Assessment Unit. Secondly, a book published this month asserts, "Since
9/1 1 the FBI has built the largest network of spies ever to exist in the United
States - with ten times as many informants on the streets today as there
were during the infamous Cointelpro operations under FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover - with the majority of these spies focused on ferreting out terrorism in
Muslim communities. . . . Agents provocateurs were behind most of the scary
terrorist plots you've heard about since 9/11." The author of the expose, The
Terror Factory, is Trevor Aaronson, a highly recognized investigative journalist
who has amassed information about the FBI's activities and expenditures
over the past ten years (Author's Site). He writes that he discovered "how the
government has exaggerated the threat of Islamic terrorism in the U.S."
"Every year the government allocates $3 billion to the FBI to prevent the next
9/11, more money than the bureau receives to combat organized crime." But,
his ten-year analysis shows, "Islamic terrorism in the U.S. is not an immediate
and dangerous threat. The FBI's thousands of informants and billions of
dollars have not resulted in the capture of dozens of killers ready and able to
bomb a crowded building or gun down people in a suburban shopping mall.
Instead, the FBI's trawling in Muslim communities has resulted largely in sting
operations that target easily susceptible men on the margins. . . . While we
have captured a few terrorists since 9/11, we have manufactured
many more" (The Terror Factory, Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on
Terrorism, 272 pages, $24.95 from IG Publishing, 718/797-0676,
http://igpub.com/).
Informants fail for counter terror investigations

Said, 2010
2015. /Bingham-MB
A close reading of post-9/11 terrorism prosecutions demonstrates two

distinct, yet interrelated, trends. First, the conduct of informants in general
raises the issue of entrapment in a direct and pointed manner. Whether a
defendant intended to commit a crime or an informant actually entrapped a
defendant is a legitimate query that may be difficult to answer. Second,
regardless of whether an informant's conduct legally constitutes entrapment,
several of the post-9/11 cases highlight situations in which the existence of
any real threat to national security was questionable. Where the very
existence of a threat is doubtful, it is appropriate to question the efficacy and
feasibility of how informants purport to investigate suspected terrorists when
their ability to discern true criminality seems subordinated to other, less
altruistic concerns. While the academic literature surrounding the use of
informants in terrorism prosecutions is relatively undeveloped, any study of
the relevant cases must take into account the unique context in which those
cases arise. The use of confidential informants in criminal cases is nothing
new. (3) Currently, informants are used most frequently to prosecute drug
trafficking and dealing in cases that share many characteristics with terrorism
investigations. In the realm of drug trafficking and dealing, confidential
informants often have incentives to lie because they are paid or compensated
in the form of reduced sentences, and verifying the information they provide
can prove difficult at best. (4) Legal scholars have focused on the prevalent
use of informants in drug investigations, producing a sophisticated and
detailed critique of the deleterious effects of informant use on disadvantaged
youth of color and the communities in which they live. (5)
Informants cause bad counter terror cases

Said, 2010
2015. /Bingham-MB
A reflection on terrorism prosecutions post-9/11 reveals that simply because

the government invests tremendous resources in counterterrorism, law
enforcement does not mean terrorism is always-or even often--occurring or
being planned. While there is much we do not know about the roles
informants play in most national security operations, a review of several
major terrorism prosecutions paints a troubling picture of the
informants' performance. (12) Using informants to create cases is a poor
substitute for traditional investigatory techniques and can implicate a
defendant's religious and political beliefs in a manner that suggests that
whole communities are suspect. In evaluating the efficacy of terrorism
prosecutions, an analysis of informants' roles in several high-profile cases
reflects current fears and prejudices as to what characteristics constitute a
terrorist. When the archetypical terrorist assumes a certain race and religion
in the popular imagination, deciding whether an informant has entrapped
that individual becomes a fraught exercise demanding a close look at those
preconceived notions and their effect on the legal analysis in a given case.
The FBI highly relies highly on untrustworthy people with

a criminal history
Humans Rights Watch, Illusion of Justice, Humans rights Institute,
Columbia Law school, July 2014
In the cases we reviewed, the FBI frequently used informants with criminal
records who were known to be unreliable witnesses who engaged in highly
questionable tactics. The most notable example is Shahed Hussain, informant
in the Newburgh Four and Yassin Aref cases, who admitted at one trial that by
the time he was recruited by the FBI he had committed no fewer than 50
frauds.215 In the case of the Newburgh Four, as noted above, Hussain offered
James Cromitie $250,000 to carry out a plot, apparently without authorization
of his FBI handlers.216 The trial judge concluded that Hussain committed
perjury at the trial, though the appeals court concluded that Hussains perjury
did not affect the verdicts because his testimony was immaterial. 217 Hussain
also admitted on cross-examination at the Newburgh trial that he had lied to
his FBI handler about a conversation with a defendant on at least one
occasion.218 Yet the FBI continued to use him as an informant, including for a
third sting operation in Pittsburgh.219 Other informants with criminal
histories included Khalil, informant in the Ferdaus case, and Mahmoud
Omar, informant in the Fort Dix case.220
Muslim Communities
Cooperation and Transparency are key to ensure good
relations between Governmental organizations and
Muslim communities, which is key to prevent extremism.
Vitello and Semple 9 (Paul Vitello and Kirk Semple, 12-18-2009,
"Muslims Say F.B.I. Tactics Sow Anger and Fear," New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/us/18muslims.html?
pagewanted=all&_r=0)
The anxiety and anger have been building all year. In March, a national
coalition of Islamic organizations warned that it would cease cooperating with
the F.B.I. unless the agency stopped infiltrating mosques and using agents
provocateurs to trap unsuspecting Muslim youth.In September, a cleric in Bay Ridge,
Brooklyn, sued the government, claiming that the F.B.I. had threatened to scuttle his
application for a green card unless he agreed to spy on relatives overseas
echoing similar claims made in recent court cases in California, Florida and Massachusetts. And last month, after
an imam in Queens was charged with aiding what the authorities called a
bomb-making plot, a group of South Asian Muslims there began compiling a
database of complaints about their brushes with counterterrorism
investigators. Since the terror attacks of 2001, the F.B.I. and Muslim and Arab-American leaders across the country
have worked to build a relationship of trust, sharing information both to fight terrorism and to protect the interests of
mosques and communities. But those relations have reached a low point in recent months, many Muslim leaders say.
Several high-profile cases in which informers have infiltrated mosques and

helped promote plots, they say, have sown a corrosive fear among their
people that F.B.I. informers are everywhere, listening. There is a sense that
law enforcement is viewing our communities not as partners but as objects of
suspicion, said Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who represented Muslims at the
national prayer service a day after President Obamas inauguration. A lot of people are really, really alarmed about this.
There is little doubt that a spate of recent cases from the alleged bomb plot by a former Manhattan coffee vendor,
Najibullah Zazi, to the shootings at Fort Hood, in Texas has heightened Americans concerns about homegrown
Muslim leaders have promised to redouble efforts to combat

extremism in their ranks. Yet they also worry about the fallout for the vast
numbers of the innocent. Some Muslims, Ms. Mattson said, have canceled
trips abroad to avoid arousing suspicion. People are wary of whom they speak
to. Community groups say it is harder to find volunteers. Many Muslim charities are hobbled. And
some law enforcement experts warn of a farther-reaching consequence: the
loss of a critical early-warning system against domestic terrorism. This is a national
terrorism.
security issue, said David Schanzer, who heads the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke
University. Its
absolutely vital that the F.B.I. and the Muslim-American

community clear the air and figure out how to work together. Even in
better times, the relationship has been a challenge to maintain, given that counterterrorism agents operate on multiple
levels holding open meetings at a mosque, say, and seeding it with informers. The F.B.I. has defended its practices,
saying it must pursue suspects wherever they go. Paul Bresson, an F.B.I. spokesman, said in an interview that it tries to
resolve anxieties by giving community leaders explanations, where the circumstances permit, and resolving concerns
where possible. In October, agents met privately in Queens with more than 40 Muslim and Arab-American leaders to hear
their grievances, and agency officials said they anticipated more sessions in New York and other cities. In July, Attorney
General Eric H. Holder Jr. took questions about counterterrorism tactics from 200 young Muslims at a Los Angeles mosque.
Mr. Bresson said that no group is spotlighted because of its members religion or ethnicity. The F.B.I. investigates people,
not places, and only when we have information or allegations that persons are or may be committing crimes or posing a
risk to national security, he said. Yet
the Justice Department has in the last two years
loosened some restrictions on agents ability to start and conduct terrorism

investigations. The new guidelines, which the F.B.I. confirmed in October in response to a suit filed by
the civil rights group Muslim Advocates, make it easier to plant informers and allow agents
to include ethnicity and religion in the assessment of targets , as long as those are not
the only factors considered. After four members of a mosque in Newburgh, N.Y., were charged in May with plotting to
the authorities acknowledged that the investigation had

begun with an informer who became a linchpin in the scheme. Congregation
members said he had frequented the mosque, offering young men money
and gifts. The Queens imam arrested in September as investigators pursued the coffee vendor was an informer who
had helped authorities. Last month, federal prosecutors moved to seize several
buildings across the country that house mosques, saying they were owned by
a nonprofit group with links to Iran. As a rare federal investigation that has
ensnared houses of worship, the case stoked apprehensions that the
government sees Arab-Americans and Muslims as a people apart . We are citizens
bomb two Bronx synagogues,
who care about our country as much as everyone, said Wael Mousfar, president of the Arab Muslim American Federation,
a New York umbrella group. But people dont know what to expect who might report them for speaking about Middle
East politics, what someone might get your teenage son to do. His communitys relations with law enforcement were
rocky in the weeks after 9/11, when the authorities began detaining hundreds of Muslim and Arab noncitizens, most of
whom were cleared of links to terrorism and deported. But F.B.I. officials and leaders of Muslim, South Asian and ArabAmerican groups eventually forged an understanding, maintaining communication channels. Linda Sarsour, director of the
Arab-American Association of New York, a social-services agency, said that even then, the connection felt tentative. She
was baffled when bonds that she and other leaders established with a New York F.B.I. chief evaporated upon the arrival of
his successor. Experts say that complaint partly reflects high turnover. It also attests to differing views within the bureau
about the effectiveness of community outreach, said Michael Rolince, a former director of counterterrorism in the F.B.I.s
Washington field office. Some factions within the agency, he said, have always been leery of Islamic and Arab-American
organizations, considering their loyalties to be divided. There
are some people in the bureau who

believe, as I do, that the relationship with the Muslim community is crucial
and must be developed with consistency, Mr. Rolince said. And there are those who dont. The
American Muslim Task Force on Civil Rights and Elections, which threatened to cease cooperating with the F.B.I., has not
yet done so. But by most accounts,
the unraveling of ties between the F.B.I. and MuslimAmericans began two years ago, with the F.B.I.s decision to stop sharing
information with the nations most prominent Muslim civil rights organization ,
the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The F.B.I. said it was motivated by council executives failure to answer
questions about links with the Palestinian militant group Hamas. The executives denied any such connection, and accused
the American Civil Liberties

Union made a similar complaint about Justice Department decisions to shut
down six Muslim charities without filing charges. The moves, which froze
billions of dollars in assets, have instilled among Muslims a pervasive fear
that they may be arrested, prosecuted, targeted for law enforcement
interviews if they give to any Islamic charity, the A.C.L.U. said. Imam Mohammad Shamsi Ali,
chief cleric at the Islamic Cultural Center of New York , in Manhattan, said that his organization had
suffered a 30 to 40 percent decline in contributions since 2001, in part
because of that fear. He said the center no longer solicits donations from
individuals living abroad because of the possibility that we could be
misunderstood. Still, the specter looming largest among immigrant Arabs and Muslims is fear of deportation.
And some say the F.B.I. has used that threat forcefully. Sheik Tarek Saleh, the Bay Ridge cleric who is suing the
government, said he welcomed F.B.I. agents at his storefront mosque after 9/11 when they
the F.B.I. of staining the councils reputation without due process. In June,
asked about his kinship with Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, a high-ranking Al Qaeda militant and his cousins husband. Sheik Saleh,
46, said he repeatedly discussed Mr. Yazid as well as his own former membership in the Muslim Brotherhood, a sometimes-
when he refused to
travel overseas to spy on Mr. Yazid, he said, agents told him to forget his
pending application for permanent residence. In February, immigration
officials told Sheik Saleh that the application had been rejected because he
violent political movement he joined as a teenager in Egypt and disavowed years later. But
failed to fill in a section about ties to political groups.
He contends that was a minor

oversight. F.B.I. and immigration officials would not discuss his case. Sheik Saleh said that he faced deportation because
he resisted F.B.I. pressure. Your dignity is bigger than the green card, he said. Zein Rimawi, a pet store owner and a
founder of the Al-Noor School, a private school in Bay Ridge, said anxiety made people cautious about transactions with
individuals and institutions even his school, which he said was $700,000 in debt as a result. Mr. Rolince, the former F.B.I.
agent, said he understood the worries, but felt they were overblown. The F.B.I. has 12,500 agents, he said. Believe me,
theres not enough of them to waste time looking at you unless they have a good reason.
Muslim Communities Vital

Muslim Communities trust needed to protect America
ICAAD, 14
(The International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination (ICAAD) was founded for the purpose of combating
By ignoring the rise in domestic extremism the government leaves minority

communities susceptible to bias-motivated attacks and further undermines
the fragile relationship it has tried to build with the Muslim community post9/11.66 Ultimately, whether it is combating hate crimes or terrorism, law
enforcement's ability to protect its citizens rests on the trust and
relationships it has built over time with communities. If the federal
government does not shift its strategy and resources to focusing on
domestic extremist groups and protecting minority communities,
we are all as a nation left more vulnerable.

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came
together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken from family and friends who loved them
deeply. They were white and black; Latino and Asian; immigrants and American-born; moms
and dads; daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens and all of them were
part of our American family. Tonight, I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader
threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe. The FBI is still gathering the facts
about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally
murdered and injured by one of their coworkers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that
the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a
broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down
the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam

that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons,
ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people. President
Obama: 'This was an act of terrorism' President Obama: 'This was an act of terrorism' 01:15
Our nation has been at war with terrorists since al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the
process, we've hardened our defenses -- from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure.
Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless

plots here and overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe. Our military
and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas -disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama bin Laden, and decimating
al Qaeda's leadership. Over the last few years, however, the terrorist threat has evolved into
a new phase. As we've become better at preventing complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11,
terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too
common in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in
Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino. And as groups like ISIL grew
stronger amidst the chaos of war in Iraq and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the
distance between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people
like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers. For seven years, I've
confronted this evolving threat each morning in my intelligence briefing. And since the day I
took this office, I've authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because I
know how real the danger is. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater

responsibility than the security of the American people. As a father to two young
daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves with friends
and coworkers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the
faces of the young people killed in Paris. And I know that after so much war, many Americans
are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure. Well, here's
what I want you to know: The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it.
We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won't depend on tough
talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That's what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we
will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of
American power. Here's how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country
where it is necessary. In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers,
infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies -- including France, Germany, and the
United Kingdom -- have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us
accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL. Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens
of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens.
In both countries, we're deploying Special Operations Forces who can accelerate that offensive. We've
stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and we'll continue to invest more in approaches that are

operations -- to disrupt plots, cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more
working on the ground. Third,
fighters. Since the attacks in Paris, we've surged intelligence-sharing with our European allies. We're
working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria. And we are cooperating with Muslim-majority countries -and with our Muslim communities here at home -- to counter the vicious ideology that ISIL promotes
online. Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process -and timeline -- to pursue ceasefires and a political resolution to the Syrian war. Doing so will allow the
Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the
common goal of destroying ISIL -- a group that threatens us all. This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is
designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65
countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine
when additional steps are needed to get the job done. That's why I've ordered the Departments of State
and Homeland Security to review the visa (waiver) program under which the female terrorist in San
Bernardino originally came to this country. And that's why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement
leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice. Now, here at home, we
have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right
away. To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What
could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a
matter of national security. We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons
like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety
measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies -- no matter how effective
they are -- cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or
some other hateful ideology. What we can do -- and must do -- is make it harder for them to kill. Next, we
should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a
hard look at whether they've traveled to warzones. And we're working with members of both parties in
Congress to do exactly that. Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go
ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I
have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it's time for Congress
to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight. My fellow
Americans, these are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat. Let me now say a
word about what we should not do. We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war
in Iraq or Syria. That's what groups like ISIL want. They know they can't defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL
fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign
lands, they can maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops, draining our resources,
and using our presence to draw new recruits. The strategy that we are using now -- airstrikes, Special
Forces, and working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country -- that is how
we'll achieve a more sustainable victory. And it won't require us sending a new generation of Americans
We
cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a
war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want.
ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of
death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims
around the world -- including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who
reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist
victims around the world are Muslim. If we're to succeed in defeating
terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our
strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and
hate. That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within
overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil. Here's what else we cannot do.
some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse.
Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and
unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak
out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are
incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity. But
just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead
to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans -- of every faith
-- to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on

who we admit into this country. It's our responsibility to reject proposals that
Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we
travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values
plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors,
our co-workers, our sports heroes -- and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are
willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that. President Obama:
'Freedom is more powerful than fear' President Obama: 'Freedom is more powerful
than fear' 02:15 My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because
we are on the right side of history. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity
-- that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what religion
you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law. Even in this
political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future Presidents must take to
keep our country safe, let's make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional. Let's not
forget that freedom is more powerful than fear; that we have always met challenges -- whether
war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks -- by coming together around our
common ideals as one nation, as one people. So long as we stay true to that tradition, I have
no doubt America will prevail. Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United
States of America.
Muslim Communities needed for intelligence

Bunker 14 Community Policing in a War on Terror? Environment: More
Difficult, More Vital, Small worlds Journal,
file:///Users/madelinegochee/Downloads/Small%20Wars%20Journal%20%20Community%20Policing%20in%20a%20%E2%80%98War%20on
%20Terror%E2%80%99%20Environment-%20More%20Difficult,%20More
%20Vital%20-%202014-06-25%20(3).pdf )
Hickman et. al. note the ambiguous position of members of suspect

communities in that they simultaneously occupy the roles of victims needing
protection, partners with law enforcement and a potential safe harbor for
extremists (2011, p. 14). As law enforcement turned its concern to domestic
terrorist sleeper cells and focused on, in the words of US Attorney General
John Ashcroft, identifying threats of future terrorist acts, preventing them
from happening, and punishing would-be perpetrators (In Huq and Muller,
pp. 215, 222), there would be an increased perception of a need to have
Muslim community cooperation in the pursuit of intelligence leads. At the
same time, the new terrorism emphasis on radical Islam as key to Al Qaeda
terrorist acts placed focus on the need to identify radical elements within
that community as would-be terrorists to be surveilled or arrested.
Supportive communities are deemed imperative to both turning a blind eye
to terrorist activities in their midst but also are themselves considered
subject to terrorist recruitment. Through these perceptions, policing began
subtlyand in some cases not so subtlydistancing itself from its Muslim
citizens.
Surveillance leads to backlash on counterterror efforts

Bunker 14 Community Policing in a War on Terror? Environment: More
Difficult, More Vital, Small worlds Journal,
file:///Users/madelinegochee/Downloads/Small%20Wars%20Journal%20%20Community%20Policing%20in%20a%20%E2%80%98War%20on
%20Terror%E2%80%99%20Environment-%20More%20Difficult,%20More
%20Vital%20-%202014-06-25%20(3).pdf )
It is often said that trust is fragile and hard to rebuild once it is shaken.
Spalek has been led to ask whether trust can be built at all between police
officers and Muslim minorities, within the context of the new terrorism. She
points out that the literature suggests that the trust that exists between them
is easily eroded through over-policing (2010, p. 790). Trust between police
and the Muslim communities they serve has been undermined due to factors
intrinsic to the war on terror. One cause has been a view that the actions
(and abuses) related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined with the
targeted focus of domestic legislation have really constituted a war on Islam
(Spalek, 2010, p. 805). Another factor is that when Muslim families are
singled out and detained at airports and miss their flights, when young
Muslim men are repeatedly stopped and searched, or when whole Muslim
communities are subject to covert surveillance as happened in
Birmingham, there is a backlash to domestic counterterrorism
efforts that goes beyond those individuals affected to the Muslim

communities at large (Choudhary and Fenwick, 2011, pp. 162-73).
Muslim community distrust

Mistrust in Muslim Communities has not been adequately
addressed
ICAAD, 14 (The International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination (ICAAD) was founded for the purpose of combating
The
government plays an important role in ameliorating the conditions that contribute to underreporting,
including managing the level of trust between law enforcement and
communities. This concern was partly addressed in the proposed End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA),
These factors and others contribute to an astounding 65% of hate crimes cases being unreported.
which previously failed to pass Congress and was reintroduced in May of 2013. This has forestalled
trust gap because communities are still being

disproportionately surveilled (Muslims and Arabs), stop and frisked (Latinos and Blacks),
progress towards bridging the
and profiled at airports by being secondarily searched 100% of the time (Sikhs).27 When two-thirds of
hate crimes go unreported, it is not merely a statistical aberration, it is a structural failure that the
government has a responsibility to address.
Mistrust of Law Enforcement in Status Quo

February 24, 2011)
Supervisor David Chiu spoke to the importance of law enforcement and
community cooperation. In San Francisco we pride ourselves on our
diversity, on the amazing international community that we are and we also
pride ourselves on doing everything we can to foster cooperation between
our diverse communities and law enforcement. I can tell you as a former
criminal prosecutor that without that level of cooperation, that level of trust,
everything falls apart. But unfortunately, we also know that surveillance only
serves to continue to drive wedges when cooperation is what is needed
most. Shakeel Syed expressed the following concern regarding Joint
Terrorist Task Forces. The mandates of local and federal law enforcement
organizations are different and hence call for different approaches. For
example, traditional local enforcement attempts to foster an environment of
community involvement, like neighborhood watch. Such an approach
engenders a common goal to keep communities safe. The FBI's traditional

goal is to conduct covert surveillance which is dramatically different from
engendering trust among the community and working with the community as
partners. The federal and local partnership in the context of counterterrorism [turns] the community from partners into suspects; treating
Muslims as inherent suspects by advocating for policies and programs such
as mapping, is exactly the opposite; it undermines and impedes the safety of
all citizens.
Bad things happening to Muslims

Not mass surveillance: The modern security state is
defined by the unlimited nature of its power-status quo
surveillance is directed at all but targeted at a specific
few. We live in a world where being identified as Muslim
guarantees total exclusion from the protective measures
of government. There is no state or legal protection for
the Muslim to return to, only the promise of
criminalization.
Discussions of the surveillance of Muslim Americans usually begin with 9/11 and
make little attempt to locate them in the longer history of racial surveillance in the
United States. Yet the continuities are striking, particularly for Black Muslims, who have been
seen as extremists and subject to national security monitoring since the 1940s.
Already in the late 1960s, Arab American student groups involved in supporting the Palestinian national
movement had come under surveillance and, in 1972, the Nixon administration issued a set of directives
known as Operation Boulder that enabled the CIA and FBI to coordinate with the pro-Israel lobby in
especially after 9/11, a process was under way in

which Muslimness was racialized through surveillanceanother scene of the states
production of racial subjects. Since all racisms are socially and politically constructed
rather than resting on the reality of any biological race, it is perfectly possible for
cultural markers associated with Muslimness (forms of dress, rituals, languages, etc.) to be
turned into racial signifiers.58 This signification then serves to indicate a people
supposedly prone to violence and terrorism, which, under the War on Terror, justifies a
whole panoply of surveillance and criminalization, from arbitrary arrests, to indefinite
detention, deportation, torture, solitary confinement, the use of secret evidence, and
sentencing for crimes that we would not be jailed for, such as speech, donations to
charitable organizations, and other such acts considered material support for terrorism.
Significantly, the racial underpinnings of the War on Terror sustain not just domestic
repression but foreign abusesthe wars vast death toll in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and elsewhere could not be sustained without the
dehumanization of its Muslim victims. As before, racism at home goes hand in hand
with empire abroad. Counterinsurgency thinking that informed the strategies used in
Iraq and Afghanistan in the face of popular insurrection are also brought home to be deployed
in relation to Muslim American populations. Winning hearts and minds, the counterinsurgency
monitoring Arab activists. By the 1980s, but
slogan first introduced by British colonialists in Malaya, and then adopted by the US military in Vietnam,
reappears as the phrase that state planners invoke to prevent extremism among young Muslims in the
Counterinsurgency in this context means total surveillance of Muslim

populations, and building law enforcement agency partnerships with good Muslims ,
those who are willing to praise US policy and become sources of information on
dissenters, making life very difficult for bad Muslims or those who refuse (in ways
reminiscent of the good and bad Indians). It is a way of ensuring that the knowledge
Muslims tend to have of how US foreign policy harms the Middle East, Africa, and Asia
is not shared with others. The real fear of the national security state is not the
stereotypical Muslim fanatic but the possibility that other groups within US society
might build alliances with Muslims in opposition to empire. The various measures that
United States.
the US national security system has adopted in recent years flow from an analysis of
Muslim radicalization, which assumes that certain law-abiding activities associated
with religious ideology are indicators of extremism and potential violence. Following the
preventive logic discussed above, the radicalization model claims to be able to predict which
individuals are not terrorists now but might be at some later date. Behavioral, cultural,
and ideological signals are assumed to reveal who is at risk of turning into a terrorist at some point in the
future.59 For example, in the FBIs radicalization model, such things as growing a beard, starting to wear
traditional Islamic clothing, and becoming alienated from ones former life are listed as indicators, as is
signifiers of Muslimness
such as facial hair, dress, and so on are turned into markers of suspicion for a
surveillance gaze that is also a racial (and gendered) gaze; it is through such routine
bureaucratic mechanisms that counterterrorism practices involve the social
construction of racial others. Official acceptance of the model of radicalization implies a
need for mass surveillance of Muslim populations and collection of as much data as
possible on every aspect of their lives in order to try to spot the supposed warning
signs that the models list. And this is exactly the approach that law enforcement agencies
introduced. At the New York Police Department, for instance, the instrumentalizing of
radicalization models led to the mass, warrantless surveillance of every aspect of
Muslim life. Dozens of mosques in New York and New Jersey and hundreds more hot spots, such as
increased activity in a pro-Muslim social group or political cause.60 Thus,
restaurants, cafs, bookshops, community organizations, and student associations were listed as potential
security risks. Undercover officers and informants eavesdropped at these locations of interest to listen
for radical political and religious opinions. A NYPD Moroccan Initiative compiled a list of every known
Moroccan taxi driver. Muslims who changed their names to sound more traditionally American or who
adopted Arabic names were investigated and catalogued in secret NYPD intelligence files. It is clear that
none of this activity was based on investigating reasonable suspicions of

criminal activity. This surveillance produced no criminal leads between
2006 and 2012, and probably did not before or after.61 As of 2008, the FBI had a
roster of 15,000 paid informants and, according to Senator Dianne Feinstein of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, the bureau had 10,000 counterterrorism intelligence analysts in 2013.63 The proportion of
these informants and analysts who are assigned to Muslim populations in the United States is unknown but
The kinds of infiltration and provocation tactics that had been

practiced against Black radicals in the 1960s are being repeated today. What has
changed are the rationales used to justify them: it is no longer the threat of Black nationalist
subversion, but the threat of Muslim radicalization that is invoked. With new provisions in the
Clinton administrations 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the FBI can launch
investigations of a suspected individual or organization simply for providing material
support to terrorisma vague term that could include ideological activity unrelated
to any actual plot to carry out violence. While COINTELPRO violated federal laws, today
similar kinds of investigation and criminalization of political dissent can be carried out
legitimately in the name of countering terrorism. For Muslim populations on the
receiving end of state surveillance programs designed to prevent radicalization, everyday
life increasingly resembles the patterns described in classic accounts of
authoritarianism. There is the same sense of not knowing whom to trust and choosing
ones words with special care when discussing politics, and of the arbitrariness and
unpredictability of state power.64 With the 2011 leaking of some NYPD intelligence files, individual
is likely to be substantial.
Muslims have had the disturbing experience of seeing their names mentioned in government files, along
with details of their private lives. Numerous businesses, cafs, restaurants, and mosques in New York are
aware that the NYPD considers them hotspots and deploys informants to monitor them. And the recent
some Muslims in New York have found

that relationships they thought of as genuine friendships were actually covert
attempts to gather intelligence.
outing of a small number of NYPD informants has meant
Contemporary US law directly and indirectly induces

Muslims to take violent action before arresting them to
create a false sense of achievement.
Roberts 14 (William Roberts, 7-28-2014, "Report: US
unfairly targeted Arabs, Muslims," Al Jazeera,
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/07/report
-us-unfairly-targeted-arabs-muslims201472711538316390.html)
The US government's prosecution of terrorism cases in America
since 9/11 has been fraught with widespread human rights abuses adding up
to an enduring miscarriage of justice that has had a chilling effect on
American Muslim communities, according to a recently released study. Many
of the 500 terrorism cases prosecuted in US federal courts since 2001 appear
to have targeted individuals who were not actually involved in terrorist plots
or financing them and likely would not have committed acts of violence,
according to the report by Human Rights Watch and the Columbia University
Law School's Human Rights Institute. "Five hundred is a number that sounds really big and it makes it
WASHINGTON, DC -
sound like Americans are being kept safe from terrorism attacks, but we found that in a lot of these cases, people were
prosecuted who never would have committed a terrorist act in the first place if it weren't for the involvement of the FBI,"
The
report, titled "Illusion of Justice: Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions," details a
pattern of US law enforcement targeting American Arabs and Muslims in FBI
"sting" operations in which informants cajoled, pressured, and sometimes
even bribed young men to participate in plots created by law enforcement. The
sweeping laws enacted by Congress after 9/11 helped create a conducive atmosphere, according to critics. People
hear about how these prosecutions are unfolding, the narratives the government has been putting forward and feel
there is no real way to protect yourself, that your statements will always be
taken out of context. - Diala Shamas, Fellow at the City University of New York law enforcement accountability
project "The report details account after account of overzealous prosecution,
unfair trials, over-aggressive informants, targeting of vulnerable young men,
and encouraging them to do things they wouldn't have otherwise done and
then incredibly long, harsh sentences ," said David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law
said Andrea J Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel at HRW and a co-author of the report. 'Illusion of justice'
School who specialises in national security issues. In a statement to Al Jazeera, the Department of Justice's spokesman
many of the decisions the report criticises were lawful and

approved by federal judges. Further, the DOJ statement said the US Supreme Court has "upheld as
Marc Raimondi said that
constitutional" the material support statute under which about half of the 500 US terrorism convictions were obtained
according to Human Rights Watch. "I think the government's view is, if we are getting convictions and they are being
upheld on appeal and we haven't had another serious terrorist attack in the United States, you know, we must be doing
something right," Cole said. "I don't see any recognition from government officials that they are going too far." The HRW
report's publication comes at a time of increasingly critical treatment in the media of the government's use of FBI
undercover agents in counterterrorism cases. On July 20, Al Jazeera's Investigative Unit released the documentary
"Informants", based on the investigative reporting of Trevor Aaronson, on the shadowy world of FBI informants who work
to ensnare young Muslim men in purported terror plots. Two days later, HBO aired "The Newburgh Sting", a documentary
by filmmakers Kate Davis and David Heilbroner, telling the story of how four street criminals with no history of violence or
ties to al-Qaeda were drawn into an FBI orchestrated plot to bomb Jewish synagogues and fire missiles at US military
aircraft. 'Government-created terrorism plots' The report is the result of a two-year study of 27 specific cases ranging in
time from 2001 to more recent events. Researchers focused on cases where rights abuses were suspected, conducted 215
the report's
findings: Discriminatory investigations targeting vulnerable people with
government informants who actively developed the alleged plot, persuading
interviews with individuals, and sought records under the Freedom of Information Act. Among
or pressuring the target to participate and providing the money and resources
to carry it out. Use of overly broad material support charges that punish
behaviour that did not demonstrate intent to support terrorism. Prosecutorial
tactics that violate fair trial rights, including introduction of prejudicial
evidence, evidence obtained through coercion or torture, classified evidence
that cannot be fairly contested, inflammatory evidence about terrorism to
which defendants are not connected and secret surveillance. Harsh and at
times abusive prison conditions, including prolonged solitary confinement
with restrictions on communicating with family and lawyers. Excessive
lengthening of sentences and draconian conditions post-sentencing. "Taken
together, these patterns have contributed to cases in which individuals who perhaps would never have participated in a
terrorist act on their own initiative and might not even had the capacity to do so, were prosecuted for serious, yet
government-created, terrorism plots," the report says. The accused A 2011 case involves the FBI sting of Rezwan Ferdaus,
who lived at home with his parents near Boston and suffered from mental ailments. He was arrested in dramatic fashion
by the FBI and accused of planning to crash explosive-filled remote control aeroplanes into the US Capitol and the
The FBI provided the fake weaponry and funded Ferdaus' travel. Ferdaus
was so ill as the alleged plot unfolded - suffering from weight loss, seizures,
and loss of bladder control - that his father had to quit work to care for him .
He was 26 at the time of his arrest and is serving a 17-year sentence . Watch: Al
Pentagon.
Jazeera Investigates - Informants Uzair Paracha was held in solitary confinement for nearly two years before he was
convicted of providing material support for a terrorist group for trying to help a friend from Pakistan, who was allegedly
tied to al-Qaeda, gain entry to the US. Paracha was held under special, national security administrative procedures. " You
could spend days to weeks without uttering anything significant beyond

'please cut my lights' and 'can I get a legal call/toilet paper/a razor, etc, or
just thanking them for shutting our light," Paracha wrote the report's authors. He is serving a 30year jail sentence. In another case that has raised particular alarm within US Muslim communities, Adel Daoud was just
FBI undercover
agents solicited him online to engage in a fake plan to attack a bar in
downtown Chicago. He goes on trial in November and faces life behind bars. "From our experiences working
17, living with his parents and attending an Islamic high school in a Chicago suburb when
with communities here in New York City, the use of informants and concerns about surveillance have a deeply chilling
effect on the community," Diala Shamas, a fellow at the City University of New York law enforcement accountability
project, told Al Jazeera. "People hear about how these prosecutions are unfolding, the narratives the government has been
putting forward and feel there is no real way to protect yourself, that your statements will always be taken out of context,"
The report recommends the US limit the use of informants to

situations where there is already a specific suspicion of wrongdoing. Instead
of aggressive investigations, the report recommends agencies develop
"rights-respecting" partnerships with local community groups. It calls for reforms to
Shamas said.
harsh prison conditions including an end to prolonged solitary confinement. It seeks revisions to the enforcement of
material support laws so that freedom of expression and charitable giving are protected. "We are taking this report to
Congress [where] we hope that there will be hearings," Prasow told Al Jazeera.
FBI sting operations and entrapment form a large portion

of terrorist convictions and cases, perpetuating
Islamophobia while placing unwarranted surveillance of
Muslims in a good light.
Berkowitz 14 (Bill Berkowitz, 7-29-2014, Buzzflash, Truth-Out, "Is the FBI
Creating Terrorists to Pad Counterterrorism Conviction Rates?,"
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/is-the-fbi-creating-terroriststo-pad-counterterrorism-conviction-rates/18788-is-the-fbi-creating-terroriststo-pad-counterterrorism-conviction-rates)
Let's start with a premise I think we can all agree with: There have been no 9/11-type attacks on United States soil since,
well, 9/11. Here's another statement we all probably agree with: The federal government has all sorts of arrows in its
quiver when it comes to gathering intelligence to thwart such attacks. And that is where it begins to gets dicey:
the government appears to be relying more and

more on perhaps the most twisted of those arrows; the use of informants, coerced and/or
rewarded, entrapment, and the sting. Since the September 2001 terrorist
attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the federal government has obtained more
than 500 federal counterterrorism convictions. According to a new Human
Rights Watch report (produced in association with Columbia Law School's Human Rights Institute), "nearly
50 percent of [those] ... convictions resulted from informant-based cases;
almost 30 percent of those cases were sting operations in which the
informant played an active role in the underlying plot." The report, "Illusion of
Justice: Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions," points out that, while "[m]any prosecutions have
properly targeted individuals engaged in planning or financing terror attacks... many others have targeted
individuals who do not appear to have been involved in terrorist plotting or
financing at the time the government began to investigate them. "Indeed, in
some cases the Federal Bureau of Investigation may have created terrorists
out of law-abiding individuals by conducting sting operations that facilitated
or invented the target's willingness to act." In addition, there is a good chance
that, without the government's active participation, many of those ensnared
by the government did not have the mental or intellectual capacity to plan,
finance and/or carry out a terrorist event. "Americans have been told that their government is
Unfortunately, in its counterterrorism project,
keeping them safe by preventing and prosecuting terrorism inside the US," said Andrew Prasow, Human Rights Watch's
deputy Washington director, in a statement. "But
take a closer look and you realize that many

of these people would never have committed a crime if not for law
enforcement encouraging, pressuring, and sometimes paying them to commit
terrorist acts." According to the report, entrapment, or what smells like entrapment, is
writ large over several of the cases. However, the report points out that proving entrapment is not an
easy task for defendants: "In theory, the defendants in these cases should be able to avoid criminal liability by making a
claim of 'entrapment.' However, US law requires that to prove entrapment a defendant show both that the government
This predisposition
inquiry focuses attention on the defendant's background, opinions, beliefs,
and reputation in other words, not on the crime, but on the nature of the
defendant. This character inquiry makes it exceptionally difficult for a
defendant to succeed in raising the entrapment defense, particularly in the
terrorism context, where inflammatory stereotypes and highly charged
characterizations of Islam and foreigners often prevail. Indeed, no claim of
entrapment has been successful in a US federal terrorism case to date. European
induced him to commit the act in question and that he was not 'predisposed' to commit it.
human rights lawinstructive for interpreting internationally recognized fair trial rights suggests that the current
"Illusion of Justice:
Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions" also "documented the
following patterns that raise serious human rights concerns":
"Discriminatory investigations, often targeting particularly vulnerable
individuals (including people with intellectual and mental disabilities and the
indigent), in which the government often acting through informants is actively
involved in developing the plot, persuading and sometimes pressuring the
target to participate, and providing the resources to carry it out. "Use of
overly broad material support charges, punishing behavior that did not demonstrate
formulation of the US defense of entrapment may not comport with fair trial standards."
intent to support terrorism. "Prosecutorial tactics that may violate fair trial rights, such as introducing prejudicial
evidence including evidence obtained by coercion, classified evidence that cannot be fairly contested, and
inflammatory evidence about terrorism in which defendants played no part; and limited ability to challenge surveillance
warrants due to excessive government secrecy. "Harsh
and at times abusive conditions of

confinement, which often appear excessive in relation to the security risk posed. These include:
"Prolonged solitary confinement and severe restrictions on communicating in
pretrial detention, possibly impeding defendants' ability to assist in their own
defense and contributing to their pleading guilty . "Excessive lengthening of
sentences and draconian conditions post- conviction , including prolonged solitary
confinement and severe restrictions on contact with families or others, sometimes
without explanation or recourse." Last year, I reviewed Trevor Aaronson's excellent book The Terror
Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terrorism (Ig Publishing, 2013) and wrote: " Aaronson found that
FBI informants and undercover agents were at the center of many of the
cases touted by the FBI as successes in thwarting terrorist plots. In fact, were
it not for the FBI, most of those plots would likely have fallen apart under the
weight of their own senselessness and ineptitude ." ".... After his extensive and exhausting
investigation, Aaronson found that 'the FBI has built the largest network of spies
ever to exist in the United States with ten times as many informants on the
streets today [as] ... during the infamous Cointelpro operations under FBI director J.
Edgar Hoover with the majority of these spies focused on ferreting out terrorism in Muslim communities.'" The Terror
Factory, which will be released in paperback on September 9, served as a springboard for the Human Rights Watch report,
and at least two other independent projects: Al Jazeera's July 20 documentary that "tells the story of three FBI informants
who posed as Muslims and infiltrated U.S. Muslim communities"; and HBO's recently released documentary Newburgh
Sting, "which looks at the case of the so-called Newburgh 4 and prolific FBI informant Shahed Hussain, who is the subject
of 'The Superinformant' chapter in The Terror Factory." Finally, there's a good chance we all might say "Amen" to a critical
clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law." Far too often, under the guise of combatting terrorism and preventing another 9/11, the government has
Using surveillance, coercion,

entrapment, and intimidation has not only resulted in the government
receiving less cooperation from very communities it seeks to enlist help, but
it is more likely to create terrorists where terrorists do not exist.
gone way beyond the boundaries of responsible law enforcement practices.
Sting Operations disproportionately target and do

violence upon Muslims and those marginalized by by
poverty and mental state.
Shah 14 (Naureen Shah, July 21,, 7-21-2014, "OPINION: The FBIs
counterterrorism sting operations are counterproductive," Aljazeera,
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/fbi-stingoperationscounterterrorismadeldaoud.html)
Adel Daoud is no Ferris Bueller. A Chicago suburban teen, he couldnt drive himself to the Jewel Osco grocery store
down the street without getting lost, let alone pull a Bueller and hoodwink his parents into letting him have the day off
Hes not a person with a complete

mind, his mother told me. Yet the FBI began targeting Daoud as a
terrorist mastermind shortly after his 18th birthday . At the time the
FBI began its sting operation, Daoud wasnt part of a terrorist cell,
nor was any group recruiting him. He was, though, on the Internet, looking for answers about
Islam and jihad. At home and at his local mosque, the Muslim teen was told that
jihad was nonviolent: It meant supporting your family by being a good son.
FBI undercover employees, finding Daoud online, did not affirm that
message. Instead, they worked with Daoud, ultimately driving him to
downtown Chicago to detonate a weapon of mass destruction
outside a bar. Chicagos Muslim communities were stunned by the Daouds arrest in September 2012. For
school. He is a D student and forgetful in the extreme.
Why target as a terrorist-in-waiting a teen who was

plainly incapable of planning and conducting a terrorist attack? The second
question was one of fear: Will my child be the FBIs next target? As a report released
many, the first question was why.
today by Human Rights Watch and Columbia Law Schools Human Rights Institute documents, the FBIs tactics in some
terrorism sting cases are not only abusive but counterproductive. They instill fear of law enforcement instead of mutual
trust. And they potentially divert FBI resources from actual terrorism threats. Sting operations are nothing new, but the FBI
It is
deploying informants and undercover FBI agents to mosques and
community centers around the country in what sometimes appear to
be virtual fishing expeditions. In some cases, the FBI has instructed
informants to strike up conversations about jihad with anyone who
will listen. These investigations appear to pick off the lowesthanging fruit, including the mentally ill and the poor, who are
vulnerable to manipulation. In one case, the subject of The Newburgh
Sting, an HBO documentary premiering this week, an informant promised a
45-year-old African-American man $250,000 to participate in a fake attack.
After losing his job at Walmart, the man accepted the offer. For every terrorism bust the FBI claims
based on such tactics, there is a cost. Deploying informants and
conducting surveillance without reasonable suspicion has sent chills
through many American Muslim communities. Some parents with whom we spoke
feared the FBI might recruit their teenage kids to become informants on their communities. Others said they
feared that strangers in their mosques and community centers could be
undercover FBI agents or infiltrators, hunting for youth to entrap in fake
terrorist plots. This kind of fear in any context and no matter its
actual merit is a recipe for bad policing, since distrust of law
enforcement can deter citizens from reporting a crime tip or fully
cooperating in bona fide crime investigations. The government has racked up
is using significantly more aggressive tactics in American Muslim communities than it has in others.
hundreds of convictions based on terrorism stings. Multiple studies have found that nearly half of federal terrorism
convictions since the 9/11 attacks resulted from informant-based cases. Some may be lawful and justifiable, yet almost 30
In
too many cases, the government, often acting through informants, developed
the fake terrorism plot, persuaded and sometimes pressured the targeted
individuals to participate and provided the resources to carry it out. The FBIs
wisdom in pursuing these cases, rather than investigating threats and individuals who were actually operational, is
questionable at best. Similarly questionable is the governments expansive
surveillance and collection of information about all Americans, including
American Muslims, which we continue to learn about through revelations from National Security Agency
whistleblower Edward Snowden. Rather than helping FBI analysts connect the dots, the
flood of data is impairing the FBIs ability to properly assess and respond to
threat information it receives. While we cant expect the FBI to prevent every
terrorist attack, recent ones like the Boston Marathon bombing show the need
for a sober re-evaluation of the agencys methods. Unfortunately, the Justice
Department and the FBI appear unwilling or unable to critically evaluate their
track record. Last week Attorney General Eric Holder urged U.S. allies to
follow the FBIs lead and adopt the same counterterrorism sting tactics. Before
percent of these convictions were sting operations in which the informant played an active role in the underlying plot.
the U.S. exports these terrorism tactics, it should reckon with their costs.
Increase in hate violence

February 24, 2011)
Ms. Sinnar relayed, When even the most civically-engaged, undeniably

mainstream, respected members of a community are singled out at-will, it
sends the message that the government views the Muslim community as a
whole, as a threat. We live in a time of sharply rising hostility to MuslimAmericans. Many prominent politicians have fueled such hostility, while
others have stayed silent and only a brave few have condemned it. We know
that such hostility has already led to resurgent hate violence, employment
discrimination, and renewed efforts to exclude Muslims from worshipping and
living in their communities. At such a time government policies that sanction discriminatory
treatment, whether at the border or in the U.S., legitimize private bias and discrimination and contribute
to the stigmatization of whole communities. Nor is San Francisco immune to such violence, or to
aggressive surveillance of minority immigrant communities; some individuals who shared their
experience with us noted that they experienced their worst treatment at SFO. A mother of three Sikh
boys, Dr. Sharan Singh related her family experience when traveling, I see people whisper and stare as
though they [her sons] have done something wrong. I see that my little one is not smiling, my older ones
are stoic and heroic, even though they are humiliated, obviously. They also know that people are staring
and pointing at them. The virtually guaranteed secondary inspection which her sons and husband
experience feeds mistrust and suspicion by fellow passengers. Dr. Singh asked, Why are we creating
suspicion in the minds of everyday citizens about people who look different? I am tired of seeing my
family harassed 100% of the time. I would like to stop this racial profiling.
NYPD Bad
A lot of these cards are actually neg No Solvency cards. If they read them,
just ask them to point out where in the cards it specifically says NYPD wont
follow a plan that is passed. Then turn card for inherency.
Discriminatory Surveillance By NYPD

NGO, 14 (NGO Shadow Report before the United Nations Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination85th Session, Geneva, 11-29 August
2014
http://www.ushrnetwork.org/sites/ushrnetwork.org/files/cerd_submission_ccr_
final.pdf )
Since at least 2002, the NYPD has conducted a surveillance program that
targets, maps, and monitors American Muslims in Arab and South Asian
communities throughout New York City, New Jersey, and beyond on the basis
of their religion. Although the NYPDs unlawful surveillance was not a secret to these targeted communities, the full extent of the
program was documented in NYPD records leaked to the Associated Press (AP) and published in 2011. The documents detail how the NYPD has
monitored and gathered information about the daily lives of Muslims, their places of worship, organizations, businesses, and schools using
undercover officers, paid informants, surveillance cameras, and other techniques, all without any suspicion of wrongdoing.
The NYPD used
government databases and immigration forms to locate and map neighborhoods in New York and New Jersey with significant Muslim, Arab,
and South Asian

The AP released a series of articles in 2011 and 2012 documenting the NYPDs surveillance program in detail. See APs
Probe into NYPD Intelligence Operations, ASSOCIATED PRESS, http://www.ap.org/Index/AP-In-The- News/NYPD (last visited 27 June 2014). 1
populations.
Internal documents show that
the NYPD
prepared an analytical report on every mosque within 100 miles of New York
identified
specific Muslim businesses, community organizations, and student groups as
hot spots based on the particular religion or faith of their members and
3
subjected them to additional scrutiny. In all, the NYPD scrutinized more than 250 mosques and hundreds of
Muslim student groups, businesses, and community organizations under its massive surveillance program. 4 Its intelligence bureau amassed
City and strived to have an informant inside every mosque within a 250-mile radius. The police department also
information about thousands of law-abiding Muslims. Under the surveillance program, NYPD officers took videos and photographs of
mosques and businesses, and monitored scores of Muslims, Arabs, and South Asians living in New York and New Jersey, cataloguing where
they worked, ate, and prayed.
The NYPD also used informants and undercover police officers known as mosque crawlers to infiltrate
The vast majority of

the surveillance was conducted without a criminal predicate.
dozens of mosques and Muslim student groups and attend hundreds of sermons and meetings.
NYPD is an example of local, racist policies

AP 12 Samantha Henry, Matt Appuzzo, Wayne Perry, reporters for the
Associated Press, American multinational nonprofit news agency, 2012 (New
Jersey Muslims Angry Over NYPD Surveillance Findings, The Huffington Post,
May 25, Available online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/newjersey-muslims-cangry-nypd-surveillance_n_1545319.html, Accessed on
6/15/15)
Muslim leaders said they were told that every instance of NYPD activity in New Jersey had been justified by
the attorney general would not provide any details on the nature
of any of those leads, saying the fact-finding was ongoing. Imam Mustafa El-Amin of the Newarkbased Masjid Ibrahim said he was concerned that Chiesa refused to explain what
leads had been received. With the NYPD compiling a map of every mosque in Newark including
a lead, but that
he said he wanted to know about any problems or potential dangers in his

mosque he might be unaware of. "We understand the need for surveillance
and security," said El-Amin, "We just don't appreciate how this was done. We
as Muslims feel we were violated, simply because we are Muslims."
Several Muslim leaders at Thursday's meeting said that they did not find the assertion that
the NYPD had leads for all their operations in New Jersey credible , adding that
his
efforts to maintain communication between the community and law enforcement would be hurt by the
findings that the NYPD had done nothing wrong and could keep doing what they have been doing. "It was
basically an, `FYI, good Thursday afternoon, let it die in the media before the Memorial Day weekend,'"
said Mohamed El-Filali, executive director of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, across the Hudson River
If the surveillance of every mosque, burger joint and barbershop

targeted was justified, he asked, why were no arrests made? Aref Assaf of the
American Arab Forum said the attorney general made them feel like second-class
citizens. "I said to him it's not only insulting, it's offensive to our sense of
justice, that you bring us to Trenton to tell us that you accept as legal and valid the actions of the
NYPD, and I will not be surprised if you're issuing an order informing your law
enforcement officials that they too can spy on American Muslisms because if
it's legal for NYPD, than it must be legal for NJ to do the same." The Muslim leaders
from New York.
said they would consider all legal options, including renewed appeals for action by the U.S. Justice
Department. A federal civil rights lawsuit has also been considered.
NYPD Surveillance of Mosques

Goldman et. al, 2013
(Adam is a analyst for the Associated Press. NYPD designates mosques as terrorism organizations.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nypd-designates-mosques-terrorism-organizations. Date Accessed- 07/13/15.
Anshul Nanda.)
They're terrorists. They all must be fanatics," said Abdul Akbar Mohammed, the imam for the past eight
The New York

Police Department has secretly labeled entire mosques as terrorist
organizations, a designation that allows police to use informants to record sermons and spy on imams,
often without specific evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Designating an entire mosque as a
terrorism enterprise means that anyone who attends prayer services there is
a potential subject of an investigation and fair game for surveillance. Since the
9/11 attacks, the NYPD has opened at least a dozen "terrorism enterprise
investigations" into mosques, according to interviews and confidential police documents. The
years at the Masjid Imam Ali K. Muslim in Newark. "That's not right." NEW YORK (AP)
TEI, as it is known, is a police tool intended to help investigate terrorist cells and the like. Many TEIs
stretch for years, allowing surveillance to continue even though the NYPD has never criminally charged a
mosque or Islamic organization with operating as a terrorism enterprise. The documents show in detail
hunt for terrorists, the NYPD investigated countless innocent New

York Muslims and put information about them in secret police files. As a tactic,
how, in its
opening an enterprise investigation on a mosque is so potentially invasive that while the NYPD conducted
interviews with federal law

enforcement officials. The strategy has allowed the NYPD to send undercover
officers into mosques and attempt to plant informants on the boards of
mosques and at least one prominent Arab-American group in Brooklyn, whose executive director has
at least a dozen, the FBI never did one, according to
worked with city officials, including Bill de Blasio, a front-runner for mayor. De Blasio said Wednesday on
Twitter that he was "deeply troubled NYPD has labelled entire mosques & Muslim orgs terror groups with
seemingly no leads. Security AND liberty make us strong." The revelations about the NYPD's massive
spying operations are in documents recently obtained by The Associated Press and part of a new book,
"Enemies Within: Inside the NYPD's Secret Spying Unit and bin Laden's Final Plot Against America." The
book by AP reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman is based on hundreds of previously unpublished
police files and interviews with current and former NYPD, CIA and FBI officials. The disclosures come as
the NYPD is fighting off lawsuits accusing it of engaging in racial profiling while combating crime. Earlier
this month, a judge ruled that the department's use of the stop-and-frisk tactic was unconstitutional. The
American Civil Liberties Union and two other groups have sued, saying the Muslim spying programs are
unconstitutional and make Muslims afraid to practice their faith without police scrutiny. Both Mayor Mike
Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly have denied those accusations. Speaking Wednesday
on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Kelly reminded people that his intelligence-gathering programs began in the
wake of 9/11. "We follow leads wherever they take us," Kelly said. " We're
not intimidated as to
wherever that lead takes us. And we're doing that to protect the people of
New York City." ___ The NYPD did not limit its operations to collecting
information on those who attended the mosques or led prayers. The department
sought also to put people on the boards of New York's Islamic institutions to fill intelligence gaps. One
confidential NYPD document shows police wanted to put informants in leadership positions at mosques and
other organizations, including the Arab American Association of New York in Brooklyn, a secular socialservice organization. Linda Sarsour, the executive director, said her group helps new immigrants adjust to
life in the U.S. It was not clear whether the department was successful in its plans. The document, which
appears to have been created around 2009, was prepared for Kelly and distributed to the NYPD's
debriefing unit, which helped identify possible informants. Around that time, Kelly was handing out
medals to the Arab American Association's soccer team, Brooklyn United, smiling and congratulating its
players for winning the NYPD's soccer league. Sarsour, a Muslim who has met with Kelly many times, said
she felt betrayed. "It
creates mistrust in our organizations," said Sarsour, who was

born and raised in Brooklyn. "
It makes one wonder and question who is sitting on the boards of the institutions where we work and pray." ___ Before the NYPD
could target mosques as terrorist groups, it had to persuade a federal judge to rewrite rules governing how police can monitor speech protected by the First Amendment. The rules stemmed from a 1971 lawsuit,
dubbed the Handschu case after lead plaintiff Barbara Handschu, over how the NYPD spied on protesters and liberals during the Vietnam War era. David Cohen, a former CIA executive who became NYPD's deputy
commissioner for intelligence in 2002, said the old rules didn't apply to fighting against terrorism. Cohen told the judge that mosques could be used "to shield the work of terrorists from law enforcement scrutiny
by taking advantage of restrictions on the investigation of First Amendment activity." NYPD lawyers proposed a new tactic, the TEI, that allowed officers to monitor political or religious speech whenever the "facts
or circumstances reasonably indicate" that groups of two or more people were involved in plotting terrorism or other violent crime. The judge rewrote the Handschu rules in 2003. In the first eight months under the
new rules, the NYPD's Intelligence Division opened at least 15 secret terrorism enterprise investigations, documents show. At least 10 targeted mosques. Doing so allowed police, in effect, to treat anyone who
. Sermons, ordinarily protected by the First Amendment,

could be monitored and recorded. Among the mosques targeted as early as
2003 was the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge. "
attends prayer services as a potential suspect
I have never felt free in the United States. The documents tell me I am right," Zein
Rimawi, one of the Bay Ridge mosque's leaders, said after reviewing an NYPD document describing his mosque as a terrorist enterprise. Rimawi, 59, came to the U.S. decades ago from the Israeli-occupied West
Bank. "Ray Kelly, shame on him," he said. "I am American." It was not immediately clear whether the NYPD targeted mosques outside of New York City specifically using TEIs. The AP had previously reported that
Masjid Omar in Paterson, N.J., was identified as a target for surveillance in a 2006 NYPD report. ___ The NYPD believed the tactics were necessary to keep the city safe, a view that sometimes put it at odds with
the FBI. In August 2003, Cohen asked the FBI to install eavesdropping equipment inside a mosque called Masjid al-Farooq, including its prayer room. Al-Farooq had a long history of radical ties. Omar Abdel
Rahman, the blind Egyptian sheik who was convicted of plotting to blow up New York City landmarks, once preached briefly at Al-Farooq. Invited preachers raged against Israel, the United States and the Bush
administration's war on terror. One of Cohen's informants said an imam from another mosque had delivered $30,000 to an al-Farooq leader, and the NYPD suspected the money was for terrorism. But Amy Jo
Lyons, the FBI assistant special agent in charge for counterterrorism, refused to bug the mosque. She said the federal law wouldn't permit it. The NYPD made other arrangements. Cohen's informants began to carry
recording devices into mosques under investigation. They hid microphones in wristwatches and the electronic key fobs used to unlock car doors. Even under a TEI, a prosecutor and a judge would have to approve
bugging a mosque. But the informant taping was legal because New York law allows any party to record a conversation, even without consent from the others. Like the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge, the NYPD never
demonstrated in court that al-Farooq was a terrorist enterprise but that didn't stop the police from spying on the mosques for years. And under the new Handschu guidelines, no one outside the NYPD could
question the secret practice. Martin Stolar, one of the lawyers in the Handschu case, said it's clear the NYPD used enterprise investigations to justify open-ended surveillance. The NYPD should only tape
conversations about building bombs or plotting attacks, he said. "Every Muslim is a potential terrorist? It is completely unacceptable," he said. "It really tarnishes all of us and tarnishes our system of values." ___
Al-Ansar Center, a windowless Sunni mosque, opened in Brooklyn several years ago, attracting young Arabs and South Asians. NYPD officers feared the mosque was a breeding ground for terrorists, so informants
kept tabs on it. One NYPD report noted that members were fixing up the basement, turning it into a gym. "They also want to start Jiujitsu classes," it said. The NYPD was particularly alarmed about Mohammad
Elshinawy, 26, an Islamic teacher at several New York mosques, including Al-Ansar. Elshinawy was a Salafist a follower of a puritanical Islamic movement whose father was an unindicted co-conspirator in the
1993 World Trade Center attacks, according to NYPD documents. The FBI also investigated whether Elshinawy recruited people to wage violent jihad overseas. But the two agencies investigated him very
differently. The FBI closed the case after many months without any charges. Federal investigators never infiltrated Al-Ansar. "Nobody had any information the mosque was engaged in terrorism activities," a former
federal law enforcement official recalled, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the investigation. The NYPD wasn't convinced. A 2008 surveillance document described
Elshinawy as "a young spiritual leader (who) lectures and gives speeches at dozens of venues" and noted, "He has orchestrated camping trips and paintball trips." The NYPD deemed him a threat in part because
"he is so highly regarded by so many young and impressionable individuals." No part of Elshinawy's life was out of bounds. His mosque was the target of a TEI. The NYPD conducted surveillance at his wedding. An
informant recorded the wedding, and police videotaped everyone who came and went. "We have nothing on the lucky bride at this time but hopefully will learn about her at the service," one lieutenant wrote. Four
years later, the NYPD was still watching Elshinawy without charging him. He is now a plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit, which was also filed by the Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility project at
CUNY School of Law and the New York Civil Liberties Union. "These new NYPD spying disclosures confirm the experiences and worst fears of New York's Muslims," ACLU lawyer Hina Shamsi said. "From houses of
worship to a wedding, there's no area of New York Muslim religious or personal life that the NYPD has not invaded through its bias-based surveillance policy." ___ Online: Documents TEI Discontinuance:
http://apne.ws/146zqF9 Informant Profiles: http://apne.ws/1aNfuyH Elshinawy Surveillance: http://apne.ws/15fau4D Handschu Minutes: http://apne.ws/1cenpD6 ___ AP's Washington investigative team can be
reached at DCinvestigations@ap.org Follow Goldman and Apuzzo at http://twitter.com/adamgoldmanap and http://twitter.com/mattapuzzo
Local police surveillance targeted at Muslims

Friedersdorf 13 Conor Friedersdorf, staff writer at The Atlantic, where
he focuses on politics and national affairs, has a Masters degree in Journalism
from New York University and a BA in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics
from Pomona college, 2013 (The Horrifying Effects of NYPD Ethnic Profiling
on Innocent Muslim Americans, The Atlantic, March 28, Available online at
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-horrifying-effects-ofnypd-ethnic-profiling-on-innocent-muslim-americans/274434/, Accessed on
6/16/15)
the NYPD's clandestine spying on Muslims to the public's

attention in a series of vital stories. Starting shortly after the September 11 terrorist
attacks, officers infiltrated Muslim communities and spied on hundreds or
perhaps thousands of totally innocent Americans at mosques, colleges, and
elsewhere. These officers "put American citizens under surveillance and
scrutinized where they ate, prayed and worked, not because of charges of
wrongdoing but because of their ethnicity," the news agency reported, citing
NYPD documents. Informants were paid to bait Muslims into making
inflammatory statements. The NYPD even conducted surveillance on Muslim
Americans outside its jurisdiction, drawing a rebuke from an FBI field office,
where a top official charged that "the department's surveillance of Muslims in
the state has hindered investigations and created 'additional risks' in
counterterrorism." NYPD brass and Mayor Michael Bloomberg defend these policies as
The Associated Press brought
counterterrorism efforts that are necessary to keep New Yorkers safe. As you ponder the specific costs of
"In
more than six years of spying on Muslim neighborhoods, eavesdropping on
conversations and cataloguing mosques," the Associated Press reported, "the
New York Police Department's secret Demographics Unit never
generated a lead or triggered a terrorism investigation." They
acknowledged, in court testimony, having generated zero leads.
these policies, as evocatively described below, keep in mind one thing about the ostensible benefits:
NYPD surveillance of Mosques

Pilkington 13 (Ed, 10-24, "ACLU leads call for federal investigation of
NYPD mosque surveillance," Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/aclu-new-york-nypd-mosquesmuslims)
A coalition of 125 civil rights, religious and community groups has
written to the Department of Justice, calling for a federal
investigation into the blanket surveillance of mosques and other
Muslim outlets by the New York Police Department (NYPD). The
coalition, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the
Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), is calling on the attorney
general, Eric Holder, to use his powers to launch a federal civil rights
investigation into NYPD practices. Once any investigation is completed, the
Department of Justice could, if it chose, take civil legal action to put a stop to
the controversial surveillance dragnet. "For over a decade, the NYPD has
engaged in unlawful religious profiling and suspicionless
surveillance of Muslims in New York City," the letter says. "The
NYPD's biased policing practices hurt not only Muslims, but all
communities who rightfully expect that law enforcement will serve
and protect America's diverse population equally, without
discrimination." The NYPD's focus on Muslim communities in the wake of
the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers, in 2001, began in 2002 and is ongoing.
The city's police commissioner, Ray Kelly, and mayor, Michael Bloomberg,
have consistently defended their counter-terrorism strategy. In a series of
Pulitzer-prize winning articles, the Associated Press revealed details of the

NYPD's joint surveillance program with the CIA, based on the police
department's internal documents. The files showed that the police
had designated entire mosques as "terrorism enterprises", allowing
them to circumvent normal constraints on surveillance. The
department sent undercover officers, codenamed "rakers", into
Muslim neighbourhoods, and ran a network of informants known as
"mosque crawlers" to monitor sermons even when there had been
no evidence of criminality. One 2007 NYPD report, titled "Radicalization in
the West: the Homegrown Threat", stated that "enclaves of ethnic
populations that are largely Muslim often serve as 'ideological sanctuaries' for
the seeds of radical thought". The AP also revealed that since 2003 the
NYPD has been mapping New York communities for monitoring,
based on whether the local population originates from countries
with Muslim majorities.

Otherization
1. Muslim being a synonym for terrorist in the
status quo means that Muslims are categorized as
the other and excluded from society

multiple agents, and leads to multiple outcomes. Ultimately, racialization results
in essentialism; it reduces people to one aspect of their identity
and thereby presents a homogeneous, undifferentiated, and static
view of an ethnoreligious community. While Hinduism, Sikhism, and Islam
are three different belief systems, they share some of the major outcomes of
racialization: they are rendered theologically, morally, and socially illegitimate.
Despite
this similarity of processes and often of outcomes, racialization affects each religious group that is targeted differently. While one could
argue that Christianity has been racialized through its association with whitenesswith distinctive designations for black, Korean, or Chinese
Christian congregationsthe results of racialization are different because whiteness and Christianity function as the United States racial
and religious norms, respectively.3 The construction of identity most often involves establishing both norms and opposites, who one is
involves identifying others who are not (Pharr, 1988; Said, 1978). The process of othering entails a dialectic of both inclusion and
exclusion. By attributing certain characteristics to a population in order to categorize and differentiate it as an other, those who do so also
establish criteria by which they themselves are represented. Indeed, a norm and its other or others are, to a great extent, each defined
by reference to the other, by what each is not. For reasons that will become clear in the historical section that follows, it is the normative
racialization of religion an
essential problem for non-white non-Christians . Thus, in order to understand the
power of whiteness and Christianity, separately and in tandem, that makes the
contemporary racialization of South Asian religions, we must begin by orienting ourselves historically and socially. In the next two sections, I
show how the United States has developed as a society where Christianity and whiteness are intimately linked and where Christianity and
whiteness generate social norms against which other religions and races are measured.
The government's warrantless surveillance of Muslims in

the name of counterterrorism is a result of our
Islamophobically securitized mindset that frames those
with otherwise harmless racial or religious markers as a
dangerous Other that needs to be combated.
Kumar & Kundnani 15 (Arun Kundnani and Deepa Kumar "Race,
Surveillance, and Empire," respectively associate professor of Media Studies and
Middle East Studies at Rutgers University and professor at New York University,
Spring 2015, Issue #96 of International Socialist Review,
http://isreview.org/issue/96/race-surveillance-and-empire)
measures that the US national security system has adopted in

recent years flow from an analysis of Muslim radicalization, which assumes
that certain law-abiding activities associated with religious ideology
are indicators of extremism and potential violence. Following the
preventive logic discussed above, the radicalization model claims to be able to
predict which individuals are not terrorists now but might be at some later
date. Behavioral, cultural, and ideological signals are assumed to reveal who
The various
is at risk of turning into a terrorist at some point in the future.59 For example, in the
FBIs radicalization model, such things as growing a beard, starting to wear
traditional Islamic clothing, and becoming alienated from ones former life are listed
as indicators, as is increased activity in a pro-Muslim social group or political
cause. Thus, signifiers of Muslimness such as facial hair, dress, and so on are
turned into markers of suspicion for a surveillance gaze that is also a racial
(and gendered) gaze; it is through such routine bureaucratic mechanisms that
counterterrorism practices involve the social construction of racial
others.Official acceptance of the model of radicalization implies a need for
mass surveillance of Muslim populations and collection of as much data as
possible on every aspect of their lives in order to try to spot the supposed
warning signs that the models list. And this is exactly the approach that law
enforcement agencies introduced. At the New York Police Department , for
instance, the instrumentalizing of radicalization models led to the mass,
warrantless surveillance of every aspect of Muslim life.
60
The United States uses Otherization and the concept of

domination and subordination to justify extreme domestic
discrimination in surveillance and foreign attacks

stereotypes. The Muslim and Arab American had been popularly
constructed as an irrational, terror-supporting, and fanatical enemy
long before 9/11. American foreign policy has

consistently justified intervention in the Muslim world along
similar lines. When U.S. leaders characterize the Arab and
Muslim world as inherently undemocratic owing to
fundamental value differences between us and them,
they promote an environment of intolerance at home. Thus, the
Other
racialization of Arab and Muslim Americans, a process decades in the making, also explains the
overwhelming support for the infringement of Arab and Muslim civil liberties (Moallem 2005).
In this chapter I move beyond the narrow phenotypical definition of racialization, wherein race
relations are strictly structured by biological differences. Rather, I adopt a larger definition of
racialization that incorporates the process of othering. More specifically here, I argue that the
racialization of Muslims and Arabs stems from the consistent

deployment of an us versus them mentality, excessively propped up for
the justification of military campaigns in the Arab world. The racialization of Arabs and Muslims
is not simply contingent on phenotypical differences; rather, this racialization of difference is
driven by a perceived clash of values and exacerbated by cultural ethnocentrism. This process
of othering is based on assumptions about culture and religion instead of phenotype. It is not
based on assumptions about culture and religion instead of phenotype. It is not based on racial
divides; instead, it conforms to the process of racialization that has characterized the ways in
which the dominant elements in society have interacted with minority ethnic groups more
generally. The racialization of Arabs and Muslims stems from two intertwined processes. First,
in a society that is already constructed along racial lines, any

This othering process lends itself to the already existing paradigm of defining oneself vis-vis other groups along the lines of racial categories. This form of racism is not contingent on
differences in appearance but on differences in cultural attributes. These differences are
exacerbated by popular and government discourses that deem the group an enemy Other,
especially after 9/11. The loyalties of the Arab and Muslim communities have consistently
been questioned since the attacks. Only 38 percent of Americans in the Detroit metro area
believe that Arabs and Muslims are doing all that they can to fight the war on terror. Muslims
and Arabs across the United States are consistently asked to apologize for 9/11, as if they were
behind the attacks. And yet, ironically, the numerous and countless condemnations emanating
from mosques and organizations in the United States that emphatically denounce the attacks
have received little media attention. Americans remain suspicious of Arabs and Muslims. When
dominant and
the subordinate,


Harms
Otherization causes dehumanization
Fasching, deChant, 1993, Comparative religious ethics: a narrative approach,
Publication: Blackwell Publishing: Massachusetts, page number 101.
To define the humanity of someone and confine him/her to that definition is to
dehumanize him/her. Today we call it stereotyping another person. Putting it in

contemporary terms, we would say that the crime of all racism, all sexism, and all
religious and ethnic prejudice is to define those who are different ,strange or alien to us as
by nature less than human, and force them to occupy some diminished place within the sacred cosmic order
of things. To do this is to replace the Unseen Measure with our own biased measure for defining.
Otherization cause racism

Cisneros 2008 (J. David, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, Volume 11, Number 4,
Winter 2008
E-ISSN: 1534-5238 Print ISSN: 1094-8392, DOI: 10.1353/rap.0.0068 http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhetoric
_and_public_affairs/v011/11.4.cisneros.html)
these same
dominant logics continue to permeate rhetoric about immigration.
[End Page 590] What, then, are the consequences of these constructions, and how does the
The preceding analysis of contemporary news media discourse illustrates that
metaphor of immigrant as pollutant differ from other metaphoric understandings of immigration?
Constructing immigration as a social danger provides an opportunity

to define the other and solidify the self. As Mary Douglas outlines, discourses
of danger construct difference as a means of constituting shared
national and cultural identity. Metaphoric representations are a
crucial component of this identity construction. Examining this prevalent
metaphoric representation of immigrant as pollutant, then, provides
an opportunity to critique dominant logics by exploring the
ideological implications of contemporary immigration rhetoric. The
metaphor of immigrant as pollutant articulated in popular discourse is
significant for the ways in which it constructs immigrants, through
racial and xenophobic stereotypes, as objects, aberrations, and
dangers. This discourse propagates overly simplistic understandings
of immigration that suggest equally simplistic solutions. Metaphors serve
as terminological filters on reality. Our observations and actions "are but implications of the particular
The ways in which news media

images and textual fragments construct immigration as a danger is
problematic, for they inform society's relationship to immigrants and
they influence the direction of public policy on immigration. Analysis
of the metaphor of immigrant as pollutant uncovers how popular
discourse of immigration contributes to understandings of
immigrants as individuals and notions of immigration as a social
phenomenon. The discursive construction of the other as a threat, in
terminology in terms of which observations are made."
"naturalize[s] the self (as normal, healthy,

civilized, or something equally positive) by estranging the other (as
pathological, sick, barbaric, or something equally negative Images of
immigrants as dangerous and destructive pollutants dehumanize
immigrants by constructing them as threatening substances,
denying them agency and reinforcing common stereotypes.
Immigrants' primary identity is marked by their racial difference and
illegal migrant status. Their brown bodies are portrayed as dirty and
dangerous because of their ethnicity. Their legal status as outsiders is marked by their
the words of David Campbell,
sneaking and seeping through borders as well as their apprehension by law enforcement officials.
Otherization causes violence

Saunders. 2002. Uncanny Presence: The Foreigner at the Gate of
Globalization. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the
Middle East.
If foreigners are essentially material, one can be

made foreign by being reduced to the materiality of the body. Indeed the
This logic also works in reverse.
evidence is all too clear that the presence of foreignness is routinely verified on the body: in post-apartheid
immigrants from other parts of the continent, perceived as a

threat to native employment, have increasingly come under physical
attack; Amnesty International, documenting instances of violent punishment, torture, sexual assault,
South Africa,
and denial of medical care, reports that "foreigners in Japan are at serious risk of ill-treatment at the hands
44
of the authorities";
the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and

Xenophobia, in their 1998 report, documented hundreds of incidents of
"vicious attacks, intimidation and discrimination against racial
groups...while recognizing just how few cases are ever reported";Germany's Federal Interior Minister
recently disclosed that "xenophobic acts of violence," including murder, bodily
injury, arson, and bomb attacks had risen by 40 percent in 2000;46 and
since September 11 in the U.S.,
Otherization damages society
Fasching, DeChant 1993 (Fasching Comparative religious ethics: a narrative

approach, pg 216)
Five days after the Voter Rights Act was signed, a major riot broke out in the Watts ghetto of Los Angeles. With whole blocks burned
down and widespread looting and rioting, it took a police action of almost sixteen thousand men to restore order, leaving some thirtyfour dead and four thousand arrested (Cone 1991: 221). In his visit to Watts, King discovered that blacks outside the South did not
perceive themselves as greatly benefited by the strides toward freedom accomplished in the South. Northern blacks already had the
they couldnt afford the price of a meal. They suffered from

poverty and from a more subtle racism that in some ways was harder to confront a
combat. And many Northern blacks found Malcolm Xs appeal to violence made more sense than Kings seemingly nave appeal
right to eat in white restaurants, but
to non-violence.
With this experience,
King began to turn his attention from South to North and from
racism to the link between racism and poverty. He chose Chicago as the frontier for this new assault and in
January of 1966 rented a slum apartment on the South Side. There he exposed the structural (and therefore often hidden) prejudice that
virtually made it impossible for blacks to rent or buy outside the ghetto.
It was, he argued, evidence that

America was a sick society- a land of wealth where forty to fifty million people
cannot afford proper housing, food and health care. And his consciousness expanded beyond the
border of the US, as he began to identify the global nature of the political and economic
forces that created bonds of affinity in oppression between American blacks and
poverty-stricken population of the Third World.
Taking away a people's cultural heritage leads to that

people's oppression by means of a totalitarian institutions
Smith 07, Abby Smith, PhD, History degree from Harvard, Taught at
both Harvard and Johns Hopkins and is currently a consulting analysis
that works with the Library of Congress in cultural preservation through
many different types of media, "Valuing Preservation" Library Trends
56.1, 2007, 4-25
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/library_trends/v056/56.1smith.html
The ultimate societal benefit of preservation is, of course, to ensure the

well-being of the population and the survival of our society, and
indeed, our species. Given that information is a constitutive force in
society, [End Page 17] all aspects of its integrity, completeness,
authenticity, and accessibility are profoundly important. And all choices
about whether we do or do not decide to preserve historical records
and cultural expressiveness from times past are themselves
constitutive choices (Braman, 2006; Starr, 2004, pp. 45). As Russians
are fond of reminding themselves, "The future is certain, it is the past
that is unpredictable." A people who do not own and control their
own cultural heritage are a people who can be held captive by
false histories, fabrications, and lies. The genius of totalitarian
societies is that the need for brute force to make subjects out
of citizens is really quite modest. If the government controls
what people know about their past and their present, they
limit the scope of their imaginations and can control their
expectations for the future. We may hold dear the notion that
because we are not a totalitarian country, we are not at risk of
developing false memories, fabrications, and blank spots in
our past. But that complacency is dangerous. Memory can play
tricks on all of us.
Impacts
Islamophobia legitimizes the violation of human rights
and oppression of the otherthis causes the worst
forms of structural violence
Arinc, 2013 (Bulent is a Deputy Prime Minister. Islamophobia is an attack against
human dignity, says deputy PM. http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/. Date
Accessed- 07/14/15. Anshul Nanda)
Islamophobia is a violation of human rights, Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc said
on Thursday. "Regardless of how we handle Islamophobia, it is a violation of
human rights and an attack against human dignity. The communication strategies
that trigger this violation won't contribute to world peace," Arinc said at the Grand Tarabya
Hotel in Istanbul. Speaking at The International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media,
organized by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Office of the Prime Minister
Arinc said that conflating Islam

with terrorism and totalitarianism leads societies to approach each other with
suspicion. He went on to He stressed that there are no religious principles that
prevent Muslims from embracing democracy. Arinc called Islamophobia,
which he said is spreading like a virus, "a tool for oppressing Muslim
societies." The The oppression is pursued by those who believe that Islam and
democracy are incompatible, is to turn countries that combine Islam and democracy into
Directorate General of Press and Information (BYEGM),
problematic states, he continued. Saying that the ruling Justice and Development Party's (AK
Party) unique example disproves the clash-of-civilizations theory, Arinc stressed the
attention the party pays to multiculturalism and its adoption of a view that
welcomes different cultures. Islamist terrorist organizations are the only terror groups
whose religion is taken into account, he said, adding that many nations perceive Islam as
being behind terror attacks and deal with Muslim countries differently when it comes to
terrorism issues. "When
Muslims are the matter of discussion, terms like

'militant, radical Islamist businessmen and Islamofascism are used in
conversations. Though [it defends] freedom at every opportunity, the
language the West uses is quite surprising on the Islam issue ," Arinc said,
arguing that Western prejudices impact discussions on the issue. Calling on the Muslim world
to make more efforts to shatter the prejudices against it, Arinc demanded that Western
societies take legal measures to prevent the escalation of Islamophobia. Many superficial
reports on Islam unnecessarily occupy the agenda, Arinc said, adding that Islamophobia in the
media harms its reliability and objectivity. "The gray area between incitement and freedom of
expression in international media should be clearer," he added. Speaking at the same
Islamophobia
is one of the most challenging issues facing the international community and
a threat to global peace and security. It stands in stark contradiction to universal
meeting, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary-general of the OIC, described
values as well as to the international community's commitment to developing a culture of

peace and harmony among different cultures, civilizations and faiths, according to Ihsanoglu.
Islamophobia is defined as "the dread, hatred and hostility towards Islam and Muslims
perpetrated by a series of closed views that imply and attribute negative and derogatory
stereotypes and beliefs to Muslims" in the Runnymede report, "Islamophobia: A Challenge for
Us All." The report added that Islamophobia is based on "an outlook or world-view involving an
unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and
discrimination." A report by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
(EUMC) titled "Summary Report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001"
documents acts of discrimination and racism against Muslims in 15 EU member countries. The
report's findings show that "Islamic communities and other vulnerable groups have become
targets of increased hostility since 11 September .
A greater sense of fear among the

general population has exacerbated already existing prejudices and fuelled
acts of aggression and harassment in many European member states ."
The governments perpetuation of the Muslim-terrorist

stereotype justifies violence against Muslims
In our current sociopolitical climate and historical moment, the most conspicuous example of how South
Asian American religions are racialized is not the Indian/Hindu connotation described above, but rather
the association between brown skin and Muslim beliefs. Since the oil shock of 1973
and the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979, the United States has been confronting
enemies in the developing world whose ideology is expressed and explained by
reference to their interpretations of Islam
Arab and
Muslim are used interchangeably and the politics and tactics of terrorist
movements are described as Islamic by the popular media. Stereotypes
perpetuated by the government
. This theology/ideology is racialized via its association with Islam:
and media come to paint Islam and Muslim as intrinsicallyperhaps organicallyviolent and evil in American public
opinion (Afridi, 2001; Haddad, 2000; Nimer, 2002). Said (1996) argued that Islam has been turned into Americas post-Soviet devil (p. 28) thereby replacing godless Communism as its sinister global enemy of
the present historical moment. The mainstream news and entertainment mediamost Americans only source of information about non-Whites and the religions and cultures of the non-Western worlddo little to
educate and much to exacerbate this othering of religions beyond the Jewish and Christian faiths. From
the attitudes of political leaders,
the
unenlightened coverage by the news media, and the caricatures that are the filmmakers stock-in-trade, it is a small step to the notion of all brown-skinned Muslims as the enemy (Shaheen, 1984, 2001).
The
racial/religious othering of Muslims has been used as a dehumanizing tool by political

leaders who a generation ago were demonizing yellow reds (
that is, the East and Southeast Asian communists against
whom the Korean and Vietnam Wars were fought). Like these enemies and like Japanese Americans in the 1940s, Arab, Muslim, and South Asian Americans have faced negative representations in the media since
the 1972 killing of Israeli athletes at the Olympic games in Munich and the Iran Hostage Crisis of 19791981, through the Intifada and First Gulf War of the 1980s and 1990s, and even more since the attacks of
September 11, 2001. Consider just one popular manifestation of American thought: the editorial cartoon. Hundreds of cartoons have vilified Osama bin Laden and his allies in ways that both draws upon and
exacerbate hackneyed images of the Semitic, Muslim villain. Like the midcentury cartoons of the Japanese emperor, the figures are exaggeratedusually with a large turban, protrusive nose, and beady eyesall
.S. society and culture tends to ascribe collective

guilt on an entire ethnic group, just as it did half a century ago with respect to Japanese Americans,
by associating these stereotypically Arab features with the acts committed by alQaeda.
stereotypical Arabic features often found represented in the media. As a result, U
Othering
in the context of specifically religion

justifies mass violence
Sticulescu et al. 12 (Ana Rodica Sticulescu, Ovidius University, Alina Stan,
Ovidius University, Identity in Conflict: A Case Study of Violence, Contemporary
Readings in Law and Social Justice Volume 4(2), 2012,
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?
handle=hein.journals/conreadlsj4&div=145&g_sent=1&collection=journals, al)
Mass violence as genocides28 are common during the process of "othering"
in which
the boundaries of an imagined community are reshaped in such a manner that a previously "included"
group is ideologically recast (involving a large scale mechanism of hate propaganda and incitement to
used as a mechanism of dehumanization of the others) as being

outside the community, as a threatening and dangerous "other"-whether racial,
political, ethnic, religious, economic, and so on-that must be annihilated. From an
genocide29 were
anthropological perspective, the reification of concepts such as race and ethnicity are not surprising, given
the historical background of perceived biological difference. It is said that in African societies a person is
considered a human being precisely for being enveloped in the community along with other human beings,
or their philosophy is governed by the verb "to participate".
Otherization also causes genocide, slavery, segregation,

exploitation, and a multitude of unspeakable wrongs
Katz 97 (Katheryn D. Katz, prof. of law - Albany Law School, 1997, Albany Law
Journal, |||edited for g-lang|||)
throughout human history dominant and oppressive groups have
committed unspeakable wrongs against those viewed as inferior. Once a person (or a
people) has been characterized as sub-human, there appears to have been no limit to
the cruelty that was or will be visited upon|||them||| him. For example, in almost all
wars, hatred towards the enemy was inspired to justify the killing and wounding by
separating the enemy from the human race, by casting them as unworthy of human
status. This same rationalization has supported: genocide, chattel slavery, racial
segregation, economic exploitation, caste and class systems, coerced sterilization of
social misfits and undesirables, unprincipled medical experimentation, the
subjugation of women, and the social Darwinists' theory justifying indifference to the
It is undeniable that
Racialized surveillance isolates Muslims as the other

destroys democracy
Mujahid 4 - Abdul Malik, American Muslim religious leader, activist, film producer, 2004 (In a
Virtual Internment Camp, Soundvision, Available online at http://www.soundvision.com/article/in-a-virtualinternment-camp-muslim-americans-since-911, Accessed on 7/13/15)
Our country is in the grips of a threat greater than terrorism. Democracy

is eroding and it seems no one cares. We are heading down a road which will
ultimately lead to a country where no one is safe and no one is secure. Right
now it is a small minority that is being targeted but Americans would do well
to remember that our post-9/11 laws and policies can apply to any and all.
Muslims in this country are being persecuted solely on the basis of their
religious affiliation but because of our secretive governmen
Americans are unaware of most things and don't care about what they do
know.
We now have a secretive
government acting outside the scrutiny of the public and its representatives.
Since the Attorney General has declared a war on the streets of America
against Americans, authentic information about the casualties and collateral
damage have disappeared.
Japanese-Americans were herded into
internment camps. They
But less than a decade after apologizing for
this injustice, America has once again embarked upon a campaign that has
severely undermined the civil rights of a minority community.
fear and
suspicion are aimed at Muslims and brown-skinned men. But rather than
putting this new enemy in actual internment, their imprisonment is virtual.
The walls of this virtual internment camp are the interrogations, home
invasions, detentions and arrests
and
discrimination that Muslims have faced since 9/11.
Most Americans seem to feel that sacrificing other
Conclusion:
t, complicit media, and hate-spewing public figures
The Bush administration has refused to release Patriot Act-related records to Congress; it has refused to release the names of detainees or open their court hearings to the public; it is relying
increasingly on secret evidence and exemptions under the Homeland Security Act to the Freedom of Information Act.
In 1942, 110,000
were singled out because of their race and country of origin. They were declared enemies of the state and lived, imprisoned in these camps, until
the end of World War II. Only recently has our government apologized for this outrage.
This time, the
, special registration, closed courts and their secret evidence, deportation,
This virtual internment camp is sustained by fear and hate, as well as a
potent mixture of wartime racism, religious bigotry, and intolerance.
people's liberty is fine as long as it means security for themselves. We should

heed the words of
Franklin
'Those who would give up
essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither
Liberty nor Safety.' A sustainable democracy requires an active and educated
citizenry. Passivity and apathy will end up being worse enemies for us than
any terrorist group. Our lack of engagement and lack of caring for our
neighbors makes it easier for our government to enact laws and make
policies that
one of this nation's founding fathers, Benjamin
, when he said,
Otherization causes exploitation and political

/economic Marginalization.
Joseph Nevins, 2002, Operation Gatekeeper: The Rise of the "Illegal Alien"
and the Making of the U.S.-Mexico Boundary, Publication: Routledge: New
York, page number: 95-122.
This development is not a mere point of narrow academic interest. Language

has a power of its own; As Hugh Mehan points out, The language we use in
public discourse and the way we talk about events and people in everyday
life makes [sic] a difference in the way we think and the way we act about
them. And language, of course, also reflects our ways of thinking and living;
it is for such reasons that I interrogate the rise of the illegal as a discursive
category. The central argument that I make is that we cannot divorce growing
emphasis on illegal aliens from the long history in the United States of
largely race-based anti-immigrant sentiment rooted in fear and/or rejection of
the those deemed as outsiders, a history that is inextricably tied to a context
of exploitation and political and economic marginalization of certain
immigrant populations. Operation Gatekeeper, as a state strategy to enhance
control over unauthorized passage over the boundary in southern California,
is, in no small part, a manifestation and outgrowth of such sentiment.
Solvency
Action is critical to send a clear signal and resolve
confusion.
Orfield 67 (Lester B. Orfield, Professor of Law at Indiana University, THE
DEFENSE OF ENTRAPMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS,
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2073&context=dlj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx
%3D000933248691480580078%253A57y4iyinbqe%26q%3Dentrapment
%26sa%3DSearch#search=%22entrapment%22)
The defense of entrapment in the federal courts continues to suffer from the
absence of a cohesive theoretical basis. The uncertainties surrounding the. defense are further
complicated by ambivalent judicial attitudes which indicate reluctance to accept its sketchily defined basis and its results.
In light of the fact that the defense is primarily applied to crimes which are
frequently considered the products of ill-advised statutes, one senses that
some distortion has occurred in the formulation of the doctrine. Against this
background, the courts appear to be struggling toward piecemeal answers with more or less commendable consequences.
Most notably, quantification and allocation of burdens of proof, appraisal of

special evidentiary problems, and separation of the respective functions of
court and jury are currently receiving judicial attention. Out of the morass
there appear to be emerging carefully wrought rules which are not altogether
consistent, a situation that may force the Supreme Court to take up the
gauntlet and resolve the conflicts which are in the process of solidification.
Responsibility to Other is a prerequisite to making other

moral systems humane. Failure to ground other ethical or
ontological theories in this encounter makes genocide
inevitable
Grob 99 Leonard Grob, Professor of Philosophy at Farleigh Dickinson
University, 99, Ethics After the Holocaust, p. 8-11//EMerz
This face-to-face encounter is thus no cognitive event. As we have seen, I cannot know the Other as Other without diminishing his or her otherness. I can, however, encounter that Other in what Levinas terms an
ethical event. Indeed, it is only with the rending of the ontological schema that ethics first becomes possible. Prior to my meeting with the Other, there is no ethics as such. Within the totality of being, I am limited in
my egoist ambition only by a lack of power. The Other who meets me face-to-face challenges my very right to exercise power. In so doing, ethics is born. Cognition no longer represents the highest activity of which
a human is capable; it is replaced by "revelation" of the Other as an ethical event in which, for the first time, I come to realize the arbitrariness of my egoist ambitions. The thematizing of the cognitive subject is
replaced by nothing short of an act of witness on the part of a being who now becomes an ethical subject. The Other who contests me is an Other truly independent of my appropriative powers and thus one to
whom I can have, for the first time, ethical obligations. As Levinas puts it, this Other is the first being whom I can wish to murder. Before the totality is rent by the manifestation of the face, there can be no will to act
immorally, as there can be no will to act morally, in any ultimate sense of that word. If one begins with the "imperial I" appropriating its world, ethics as such can never be founded. The other with whom I interact is
the Other
summons me to respond with nonviolence:
simply a datum, an aspect of my universe. Morality makes its first appearance when I confront the Other who is truly Other. Although
could wish to kill, he or she in fact
appears to me now, on principle, as someone I

I am called to willingly renounce my power
to act immorally. What I hear from the Other, Levinas claims, are the words "Thou shalt not kill." Harkening to this injunction constitutes my inaugural act as an ethical being. In Levinas's words, "Morality begins
when freedom, instead of being justified by itself, feels itself to be arbitrary and violent." Addressing the face of the Other I become ethical. In a turnabout from what has been the norm in the history of Western
thought, ethics now is seen, by Levinas, to constitute the essence of philosophy. Ethics is now "first philosophy," a position usurped until now by the ontological enterprise. The meeting with the Other-who-is-trulyOther is a primordial event: "Since the Other looks at me," Levinas exclaims, "I am responsible for him, without even having taken on responsibilities in his regard " In encountering the Other, I assume responsibility
for him. "Responsibility," Levinas proclaims, "is the essential, primary and fundamental structure of subjectivity.... Responsibility in fact is not a simple attribute of subjectivity, as if the latter already existed in itself,
before the ethical relationship."'" In other words, my structure as a human being, in any significant sense of that word, is to be responsible to the Other. My personhood is not to be identified with that of the solitary
ego appropriating its world; it is rather a personhood fundamentally oriented toward the Other. Ethics, for Levinas, is thus not to be identified with any ethical or even meta-ethical position.
speaks neither as deontologist nor consequentialist.

. All ethical theories,
, are
from,
the encounter with the face of the Other
Levinas
He does not attempt to articulate any list of rights
or obligations, or even the principles on which the latter would be based

a primordial or founding moment:
he implies
secondary to, or
derivative
. It is this moment-of-all-moments
which institutes the very possibility of the "ethical" systems so hotly debated within the history of Western thought. Before there can be any ethical positioningbefore there can be discussions of virtue, happiness,
dutiesthere is the meeting with the Other. Ethics is no set of directives; rather, in Levinas's words, Already of itself ethics is an 'optics,' a way of seeing which precedesand foundsall that has heretofore been
identified as ethical philosophy. The import of this notion of the primacy of ethics for a rethinking of philosophy in the post-Holocaust age cannot be emphasized strongly enough. For Levinas, philosophy-as-ontology
reveals being as nothing short of "war": The visage of being that shows itself in war is fixed in the concept of totality which dominates Western philosophy. Individuals are reduced to being bearers offerees that
command them unbeknown to themselves. The meaning of individuals (invisible outside of this totality) is derived from the totality. Individuals within the "being" constructed by philosophers are merely creatures of
the schematizing mind. Such a concept of philosophy is ill-equipped to address the great ethical issues which arise in the study of the Holocaust. Indeed, for Levinas, "War is not only one of the ordealsthe greatest
of which morality lives; it renders morality derisory." Within the terms of warfare, lying, stealingeven killinglose whatever ethical import they might have. I simply engage in these acts as "necessary" within the
universe created by war. If the being studied by traditional philosophy is conceived of as war, morality loses its core meaning. Not only is no fundamental ethical critique of the events of the Holocaust possible
within the terms of philosophy-as-ontology, but, as I have noted above, it can be argued that the mode of appropriative thinking of philosophers in our Western tradition has contributed to the creation of a climate in
which genocide can flourish. If, in ontological terms, individual beings are said to have their meaning solely within the totality in which they find themselves, totalizing thinking may well become totalitarian. Jews
and other victims of Nazi oppression were dehumanized precisely by being viewed in terms of racial categories applied to them as a whole. If philosophy is a mere egology, as Levinas claims, the totalizing cognitive
subject can, at the far end of a continuum, be seen to pass over into the autocratic "I" of the leaders of the Third Reich. In contrast to that appropriative thinking which can lead to the brutal dehumanization of the
the face-to-face relationship is a pacific one. It is a relationship

which establishes a peace
kind present in war
which is no mere truce, no temporary cessation of inevitable hostilities. For traditional philosophy, knowledge is power, a power
capable of harnessing technology to evil ends. The absolute end of philosophy is its goal of achieving total mastery of being; it is thus not at all illogical to foresee a progression from conceptual to physical mastery
of one's world. Once the locus of an "absolute" is placed in the powers of the "I," the other person cannot fail to become merely another datum in a world whose meaning derives itself entirely from me. Often I may
treat her or him in terms of what in the West has been called "goodness." Yet such goodness, for Levinas, is accidental, the product of a determination on my part that it is in my self-interest to act in a given manner
in a given situation. The fundamental reference point remains the "I." Goodness thus established, I argue, along with Levinas, is a goodness which is simply not good enough!
Multicultural education can deconstruct the other

to rid ourselves of prejudice. Jackie C. Horne The Lion and the
Unicorn. Volume 34, Number 1, January 2010. Harry and the Other: Answering the
Race Question in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter
The most common takes the form of multicultural antiracism, an approach that
affirms the value of diversity as a method of combating racial oppression. Since the
late 1980s, learning about and celebrating other cultures has become a cornerstone
of educational practice in many British, Canadian, and American schools. The goal
of such multicultural education is not simply to become familiar with
the
traditions of other cultures, but to "enable empathy," to "generat[e]
cross-cultural understanding and solidarity," enabling students to
"see things from others' point of view" (Bonnett 9495). Part of this
understanding stems from the creation of "positive racial images"
(97); celebrating Black History Month, teaching about the role of
Islamic scholars in the development of early mathematics, or
learning about the Navajo who worked as codebreakers for the U.S.
Army during World War II would all be examples of multicultural antiracism
practice. proponents of multiculturalism believe that , by learning about the
culture of other races, or learning about positive role models of
members of previously ignored groups, students will learn to rid
themselves of their prejudices, which in turn will lead to a more
egalitarian world.
Oversight
Congressional Oversight By the United States Congress
Kaiser01 (Frederick M. Kaiser Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division, CRS Report for Congress January 2, 2001
Congressional Oversight,
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/CRS.Oversight.pdf
)
Congressional oversight of policy implementation and administration,

which has occurred throughout the U.S. government experience under the
Constitution, takes a variety of forms and utilizes various techniques. These range from specialized
investigations byselect committeesto annual appropriations hearings, and frominformal communications
between Members or congressionalstaff and executive personnelto the use of extra congressional
mechanisms, such as offices of inspector general and study commissions. Oversight, moreover, is
supported by a variety of authoritiesthe Constitution, public law, and chamber and committee rules
and is an integral part of the systemof checks and balances between the legislature and the executive.
Congressional
oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal
agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress exercises this power largely
This report will be updated as events require. Organization and Operations
through its standing committee system. However, oversight, which dates to the earliest days of the
Republic, also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include
authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized
investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and
staff.
Federal Judicial Oversight Necessary to prevent abuse

United States Courts, No Date (United States Courts, Administrative
Oversight and Accountability, No Date, http://www.uscourts.gov/aboutfederal-courts/judicial-administration/administrative-oversight-andaccountability )
Federal judiciary oversight mechanisms deter and prevent

fraud, waste, and abuse, and address mistakes should they
occur. Oversight mechanisms also promote compliance with
ethical, statutory, and regulatory standards. By statute, responsibility for administering the
Third Branch rests with the Judicial Conference of the United States, regional circuit judicial
councils, the individual courts themselves, and, in specified areas, the Director of the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO). Internal safeguards exist at the local, regional,
and national levels to
Judicial review is important and does not threaten

national security.
Stabile 2014
(Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013 Recruiting Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration
Incentives and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276 Available at:
Finally, individuals who agree to provide information in exchange for an S-6 visa should not be forced to waive their right to a deportation
hearing. Currently, informants must knowingly waive their rights to any deportation hearings and appeals should deportation proceedings
occur. They must also waive their rights to contest their detention pending deportation until lawful permanent resident status is obtained.267
Strikingly, informants relinquish all access to judicial review if their applications are mishandled or forgotten and they subsequently face
deportation. In the past, informants have alleged that the FBI has mismanaged and reneged on promises, including immigration promises.268
Allowing judicial review of the S-6 visa process would help lift the
veil of secrecy under which the FBI operates. Furthermore, through
redaction or other methods that preserve informants identities,
judicial review could be carried out without threatening national
security.269 Another benefit of this requirement would be increased transparency in the
way the FBI recruits informants. Wider use of the S-6 visa, as well as greater judicial review, would allow the
government to ascertain the number of individuals enlisted by the FBI as counterterrorism informants . This may further
help curb informant mishandling, a problem that plagues the agency. Because informants would still be
required to provide critical and reliable intelligence, the FBI would be required to articulate clear predicates for recruiting individuals, such as a
close relationship between an individual and a known member of a foreign terrorist organization. This, in turn, would provide due process and
could vindicate informants rights
Congressional Oversight necessary

Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 20 13
Available at:
This Comment proposes the S-6 visa requirements should be modified in a

way that encourages trust and cooperation from informants by allowing
informants to enforce their bargains with the FBI. A legislative overhaul that
emphasizes pre-existing ties to terrorist organizations, increases the number
of available visas, and lowers the barriers to the S-6 visas use would produce
more reliable and actionable intelligence, and provide greater protection for
the informants civil liberties and free speech. Congressional oversight of the
FBIs use of S-6 visas would also provide a valuable check on the FBIs largely
unlimited control over terrorism informants.
Congressional Oversight Needs to change

ACLU, 13 (American Civil Liberty Union, September 2013, UNLEASHED AND
UNACCOUNTABLE
Congress must intensify its oversight of all FBI policies and

practices, particularly those that implicate Americans constitutional
rights. The collection, retention, and sharing of personally identifying
information about Americans without facts establishing a reasonable

indication of criminal activity poses serious risks to liberty and
democracy, and the evidence of abuse is overwhelming. The lessons of
the past have been ignored and we are increasingly seeing a return to
abusive intelligence operations that target protest groups and religious
and racial minorities. Congress must particularly examine FBI activities
abroad, where Americans due process rights and safety are at
greatest risk
The Intelligence committee is the best way to reform

oversight
)
The Intelligence Committees are completely on their own. They serve as the proxy for the American people on intelligence. They provide the
sole check and balance on a huge and important Government activity. If they don't provide the independent oversight, it simply doesn't get
done. It's an awesome responsibility. In short, this is why we believe the Intelligence Committees need to be powerful and active. They
need to carry out the robust oversight our system of Government requires. They need to look into every nook and cranny of the intelligence
community's business. They need to ensure that laws are obeyed. They need to ensure that the American people are safe and that their
freedoms are protected.

)
intelligence appropriations. Governor Kean and I will support reforms and structures that increase the opportunity and likelihood of robust
congressional oversight of the intelligence community. Let me give you some practical examples as to why oversight of the intelligence
community is more important than ever and why congressional oversight must be reformed and strengthened. First, the United States will
without a doubt intervene again somewhere with military force. It may be the most important foreign policy question of the coming
It is vitally
important that the intelligence community get it right. Oversight is
vitally important to help the community get it right. Second, the Congress since 9/11 has
provided broad authorities to the executive branch to conduct investigations and
collect data. Enhanced collection capabilities and data mining pose
high risks to civil liberties and to privacy. To safeguard our
liberties, the Congress must conduct robust oversight over the
exercise of the authorities it has granted. Third, the success of reform
also needs congressional oversight. Reform in the intelligence community, the most far reaching
decades. Decisions whether to intervene and how to intervene will ride largely on what the intelligence tells us.
since 1947, is not easy to implement. Reform is a long and hard road. Crises distract, attention wavers, senior officials are pulled in 100
different directions. The executive cannot carry out reform on its own. Support and guidance from the Congress are necessary to sustain
reform. Sustained
oversight is necessary
. Chairman Rockefeller requested comment from us with regard to this very difficult question of access to
information. That's not a new problem in the Congress. That goes back 30, maybe 40 years, when the committees have been fighting for more information from the intelligence community. When I was
Chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the House, we fought that battle every single week. It has not been resolved. I don't know the answer to that except the only way to get the attention of the executive
is to withhold the money. You'll get their attention quick when that money is withheld. The checks and balances in the Constitution are there for the Senators and the Members to exercise, if they will do it. If
you want access to information and the executive branch won't give it to you--don't give them the money. You'll get the information. To conclude, let me just say that, under our Constitution, Congress cannot
play its proper role unless its oversight committees are powerful and active. I was immensely pleased to hear a moment ago that you have had over 60, I think it was, oversight hearings during this year thus far.
That shows a vitality and activity that I think is just extraordinary on the part of this Committee and you are to be commended for it. Strong oversight provides the checks and balances our Constitution
requires. Strong oversight by the Congress protects our liberties .
Under our Constitution, Congress cannot play its proper role unless its oversight committees are powerful and active. Strong oversight
. Strong oversight by the Congress

protects our liberties and makes our policies better. Strong
oversight keeps our country safe and free. I appreciate your time and attention, and look
provides the checks and balances our Constitution requires
forward to your
questions.
Circumvention SQ (Last Resort)

AND UNACCOUNTABLE
The FBI thwarts congressional oversight by withholding information,

limiting or delaying responses to members inquiries, or, worse, by
providing false or misleading information to Congress and the
American public. These are but a few examples. When Congress debated the first Patriot Act
reauthorization in April 2005, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified that he was unaware of any
substantiated allegations of abuse of Patriot Act authorities.199 The 2007 IG audit later revealed the
FBI self-reported 19 Patriot Act-related violations of law or policy to the Intelligence Oversight Board
between 2003 and 2005.200 Though misleading, this testimony was technically accurate because
President Bushs Intelligence Oversight Board did not meet to substantiate any reported violations until
the spring of 2007.201
Rights
Religious Freedom
First Amendment Violated
Stabile 2014
Available at:
The very knowledge of potential surveillance may caution people against
discussing their political and religious viewpoints for fear of being targeted by
85
informants like Monteilh. Consequently, mosque attendance falls
and
community cohesion suffers, thwarting the First Amendments protection of
free expression.
Even those not harboring extreme viewpoints may be dissuaded from political speech for fear of
misinterpretation. For example, after revelations of potential FBI surveillance surfaced at the Islamic Center of Irvine, congregant Omar Turbi
attested, It gives you a little bit of apprehension about who you trust . . . . Makes you think twice about what you say; what if people
misunderstand you?
86
Similarly, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Anaheim stated, Some average
Muslims interested only in praying are avoiding mosques for fear of somehow being monitored or profiled . . . .
Everybody is
afraid, and it is leading to an infringement of the free practice of our

87
religion.
Although some states like Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Oregon
have enacted laws prohibiting the surveillance of religious sites without
88
reasonable suspicion,
it should not be necessary to rely on state laws to
protect the integrity and values of the First Amendment.
FBI surveillance of Muslims is destroying religious

freedom
Madiha Shahabudin 2015 Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of
Law, May 2015, The More Muslim You Are, the More Trouble You Can Be: 1
How Government Surveillance of Muslim Americans Violates First Amendment
Rights, Chapman Law Review, http://www.chapmanlawreview.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/Shahabuddin.pdf. Amanda Li.
Although the government has proffered the compelling interest of national
security as a justification for its
monitoring
Muslim American daily life, the means it has employed are not sufficiently
narrowly tailored to survive strict scrutiny in the face of constitutional First
Amendment protections
This has led to a significant chilling of
religious and political expression, as well as the curtailment of actual religious
activities such as mosque attendance, donations for charity
,
Muslim Americans can be secured their fundamental rights, while still
widespread network of surveillance and informants for the purpose of essentially
of free association and speech.
, or participation in a Muslim Student Association
on college campuses. Through the refining of the governments scope of surveillance, and the creation of objective, transparent criteria for individuals who do warrant such government scrutiny
allowing law enforcement to accomplish its goal of fighting actual terrorism

law
enforcement should allow the Muslim American community its own space to
address the issue on its own terms, by offering such individuals social
programs and mental health services as needed, without fear of government
scrutiny or prosecution.
It is not the place of a government based on fundamental constitutional
principles of freedom to punish individuals for mere adherence to their faith
.
Additionally, the government should not prosecute those vulnerable, and easily susceptible individuals who were unsuspectingly caught in the government dragnet of informant sting operations. Instead,
This will not only empower Muslim Americans, a community largely marginalized post 9/11, but also allow them to mold their own destinies in this
nation.
, no
matter how stigmatized they are. Courts must now step in to uphold those fundamental rights that have been pushed aside out of misunderstanding and fear.

Surveillance and Infiltration of Mosques: Chilling Effect on

Practice of Religion
February 24, 2011)
Imagine going to a place of worship, thinking you are in a sanctuary, where you just want to focus on your spirituality but not knowing if
you're in danger from the person next to you, if the leadership of that mosque is in collaboration with the FBI, appealed Zahra Billoo, a civil
rights attorney and the Director of the San Francisco Bay Area office of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). The result is a
chilling effect on the practice of religion . Ms. Billoo testified, I've been with CAIR a full year now and I want
to share the stories of a few individuals I've come across who as a result of this targeting of organizations are afraid to get involved, who are
that people are afraid that federal and

local law enforcement are collaborating to infiltrate mosques. So they're less
willing to exercise their religious duty to go to the mosque to participate in group prayers because
they don't know if they can trust the people they are praying with. A lot of the times in
afraid to go to the mosques. One of the things we hear most often is
the course of working with individuals to make sure that they know their rights are protected and that they really feel at home in this country,
we're also [hearing], Well that person looks suspicious. They're targeting our mosque, they've made threats. Community member Adel
spies on my mosque on a regular

basis. I told him and his department that our mosques are places of worship, not spy stations. I conducted a survey in multiple mosques
Samaha testified, The FBI agent I spoke with informs me that his department
around the Bay Area to understand the level of surveillance conducted; the majority of people I asked told me their stories verbally but were
too afraid to write them down. Under DGO 8.10, SFPD surveillance of mosque and other places of worship without criminal suspicion
would be prohibited. ACLU attorney Julia Mass stressed that, *G+iven the current law enforcement climate, it's important that SFPD
understands that this general order [General Order 8.10] applies to religious activity, religious gathering, and religious organizations and
groups.
First Amendment Violation of Muslims

Markon, 11 (By Jerry Markon, Washington Post Staff Writer, February 22,
2011, The Washington Post, Lawsuit alleges FBI violated Muslims' freedom of
religion http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/02/22/AR2011022206975.html )
An FBI informant who infiltrated a California mosque violated the

constitutional rights of hundreds of Muslims by targeting them for
surveillance because of their religion, the ACLU and a Muslim group said in a lawsuit Tuesday. The lawsuit,
filed against the FBI and seven of its agents and supervisors, focuses on the actions several years ago of Craig Monteilh, a paid FBI informant.
Monteilh has said he was instructed to spy on worshipers at an Irvine mosque in a quest for potential terrorists, allegations that prompted
t Monteilh was
ordered by his FBI handlers to conduct "indiscriminate surveillance" of
Muslims, violating their First Amendment right to freedom of religion.
fierce criticism of the FBI from some Muslims in Southern California and nationwide. The lawsuit alleges tha
Filed on behalf of three Muslim plaintiffs, the 64-page document seeks class action status, unspecified damages and a court order instructing
"The FBI should be spending its time and

resources investigating actual threats, not spying on every American who
happens to worship at a mosque,'' said Peter Bibring, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, which
the FBI to destroy or return the information Monteilh collected.
filed the complaint along with the Los Angeles office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. FBI officials declined to comment on the
lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, but empasized that they are careful not to violate civil liberties when they use informants
and do not target anyone based on religion or ethnicity. ad_icon The lawsuit comes after years of national debate over how the FBI can stop
terrorism while preserving civil liberties. The FBI says it has been successful in striking that balance. FBI and Justice Department officials say
that they have gone to great lengths to maintain good relations with Muslims and that the Monteilh case is not representative of those efforts.
Muslims say the revelations about Monteilh have seriously damaged their
relationship with the FBI. Monteilh, who had served time in jail after being convicted of forgery, revealed his informant
Some
status in 2009, and law enforcement sources have confirmed that he was a paid FBI informant for several years until 2007. They have said he
aided an existing investigation and was not told to target Muslims because of their religion. Legal experts said that point - whether the ACLU
can prove that the FBI randomly targeted Muslims - will be key in determining the case's outcome. If the FBI did, "the case has a strong
likelihood of success,'' said David Cole, a constitutional law and national security expert at Georgetown University's law school. John Baker, a
professor at Louisiana State University's law school and a former state prosecutor, said the ACLU's case is heavily dependent on Monteilh's
word. "Using informants is an unsavory business, and informants often lie,'' he said. "How trustworthy is his information? No one knows.''
Legal experts said that there have been a number of legal challenges to FBI surveillance practices since the 1970s but that the current lawsuit
is among the first to accuse the agency of targeting people based on religion. Monteilh, a Los Angeles native, has said he became an
informant for a federal-state task force in 2003 and was later recruited by the FBI for counterterrorism cases. Agents, he said, provided his
cover: Farouk al-Aziz, a French Syrian in search of his Islamic roots. His code name was "Oracle."
instructed to infiltrate mosques
Monteilh said he was
throughout Orange County and two neighboring counties in Southern California but
was told to focus on the Islamic Center of Irvine. Members of that mosque have said Monteilh attended prayers five times a day, and
he
has said he tape-recorded Muslims at the mosques , in their homes and at a gym. He helped build a
terrorism-related case against a mosque member, but the case collapsed. The lawsuit says that Monteilh's handlers, FBI agents Kevin
Armstrong and Paul Allen, instructed him to collect e-mail addresses, phone numbers and other detailed information about Muslims and
"explicitly told Monteilh that Islam was a threat to America's

national security. '' Through an FBI spokeswoman, the two agents declined to comment. Ali Malik, a plaintiff in the
lawsuit who helped teach Monteilh about Islam at the Irvine mosque, said the Muslim community has yet to recover from Monteilh's actions.
"A lot of people now see the mosque as a place where the government can
just come in and spy on you, '' said Malik, who says he has been questioned by the FBI several times since his dealings
with Monteilh. "It's going to take a long time to heal those wounds.''
FBI are scaring Muslims from their mosques with fear of

surveillance
Watanabe, 09( Teresa Watanabe, LA Times reporter since 1989, LA Times, 2009
Muslims say FBI surveillance has a chilling effect on their free speech and religious
practices, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/01/local/me-muslim1 )\
The Islamic Center of Irvine is a beige stucco building that blends into the rows of
office buildings surrounding it. But last week, it became the most publicized mosque
in California with disclosures that the FBI sent an informant there to spy and
collect evidence of jihadist rhetoric and other allegedly extremist acts by a
Tustin man who attended prayers there. The revelations dismayed mosque members like Omar Turbi, 50, and his 27-year-old son who shares
his name. After Friday prayer service last week, while hundreds of others scurried back to work, the pair stood with their backs to a wall and
mulled over the news. "It gives you a little bit of apprehension about who you trust," the elder Turbi said. "Makes you think twice about what
you say; what if people misunderstand you?" Turbi's fears were echoed by other Muslims throughout Southern California last week. Some say a
climate of suspicion toward them, fueled by 9/11 and underscored by the

latest disclosures of FBI surveillance, is inhibiting their freedoms of speech
and faith. According to Muslim leaders, some people are avoiding mosques, preferring to pray at home. Others are reducing donations
to avoid attracting government attention or paying in cash to avoid leaving records. And some mosques have asked speakers to refrain from
political messages in their sermons, such as criticism of U.S. foreign policy, said Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on
American-Islamic Relations in Anaheim. "Some average Muslims interested only in praying are avoiding mosques for fear of somehow being
"Everybody is afraid, and it is leading to an

infringement of the free practice of our religion."
monitored or profiled," Ayloush said.
The latest anxiety wave was triggered by an FBI agent's testimony last week that an informant was sent into several Orange County mosques
and helped collect evidence against Ahmadullah Sais Niazi. The Afghanistan-born Niazi, 34, is scheduled for arraignment this month on
A man claiming to be that

informant, Irvine resident Craig Monteilh, said last week in interviews and court
documents that he served the FBI as a paid informant from July 2006 to October
2007 and used concealed audio and video equipment to record thousands of
hours of conversations with Muslims in homes, restaurants and mosques in Irvine, Tustin, Mission Viejo and
charges of perjury, naturalization fraud and other acts related to lying about ties to Al Qaeda.
elsewhere. But Ayloush and other Muslim leaders said that FBI scrutiny of the Muslim community -- and efforts to recruit informants -- began
years ago. The FBI declined to comment. Both Ayloush and Shakeel Syed of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, an umbrella
numerous Muslims have reported to them attempts by

the FBI to recruit them as informers. In virtually all cases, they said, the
Muslims in question had immigration and other legal problems or were
applying for green cards. "We will make your problems vanish if you
cooperate," Syed said the FBI told Muslims. Suspecting widespread surveillance of
their community, several American Muslim organizations and their leaders filed a
organization of 68 area mosques, said
Freedom of Information Act request, followed in 2007 by a lawsuit against

the federal government, demanding the release of all information collected
on them. Muslims have also complained of FBI interrogations about their charitable
contributions, asking why were they donating and who was receiving their money. At
one Los Angeles-area mosque, nearly every donor was quizzed by the FBI,
and the mosque subsequently experienced a steep decline in donations, Ayloush said. Leaders at other mosques also say their contributions
are down, although most attribute much of the decline to the recession. The Islamic Center of Corona Norco, for instance, has experienced a
decline in donations of 30% to 50% in the last three to four years, which board
member Rafe Husain attributed both to the economy and what he called a climate of fear. "People feel tense and
uncomfortable," Husain said. "I've talked to some people who try to avoid mosque activity." Since 9/11, federal authorities have also shut
down at least six of the Muslim community's major charitable
organizations, accusing them of involvement in terrorist financing. The actions
have impeded Muslims from fulfilling the duties of their faith, Syed said, because charitable giving is not a voluntary act in Islam but a religious
obligation. The latest tensions have further frayed relations between the FBI and Muslims. Since 9/11, the two sides had worked to develop a
FBI unilaterally broke off

ties with the American-Islamic council a few weeks ago, issuing a cryptic statement that the
partnership, forming a Multi-Cultural Advisory Committee to meet monthly. But the
agency would limit contact until "certain issues" were addressed by CAIR's national headquarters in Washington.
Inherency
2014
final.pdf )
The NYPD used
and South Asian

populations.
the NYPD
identified
3

FBI surveillance of Muslims is destroying religious

freedom
Madiha Shahabudin 2015 Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of
Law, May 2015, The More Muslim You Are, the More Trouble You Can Be: 1
How Government Surveillance of Muslim Americans Violates First Amendment
Rights, Chapman Law Review, http://www.chapmanlawreview.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/Shahabuddin.pdf. Amanda Li.
Although the government has proffered the compelling interest of national
security as a justification for its
monitoring
Muslim American daily life, the means it has employed are not sufficiently
narrowly tailored to survive strict scrutiny in the face of constitutional First
Amendment protections
This has led to a significant chilling of
religious and political expression, as well as the curtailment of actual religious
activities such as mosque attendance, donations for charity
,
widespread network of surveillance and informants for the purpose of essentially
of free association and speech.
, or participation in a Muslim Student Association
on college campuses. Through the refining of the governments scope of surveillance, and the creation of objective, transparent criteria for individuals who do warrant such government scrutiny
Muslim Americans can be secured their fundamental rights, while still

allowing law enforcement to accomplish its goal of fighting actual terrorism
law
enforcement should allow the Muslim American community its own space to
address the issue on its own terms, by offering such individuals social
programs and mental health services as needed, without fear of government
scrutiny or prosecution.
It is not the place of a government based on fundamental constitutional
principles of freedom to punish individuals for mere adherence to their faith
.
Additionally, the government should not prosecute those vulnerable, and easily susceptible individuals who were unsuspectingly caught in the government dragnet of informant sting operations. Instead,
This will not only empower Muslim Americans, a community largely marginalized post 9/11, but also allow them to mold their own destinies in this
nation.
, no
matter how stigmatized they are. Courts must now step in to uphold those fundamental rights that have been pushed aside out of misunderstanding and fear.
Harms
The Constitution is the most important thing to preserve
Eidmoe 92
(John A. Eidsmoe is a Constitutional Attorney, Professor of Law at
Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and Colonel with the USAF, 1992 3
USAFA J. Leg. Stud. 35, p. 57-9)
Other misfortunes may be borne, or their effects overcome. If

disastrous war should sweep our commerce from the ocean, another
generation may renew it; if it exhaust our treasury, future industry may replenish it; if it
desolate and lay waste our fields, still under a new cultivation, they will grow green again, and ripen to future harvests.
It were but a trifle
even if the walls of yonder Capitol were to crumble , if its lofty pillars should fall, and its
gorgeous decorations be all covered by the dust of the valley. All these might be rebuilt. But who shall
reconstruct the fabric of demolished government? Who shall rear
again the wellproportioned columns of constitutional liberty ? Who shall frame
together the skilful architecture which united national sovereignty with State rights, individual security, and public prosperity? No, if these columns
fall, they will be raised not again. Like the Coliseum and the Parthenon, they will be destined to a mournful, a melancholy
immortality. Bitterer tears, however, will flow over them, than were ever shed over the remnants of a more glorious edifice than Greece or Rome ever saw, the edifice of
It is possible that a constitutional convention could take

place and none of these drastic consequences would come to pass. It
is possible to play Russian roulette and emerge without a scratch; in
fact, with only one bullet in the chamber, the odds of being shot are only one in six. But when the stakes are as high as
one's life, or the constitutional system that has shaped this nation
into what it is today, these odds are too great to take the risk.
constitutional American liberty.
Solvency
1. Solves- the government has to identify reasonable
concern outside of religion- prevents policies that
infringe on religious practices such as mosque
monitoring
Uddin 2012 [Asma, (attorney @ the Becket Fund for Religious Liberties), A
First Amendment Analysis of Anti-Sharia Initiatives, First Amendment Law
Review, Winter 2012, http://www.becketfund.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/09/A-FIRST-AMENDMENT-ANALYSIS-OF-ANTI-SHARIAINITIATIVES.pdf, Accessed 7/16/15, AX]
Further, in determining whose interests are sufficient to warrant a
departure from a common legal scheme, when the government makes a
value judgment in favor of secular motivations, but not religious motivations,
the governments actions must survive heightened scrutiny. 109[I]f the
object of a law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because
of their religious motivation, the law is not neutral and it is
invalid unless it is justified by a compelling interest and is
narrowly tailored to advance that interest.110Notably, one significant
interpretation of the First Amendment that has been advanced gives a higher
level of protection to individual behavior motivated by religious belief.111 This
interpretation would demand strict scrutiny of any law burdening religious
practice.
Radicalization
Otherization is a cause of radicalization
Universal Tolerance, 15 (A BRIEF REPORT ABOUT GLOBAL TOLERANCE
FORUM 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 DRAMMEN, NORWAY, Universal Tolerance,
April 8, 2015, http://universaltolerance.org/component/k2/item/1338-globaltolerance-forum-17-september-2015-drammen-norway)
- Global Tolerance Forum was successfully organized on 17th September, 2015 at Drammen Theatre in Norway.
Forum started with sacred flute music by Tal Zimra Colemen, followed by Brazilian a melodious Brazilian song. Afterwards, mayor of Darmmen, Mr. Tore Opdal Hansen, delivered welcome speech. Mr. Tore Opdal
Hansen highlighted the liberal and multicultural aspect of Drammen. Mr. Hansen informed that 27% of habitants of Drammen belongs to immigrants community and local government aim is to make sure that
immigrants feels a sense of belonging to Norway thus able to connect with it fully and consider Drammen their home in a real sense. Deputy minister of Justice, Joran Kallmyer, illustrated Norwegian government
programmes on prevention of radicalization. He said to secure fundamental liberal values of democracy and human rights, government has employed a strategic effort to counter violent extremism and Norway
cannot be safe haven for terrorist. He showed deep concern over some Norwegian citizen being radicalized and participating in Islamic state war in Syria. Minister discussed about government comprehensive
guidelines to prevent radicalization of Norwegian youth. He informed audience that most of government departments from National to municipal level are working in sync to counter violent radicalization, and for
this purpose, various methods of de-radicalization and rehabilitation plans for youths is being implemented. However, he commented that there is not enough research available on the topic as why youth
radicalized. Minister, also, expressed his concern over extremism emanating from right wing and religion. Afterwards, Mr. Kjell Magne Bondevik, president of Oslo Centre for Peace and Human rights has delivered
a speech on the importance of inter-religious dialogues to counter extremism. He mentioned the fact that radical elements have been killing people globally irrespective of their religion. He blamed terror
organization to radicalize youth. Mr. Boondevik expressed that if minority youth do not feel the sense of belonging- they will turn to terrorism. He also showed his concern over rising right wing extremism globally.
He has highlighted the importance of inter-faith dialogues among communities to prevent radicalization of youth. He discussed effort of Peace and Human rights centre in promotion of inter-faith dialogues as
employing dialogue as a tool for reconciliation. Furthermore, he said that values such a idea of justice, human dignity, peace, and respect of sacred is connecting link among all communities globally. He highlighted
importance of mutual understanding and acceptance of other religion to counter the extremism. Next speaker, Loretta Napoleoni, a journalist and political analyst, provided a detailed analysis of terror financing
globally. She mentioned various types of funding to terror organization. In past some funding have been provided by the Western nation and in current times being supported by middle eastern nation such as Saudi
Arab. Ms. Loretta, said, some part of terror financing comes from illegal activities such a drug smuggling whereas some money which is levied as a tax- comes from terror supporting countries such as Syria and
Saudi Arab. She highlighted the role of Islamic state in terror funding. However, she also blamed western politician for the destabilization of weak countries leading to terrorism. she expressed that in order to stop
terror funding there must be a political agreements among nations especially with the middle eastern nations. Next speaker, Mr. Haras Rafiq, manging director of Quiluim, asserted on the need to declare Islam as
a political ideology (rather than religion) as it being misused by Islamic state. He classified various methods to show as how people support and empathise Al quada and Islamic state. Mr. Rafiq expressed that in less
them two week a youth can be radicalized thus there is need of de-radicalization framework to prevent youth to falling into the trap on terrorism. He showed how Islamic state is manipulating social medic to
radicalize youth thus a stronger response is need of time from civil society. He explained the role of theological justification, revenge due to killing of loved ones and mental health have been important factor in
instigating radicalization among youths. Mr. Rafiq denied that there is not such as thing called, Muslim leader and in countering extremism civil society can play a vital role. Suleman Nagdi, spokesperson of
Federation of Muslim Organization highlighted vital role of online media in counter extremism. He explained various methods and process (recruitment of youth in terror organization) of radicalization among youths
as this methods are being used by Islamic state thus there is dire need to have strategy to prevent radicalization. Mr. Suleman drew his attention on the importance of monitoring measures by school teachers in
countering radicalization. However, he showed his concerned over the fact that some people resist such monitoring measures citing the breach of freedom of expression and violations of their basic human rights. In
addition, he said, Mosque can play an important role in prevention of radicalization since it is meeting point for religious Muslims. He blamed internet for spreading radicalization among youths, However, he warned
that we must avoid demonizing whole Muslim community and we need to understand minds of youth to prevent radicalization. Iyad El- Baghdadi, a writer and human rights activist, discussed a roadmap to
He discussed five points which instigate radicalization, such as

Otherization (we are
prevent radicalization among youth.
different, us and them), collectivization (they are all the same-blaming whole community for terrorism), oppressive narratives (we are under attack),
Collective guilt (they are all complicit in oppressing us), Supermacy-narrative (we are better then that), Self defence (we have to retaliate and defend ourselves) and the violence of the only way to get the justice.
Mr. Baghdadi declared that what terrorist preaching is a tribal ideology no
Radicalization originates from American Otherization


stereotypes. The Muslim and Arab American had been
popularly constructed as an irrational, terror-
supporting, and fanatical enemy Other long before

9/11. American foreign policy has consistently justified
intervention in the Muslim world along similar lines. When
U.S. leaders characterize the Arab and Muslim world as
inherently undemocratic owing to fundamental value
environment of intolerance at home. Thus, the racialization of Arab and Muslim
Americans, a process decades in the making, also explains the overwhelming support for the infringement
of Arab and Muslim civil liberties (Moallem 2005). In this chapter I move beyond the narrow phenotypical
definition of racialization, wherein race relations are strictly structured by biological differences. Rather, I
adopt a larger definition of racialization that incorporates the process of othering. More specifically here,
racialization of Muslims and Arabs stems

from the consistent deployment of an us versus
them mentality, excessively propped up for the
justification of military campaigns in the Arab world. The
racialization of Arabs and Muslims is not simply contingent
on phenotypical differences; rather, this racialization of
difference is driven by a perceived clash of values and
exacerbated by cultural ethnocentrism. This process of
othering is based on assumptions about culture and
religion instead of phenotype. It is not based on racial
divides; instead, it conforms to the process of racialization
that has characterized the ways in which the dominant
elements in society have interacted with minority ethnic
groups more generally. The racialization of Arabs and
Muslims stems from two intertwined processes. First, in a
society that is already constructed along racial lines, any
I argue that the
This othering process lends itself to the already existing paradigm of defining oneself vis--vis other
groups along the lines of racial categories. This form of racism is not contingent on differences in
appearance but on differences in cultural attributes. These differences are exacerbated by popular and
government discourses that deem the group an enemy Other, especially after 9/11. The loyalties of the
Arab and Muslim communities have consistently been questioned since the attacks. Only 38 percent of
Americans in the Detroit metro area believe that Arabs and Muslims are doing all that they can to fight the
war on terror. Muslims and Arabs across the United States are consistently asked to apologize for 9/11, as
if they were behind the attacks. And yet, ironically, the numerous and countless condemnations emanating
from mosques and organizations in the United States that emphatically denounce the attacks have
received little media attention. Americans remain suspicious of Arabs and Muslims. When asked whether
Arabs and Muslims could be trusted, Americans in the Detroit metro area ranked them as the least
trustworthy subpopulation. Twenty percent of Americans have little or not trust for whites; 24 percent have
Not only are

Arabs and Muslims different, they are also a threat treated
little or no trust for blacks, and 30 percent little or no trust for Muslims and Arabs.
with great suspicion because they are assumed to originate

from the Middle East. They are presumed to be operating
against us. The binary construction of us versus them is not new to American social
relations in the United States or abroad. Racial relations in the United States have been constructed
through the binary lens of the dominant and the subordinate, a legacy of the history of race relations in
this country. Likewise, the lens through which America sees the rest of the world is tinted with this
dichotomy: we, whoever and wherever we are, enjoy both cultural and moral superiority. Such
interactions with Others abroad translate into a racial logic in a U.S. home. The process of othering, be it
based on phenotype or cultural difference, therefore lends itself to racialization, particularly when it
involves attributing essentializing characteristics to the entire group. The racialization of Arabs and
Muslims, however, draws on yet another element of difference. Not only are they different at home, but
their difference is exacerbated by geopolitical realities where the United States has utilized the
construction of the Other as enemy-terrorist to justify its campaign abroad. The second process of
racialization involves the direct subordination of the minority Other. The very process of rendering the
Other inferior to white Americans, or some imagined group of acceptable Americans, is at the heart of
racialization. In the case of Muslim and Arab Americans, the way that Otherness is determined is through a
process by which the dominant social group claims moral and cultural superiority in the process of
producing an essentialized, homogenous image of Muslim and Arab Americans as nonwhites who are
naturally, morally, and culturally inferior to real Americans. Terrorism, according to this logic, is not the
modus operandi of a few radical individuals, but a by-product of a larger cultural and civilizational
heritage: the Arab and Islamic Other.
Fighting Radicalism rather than Terrorism is more

productive
Taspinar, 09 (Fighting Radicalism, not Terrorism: Root Causes of an International
Actor Redefined mer Taspinar nSAIS Review Internatvol. XXIX no. 2, SummerFall
2009, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2009/9/summer
%20fall%20radicalism%20taspinar/summer_fall_radicalism_taspinar.pdf)
Fighting radicalism rather than terrorism provides a better

paradigm and framework for a number of reasons. First, radicalism
more accurately reflects the political and ideological dimension of the
threat. No matter Root Causes of an International Actor Redefined
77 how diverse the causes, motivations, and ideologies behind
terrorism, all attempts at premeditated violence against civilians
share the traits of violent radicalism. Second, while terrorism is a
deadly security challenge, radicalism is primarily a political threat
against which non-coercive measures should be given a chance.
There is nothing preordained in the possible transition from radicalism
to terrorism. All terrorists, by definition, are radicals. Yet all radicals
do not end up as terrorists. In fact, only a few radicals venture into
terrorism. At the same time, it is clear that most terrorists start their
individual journey towards extremist violence first by becoming
radicalized militants. Since radicalism is often a precursor to
terrorism, focusing on radicalism amounts to preventing terrorism
at an earlier stage, before it is too late for non-coercive measures.
Finally, radicalism, unlike terrorism, has social dimensions. There are
radicalized societies where acts of terrorism find some sympathy and

degree of support. It is impossible to talk about terrorism as a social
phenomenon, however. There are no terrorist societies. The relative
popularity of certain terrorist networks in the Islamic world can only
be explained within the framework of such radicalized societies where
extremist violence finds a climate of legitimacy and implicit support.
Such radicalized societies are permeated by a deep sense of
collective frustration, humiliation, and deprivation relative to
expectations. This radicalized social habitat is easily exploited by
terrorists. This is why focusing on the collective grievances behind
radicalism is probably the most effective way of addressing the root
causes of terrorism. This effort at prevention can be conceived of as a
first line of defense against terrorism. The goal is to reduce the
social, economic, and political appeal of terrorism by isolating
terrorists and winning over potential recruits. Once the challenge is
defined as such, the next and more difficult step is to identify an
effective strategy to fight radicalism. The socioeconomic and
political context where radicalism takes root, particularly in the
context of the Arab world, presents an urgent situation for the
West. This enabling environment can be altered most effectively by
focusing on relative deprivation and human development. The next
two sections of the article will focus on these concepts from within the
context of the broader Middle East.
Using less intrusive means of surveillance and

independent oversight is the only way to solve for
racialized surveillance.
Cincotta 9
Thomas Cincotta, civil liberties program director of Political Research Associates and a
member of the Public Eye editorial board, 2009 (From Movements to Mosques, Informants
Endanger Democracy, Public Eye, Summer, Available online at
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v24n2/movements-to-mosques.html, Accessed on 7/14/15)
A team of behavioral scientists

is studying what turns
radicals into violent extremists.
the influence of highly motivated
informants? Paid informants are highly intrusive, aggressive, and potentially
provocative. The ability of informants to neutralize democratic change and
disrupt communities should raise concerns
, under the warrant of protecting the democratic
process from disruption and violence, the intelligence state is seriously
jeopardizing it
paid by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
But what about
about whether pre-emptive policing is worth its social and political costs. As civil rights lawyer
Frank Donner said, sizing up the surveillance through the 1970s
. [36]
When Maryland activists learned that a state trooper infiltrated dozens of social justice groups over a fourteen-month period, they banded together with the ACLU and
Defending Dissent Foundation to urge passage of a state oversight bill. [37] Social justice groups, including animal rights and environmental activists, must strengthen ties with Muslim, Arab, Middle Eastern, South
. Demands should include

the use of less intrusive means of surveillance when a crime is suspected;
Asian, and immigrant groups facing infiltration to demand constraints on how and when informants may be used to spy on Americans
independent oversight to ensure better supervision and training related to

the use of informants for legitimate law enforcement purposes; and a ban on
compiling dossiers on individuals and groups based solely upon their political,
social or religious activities and beliefs .
At a minimum, progressives must insist on re-establishing the protections instituted after the disastrous
COINTELPRO programs, requiring suspicion of criminal activity as a threshold for government spying. These are all in the best interests of the government, not just its citizens. In the long run, the government risks
losing crucial support and legitimacy when its investigative tactics even appear to cross the line into provocation and unlawful investigation of protected First Amendment activities. Candidate Obama explicitly
invited Americans to mobilize as a counterweight to the undue influence of the lobbyists who stand in our way. [38] I'm asking you to believe, he said, not just in my ability to bring about real change in
Washington; I'm asking you to believe in yours. For that energy and enthusiasm to coalesce into an organized political force, the Obama administration must rein in domestic intelligence practices that disrupt
communities and discourage activism.
Racism
Islamophobia is racism, pure and simple
Musharbash 14 [Yassin Musharbash, 12-10-2014, "Islamophobia is racism, pure and simple,"
Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/10/islamophobia-racism-dresden-protestsgermany-islamisation]
traditional
racist arguments are now more likely to come in the form of abuse
on the basis of religion. The argument is often that Jews share the same values
Of course, Islamophobia cant be laughed away and ours is just small way of dealing with it. But whats clear is that
as Christians, and Vietnamese immigrants are good at integrating, but for Muslims
neither is true; plus, they want to take over. Which is why their religion is in
fact an ideology; which is why it is OK to be against it; which in turn

makes you a freedom fighter. Whats feeding this? Clearly 9/11 and other Jihadist terrorist attacks play a role.
But thats not all. There is fear of losing out economically, for which Muslims
are scapegoated; theres the challenge of living in a society
changing rapidly in the light of globalisation; theres anger about
the increasing visibility of immigrants. The organisers of the Dresden demonstrations claim to be
responding to street fights between Salafists and Kurds that broke out in western Germany a few weeks ago. But framing this and other
problems as part of a phenomenon of Islamisation is ridiculous. And yet it is time we started to take this seriously. Those people in the streets
of Dresden may be nonviolent but they have been infected with a smug contempt for a minority, and may embolden the more radical fringes
Politicians here have sensed that something is building. But until

very recently, they mostly just maintained that peoples grievances should be taken
seriously, rather than criticising the racist sentiment that came with their
complaints. This needs to change now. It needs to be made clear that
of the Islamophobic spectrum.
Islamophobia
is no legitimate expression of
anger or frustration and most certainly nothing to be
proud of. Its racism, plain and simple.
in Germany
Harms
Racial profiling is part of a culture that stigmatizes
Muslimsenabling systemic racial discrimination against
them on the basis of national security
Said, 2010
2015. /Bingham-MB
Any entrapment discussion requires addressing the question of who is a

terrorist according to popular and governmental perceptions in the United
States. Currently, thirty-one of the forty-six designated FTOs are either Arab
or Muslim, with the majority of that number being Islamist in ideology. (87)
The government identifies the greatest threat as terrorism committed by alQaeda and its related groups, (88) although there are a significant number of
non-al-Qaeda-affiliated Arab and Muslim groups of both religious and secular
outlook. (89) Additionally, of the four countries officially designated as "State
Sponsors of Terrorism," three are Arab or Muslim majority. (90) Even
assuming the validity of all these designations on political and normative
grounds, the official numbers suggest that the archetypal terrorist comes
from a certain background, particularly in light of the al-Qaeda network's
leading role as primary terrorist actor and threat. The construction of the
terrorist as Arab or Muslim, as reflected in the composition of the various
official terrorist lists maintained by the government, is borne out by other
factors. Specifically, government action in the antiterrorism arena has
resulted in a construct of the terrorist as irreducibly Muslim or "Muslimlooking." (91) This construct is not new, nor is it limited to the period after
9/11. Just after the attacks on Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympic
Games, the Nixon administration established a commission to examine the
existence of terrorism in the United States. (92) The commission ultimately
came up with a set of policies, known as "Special Measures," which resulted
in increased restrictions on Arab immigration to the United States, as well as
more stringent and invasive surveillance of Arab-Americans. (93) Later
historical events, such as the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, the first Gulf War of
1990-91, and the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, further cast
Muslims and Arabs as the enemy. (94) As early as 1986, the government was
considering plans to use two military bases to detain Arab- and IranianAmericans in the same vein as the Japanese internment of World War II. (95)
The post-9/11 immigration crackdowns on Arab and Muslim noncitizens (96)
were preceded by pre-9/11 selective immigration prosecutions against
individuals based on their political beliefs, (97) and the use of secret evidence
to detain and deport. (98) Ultimately, Arab- and Muslim-Americans became

presumptive terrorists, as detailed by Professors Susan Akram and Kevin
Johnson: Since at least the 1970s, US laws and policies have been
founded on the assumption that Arab and Muslim noncitizens are
potential terrorists and have targeted this group for special
treatment under the law. This post-September 11 targeting of Muslims
and Arabs is simply the latest chapter in this history. (99) Stated another
way, well before 9/11, as noted by Professor Natsu Taylor Saito, "Arab
Americans and Muslims have been 'raced' as 'terrorists': foreign, disloyal, and
imminently threatening." (100) The rendering of Arab- and Muslim-Americans
as presumptive terrorists for the purposes of official policy has been mirrored
by longstanding portrayals of Arabs and Muslims as terrorists in the news
media and Hollywood. (101) This state of affairs also has helped shape
popular perceptions of Arabs and Muslims as terrorists. Where popular
support for racial profiling in law enforcement operations had plummeted in
the period prior to 9/11, a public opinion poll taken shortly after 9/11
indicated that a majority of Americans approved of racial profiling against
Arabs and Muslims in terrorism investigations. (102) According to Professor
John Tehranian, "Middle Eastern Americans... now suffer from more
systemic racism than ever before, a fact that makes them unique among
America's ethnic and racial groups." (103) To illustrate his point, he points to
the example of the uproar in 2006 over the proposed transfer of control over
operations at several American ports to DP World, an entity owned by the
government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). (104) Despite the Bush
administration's support for the deal, overwhelming popular and bi-partisan
opposition to the transfer of control led to the deal being scuttled, despite the
fact that the UAE is a major ally of the United States in the Middle East. (105)
Ultimately the incident revealed an ominous development: Foreign
companies and contractors have long managed operations of American
ports--in fact, DP World's immediate predecessor was a foreign entity. The
issue was plainly not one of foreign control--a practice that had gone
unnoticed until the specter of Arab-run port operations arose. The port
incident highlighted the way that rampant racism had caused Americans to
harbor such misgivings about Middle Easterners, though not any other group
of individuals, from having some control over our infrastructure. Sadly, the
incident seemed to suggest that one of the few things both the populist left
and right can agree on is their distaste for Arabs and people from the Middle
East. (106) This sentiment has now transformed and grown into a fear and
distrust of an entire faith, as evidenced by the current upheaval over the
proposed construction of a mosque near the site of the former World Trade
Center in New York, (107) the fact that a large number of Americans suspect
that President Obama is in fact a Muslim, (108) a Florida minister's nowsuspended plan to burn the Quran publicly, (109) and Oklahoma voters
passing a state constitutional amendment prohibiting state courts from
considering Islamic law (the Shari'ah) or international law in rendering
decisions. (110)

Inherency
FBI informant use fuels racial profiling of Arabs and
Muslims by law enforcement
Said, 2010
2015. /Bingham-MB
The use of informants by law enforcement in the War on Drugs has resulted in
significant abuses; these abuses are magnified in the terrorism
context. (6) Informant recruitment occurs generally in the shadows,
targeting primarily poor young men of color in America's inner cities, a
traditionally underrepresented and disenfranchised group within mainstream
society. (7) The harsh penalties that await defendants in drug cases,
especially those charged with non-violent offenses, are perhaps the most
unfortunate consequence of the War on Drugs. (8) Using informants to
investigate low-level drug crime may be unfair, particularly when a defendant
is facing an unusually harsh sentence, but it occurs in a time when the racial
profiling of African-American or Latino youth has been generally renounced.
(9) In the terrorism context, by contrast, the American public is anything but
apathetic toward the threat of terrorism. In fact, evidence suggests that there
is widespread support for or tolerance of the racial profiling of Arab- and
Muslim-Americans for national security purposes. (10) Accordingly, certain
investigative tactics seem to be consistent with this public support. For
example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has used infiltrators and
informants to monitor the workings of mosques around the country, despite
no articulable suspicion linking the mosque or its congregants to violent
activity. (11)
Racial Profiling and the lack of Policies against it

ACLU, 14 (United States Compliance with the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, American Civil Liberties
Union, 11-29 August 2014,
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2014.07.09_cerd_shadow_report_final.pdf )
Racial profiling in law enforcement is a persistent problem in the United States. Although top U.S. officials
have condemned racial profiling, noting that it can leave a lasting scar on communities and individuals
and is bad policing, federal policy fails to protect against it.1 In particular, despite repeated calls by civil society, the U.S. Department of Justice has
failed to issue a revision to its 2003 Guidance on the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement.2 Although the U.S. government states that the purpose of the Guidance is to ban racial profiling, the current
Guidance has the perverse effect of tacitly authorizing the profiling of almost every minority community in the United States. The Guidance exempts from its ban on racial profiling practices that are related to
protecting the integrity of the Nations borders and investigating or preventing threats to national security or other catastrophic events (including the performance of duties related to air transportation
security). Furthermore, the Guidance does not ban profiling based on religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. A stronger, fundamentally revised Guidance is necessary because racial and ethnic profiling
Local
FBI offices have collected demographic data to map where people with particular racial or ethnic makeup
persists at the federal, state, and local levels, as the ACLU has described in previous reports to the Committee.3 Examples of profiling include: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) racial mapping:
live, basing this data collection on crude stereotypes about the types of crimes different racial and ethnic
groups supposedly commit. This profiling is largely possible due to an exemption in the Guidance for investigating or preventing threats to national security.
Impacts
Reject racism in every instanceits a precondition for
morality
Albert Memmi, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Paris,
1999 (Racism, Published by the University of Minnesota Press, ISBN
0816631654, p. 163-165)
The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without
remission, probably never achieved. Yet, for this very reason, it is a struggle to
be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be
indulgent toward racism; one must not even let the monster in the house,
especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment
diminish what is
human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to
endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the
the bestial part in us and in other people, which is to
dark [end page 163] history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the
outsider will always be a possible victim (and which man is not himself [people
are not themselves] an outsider relative to someone else?). Racism
illustrates, in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the

dominated; that is, it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition.
The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is
nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to
humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However,
it remains true that one's moral conduct only emerges from a choice; one has to
want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always debatable in its
foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the
choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the

establishment of a human order, for which racism is the very
negation. This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order,
let alone a legislative order, on racism, because racism signifies the
exclusion of the other, and his or her subjection to violence and
domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious
language, racism is "the truly capital sin."22 It is not an accident that almost all
of humanity's spiritual traditions counsel respect for the weak, for orphans,
widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and
disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other
suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an
interest in [end page 164] banishing injustice, because injustice engenders
violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that
if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible.
But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles
will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own
death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you
with respect. "Recall," says the Bible, "that you were once a stranger in Egypt,"
which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a
stranger yourself and that you risk becoming one again someday. It is an ethical
and a practical appeal--indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In
short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and
practical morality. Because, in the end, the ethical choice

commands the political choice, a just society must be a society
accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then
only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is
accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager,
but the stakes are irresistible.
Racism is worse than physical murder it destroys the

spirit
Williams 87 Associate Professor of Law at City University
of New York
[Patricia, Spirit-murdering the messenger: the discourse
of finger-pointing as the laws response to racism,
University of Miami Law Review, Sep, 42 U. Miami L.
Rev. 127, LN]
The second purpose of this article is to examine racism as a crime, an offense
so deeply painful and assaultive as to constitute something I call "spiritmurder." Society is only beginning to recognize that racism is as devastating,
as costly, and as psychically obliterating as robbery or assault
;
indeed they are often the same. Racism resembles other offenses against
humanity whose structures are so deeply embedded in culture as to prove extremely resistant to being recognized as forms of oppression. 7 It can be as difficult to prove as [*130] child abuse or rape, where the victim is forced to convince others that he or she was not at fault, or that the perpetrator was not just "playing around." As in rape cases, victims of racism must prove that they did not distort the circumstances,
misunderstand the intent, or even enjoy it. On October 29, 1984, Eleanor Bumpurs, a 270-pound, arthritic, sixty-seven year old woman, was shot to death while resisting eviction from her apartment in the Bronx. She was $ 98.85, or one month, behind in her rent. 8 New York City Mayor Ed Koch and Police Commissioner Benjamin Ward described the struggle preceding her demise as involving two officers with plastic shields,
one officer with a restraining hook, another officer with a shotgun, and at least one supervising officer. All of the officers also carried service revolvers. According to Commissioner Ward, during the course of the attempted eviction Mrs. Bumpurs escaped from the restraining hook [*131] twice and wielded a knife that Commissioner Ward says was "bent" on one of the plastic shields. At some point, Officer Stephen Sullivan, the
officer positioned farthest away from her, aimed and fired his shotgun. It is alleged that the blast removed half of her hand, so that, according to the Bronx District Attorney's Office, "[I]t was anatomically impossible for her to hold the knife." 9 The officer pumped his gun and shot again, making his mark completely the second time around. 10 In the two and one-half year wake of this terrible incident, controversy raged as to
whether Mrs. Bumpurs ought to have brandished a knife and whether the officer ought to have fired his gun. In February 1987, a New York Supreme Court justice found Officer Sullivan not guilty of manslaughter. 11 The case centered on a very narrow issue of language pitted against circumstance. District Attorney Mario Merola described the case as follows: "Obviously, one shot would have been justified. But if that shot
took off part of her hand and rendered her defenseless, whether there was any need for a second shot, which killed her, that's the whole issue of whether you have reasonable force or excessive force." 12 My intention in the following analysis is to underscore the significant task facing judges and lawyers in undoing institutional descriptions of what is "obvious" and what is not, and in resisting the general predigestion of
evidence for jury consumption. Shortly after Mr. Merola's statement, Officer Sullivan's attorney, Bruce Smiry, expressed eagerness to try the case before a jury. 13 Following the heavily publicized attack in Howard Beach, however, he favored a bench trial. In explaining his decision to request a nonjury trial, he stated: I think a judge will be much more likely than a jury to understand the defense that the shooting was justified.
. . . The average lay person might find it difficult to understand why the police were there in the first place, and why a shotgun was employed. . . . Because of the climate now in the city, I don't want people perceiving this as a racial case. 14 Since 1984, Mayor Koch, Commissioner Ward, and a host of [*132] other city officials repeatedly have described the shooting of Mrs. Bumpurs as completely legal. 15 At the same time,
Commissioner Ward has admitted publicly that Mrs. Bumpurs should not have died. Mayor Koch admitted that her death was the result of "a chain of mistakes and circumstances" that came together in the worst possible way, with the worst possible circumstances. 16 Commissioner Ward admitted that the officers could have waited for Mrs. Bumpurs to calm down, and that they could have used teargas or mace instead of
gunfire. According to Commissioner Ward, however, these observations are made with hindsight. As to whether this shooting of a black woman by a white police officer had racial overtones, he stated that he had "no evidence of racism." 17 Commissioner Ward pointed out that he is sworn to uphold the law, which is "inconsistent with treating blacks differently," 18 and that the shooting was legal because it was within the
code of police ethics. 19 Finally, city officials have resisted criticism of the police department's handling of the incident by remarking that "outsiders" do not know all of the facts and do not understand the pressure under which officers labor. The root of the word "legal" is the Latin word lex, which means law in a fairly concrete sense -- law as we understand it when we refer to written law, codes, and systems of obedience. 20
The word lex does not include the more abstract, ethical dimension of law that contemplates the purposes of rules and their effective implementation. This latter meaning is contained in the Latin word jus, from which we derive the word "justice." 21 This semantic distinction is not insignificant. The word of law, whether statutory or judicial, is a subcategory of the underlying social motives and beliefs from which it is born. It
is the technical embodiment of attempts to order society according to a consensus of ideals. When society loses sight of those ideals and grants obeisance to words alone, law becomes sterile and formalistic; lex is applied without jus and is therefore unjust. The result is compliance [*133] with the letter of the law, but not the spirit. A sort of punitive literalism ensues that leads to a high degree of thoughtless conformity. This
literalism has, as one of its primary underlying values, order -- whose ultimate goal may be justice, but whose immediate end is the ordering of behavior. Living solely by the letter of the law means living without spirit; one can do anything as long as it comports with the law in a technical sense. The cynicism or rebelliousness that infects one's spirit, and the enthusiasm or dissatisfaction with which one conforms is
unimportant. Furthermore, this compliance is arbitrary; it is inconsistent with the will of the conformer. The law becomes a battleground of wills. The extent to which technical legalism obfuscates and undermines the human motivations that generate our justice system is the real extent to which we as human beings are disenfranchised. Cultural needs and ideals change with the momentum of time; redefining our laws in
keeping with the spirit of cultural flux keeps society alive and humane. In the Bumpurs case, the words of the law called for nonlethal alternatives first, but allowed some officer discretion in determining which situations are so immediately life endangering as to require the use of deadly force. 22 This discretionary area was presumably the basis for the claim that Officer Sullivan acted legally. The law as written permitted
shooting in general, and therefore, by extension of the city's interpretation of this law, it would be impossible for a police officer ever to shoot someone in a specifically objectionable way. [*134] If our laws are thus piano-wired on the exclusive validity of literalism, if they are picked clean of their spirit, then society risks heightened irresponsibility for the consequences of abominable actions. Accordingly, Jonathan Swift's
description of lawyers weirdly and ironically comes to life: "[T]here was a Society of Men among us, bred up from their Youth in the Art of proving by words multiplied for the Purpose, that White is Black and Black is White, according as they are paid. To this Society all the rest of the People are Slaves." 23 We also risk subjecting ourselves to such absurdly empty rhetoric as Commissioner Ward's comments to the effect that
both Mrs. Bumpurs' death and racism were unfortunate, while stating "but the law says . . . ." 24 Commissioner Ward's sentiments might as well read: "The law says . . . and therefore the death was unfortunate but irremediable; the law says . . . and therefore there is little that can be done about racism." The law thus becomes a shield behind which to avoid responsibility for the human repercussions of both governmental and
publicly harmful private activity. 25 A related issue is the degree to which much of the criticism of the police department's handling of this case was devalued as "noisy" or excessively emotional. It is as though passionate protest were a separate crime, a rudeness of such dimension as to defeat altogether any legitimacy of content. We as lawyers are taught from the moment we enter law school to temper our emotionalism
and quash our idealism. We are taught that heartfelt instincts subvert the law and defeat the security of a well-ordered civilization, whereas faithful adherence to the word of law, to stare decisis and clearly stated authority, would as a matter of course lead to a bright, clear world like the Land of Oz, in which those heartfelt instincts would be preserved. Form is exalted over substance, and cool rationales over heated feelings.
But we should not be ruled exclusively by the cool formality of language or by emotions. We must be ruled by our complete selves, by the intellectual and emotional content of our words. Governmental representatives must hear the full range of legitimate concerns, no matter how indelicately expressed or painful they may be to hear. [*135] But undue literalism is only one type of sleight of tongue in the attainment of
meaningless dialogue. Mayor Koch, Commissioner Ward, and Officer Sullivan's defense attorneys have used overgeneralization as an effective rhetorical complement to their avoidance of the issues. For example, allegations that the killing was illegal and unnecessary, and should therefore be prosecuted, were met with responses such as, "The laws permit police officers to shoot people." 26 "As long as police officers have
guns, there will be unfortunate deaths." 27 "The conviction rate in cases like this is very low." 28 The observation that teargas would have been an effective alternative to shooting Mrs. Bumpurs drew the dismissive reply that "there were lots of things they could have done." 29 Privatization of response as a justification for public irresponsibility is a version of the same game. Honed to perfection by President Reagan, this
version holds up the private self as indistinguishable from the public "duty and power laden" self. Public officials respond to commentary by the public and the media as though it were meant to hurt private, vulnerable feelings. Trying to hold a public official accountable while not hurting his feelings is a skill the acquisition of which would consume time better spent on almost any conceivable task. Thus, when Commissioner
Ward was asked if the internal review board planned to discipline Officer Sullivan, many seemed disposed to accept his response that while he was personally very sorry she had died, he could not understand why the media was focusing on him so much. "How many other police commissioners," he asked repeatedly, "have gotten as much attention as I have?" 30 Finally, a most cruel form of semantic slipperiness infused Mrs.
Bumpurs' death from the beginning. It is called victim responsibility. 31 It is the least responsive form of dialogue, yet apparently the [*136] easiest to accept as legitimate. All these words, from Commissioner Ward, from the Mayor's office, from the media, and from the public generally, have rumbled and resounded with the sounds of discourse. We want to believe that their symmetrical, pleasing structure is the equivalent
of discourse. If we are not careful, we will hypnotize ourselves into believing that it is discourse. In the early morning hours of December 20, 1986, three young black men left their stalled car on Cross Bay Parkway, in the New York City borough of Queens, and went to look for help. They walked into the neighborhood of Howard Beach, entered a pizzeria, ordered pizzas, and sat down to eat. An anonymous caller to the police
reported their presence as "black troublemakers." A patrol car came, found no trouble, and left. After the young men had eaten, they left the pizzeria and were immediately surrounded by a group of eight to ten white teenagers who taunted them with racial epithets. The white youths chased the black men for about three miles, catching them at several points and beating them severely. One of the black men died as a result
of being struck by a car as he tried to flee across a highway. Another suffered permanent blindness in one eye. 32 In the extremely heated public controversy that ensued, as much attention centered on the community of Howard Beach as on the assailants themselves. A veritable Greek chorus formed, comprised of the defendants' lawyers and resident after resident after resident of Howard Beach, all repeating and
repeating and repeating that the mere presence of three black men in that part of town at that time of night was reason enough to drive them out. "They had to be starting trouble." 33 "We're a strictly white neighborhood." 34 "What were they doing here in the first place?" 35 [*137] Although the immensely segregationist instincts behind such statements may be fairly evident, it is worth making explicit some of the
presuppositions behind such ululations. Everyone who lives here is white. No black could live here. No one here has a black friend. No white would employ a black here. No black is permitted to shop here. No black is ever up to any good. These presuppositions themselves are premised on lethal philosophies of life. "Are we supposed to stand around and do nothing while these blacks come into our area and rob us?" 36 one
woman asked a reporter in the wake of the Howard Beach attack. A twenty year old, who had lived in Howard Beach all of his life, said, "We ain't racial. . . . We just don't want to get robbed." 37 The hidden implication of these statements is that to be safe is not to be sorry, and that to be safe is to be white and to be sorry is to be associated with blacks. Safety and sorrow, which are inherently alterable and random, are linked
to inalterable essences. The expectation that uncertain conditions are really immutable is a formula for frustration; it is a belief that feeds a sense of powerlessness. The rigid determinism of placing in the disjunctive things that are not in fact disjunctive is a set up for betrayal by the very nature of reality. The national repetition that white neighborhoods are safe and blacks bring sorrow is an incantation of powerlessness.
And, as with the upside-down logic of all irrational incantations, it imports a concept of white safety that almost necessarily endangers the lives as well as the rights of blacks. It is also an incantation of innocence and guilt, much related to incantations that affirmative action programs allow presumably "guilty" blacks to displace "innocent" whites. 38 (Even assuming that "innocent whites" were being displaced by blacks,
does that make [*138] blacks less innocent in the pursuit of education and jobs? If anything, are not blacks more innocent in the scheme of discrimination?) In fact, in the wake of the Howard Beach incident, the police and the press rushed to serve the public's interest in the victims' unsavory "guilty" dispositions. They overlook the fact that racial slurs and attacks "objectif[y] people -- the incident could have happened to any
black person who was there at that time and place. This is the crucial aspect of the Howard Beach affair that is now being muddied in the media. Bringing up [defendants' past arrest records] is another way of saying, 'He was a criminal who deserved it.'" 39 Thus, the game of victim responsibility described above is itself a slave to society's stereotypes of good and evil. It does no good, however, to turn race issues into
contests for some Holy Grail of innocence. In my youth, segregation and antimiscegenation laws were still on the books in many states. During the lifetimes of my parents and grandparents, and for several hundred years before them, laws prohibited blacks from owning property, voting, and learning to read or write. Blacks were, by constitutional mandate, outlawed from the hopeful, loving expectations that being treated as a
whole, rather than three-fifths of a human being can bring. When every resource of a wealthy nation is put to such destructive ends, it will take more than a few generations to mop up the mess. 40 [*139] We have all inherited that legacy, whether new to this world or new to this country. It survives as powerfully and invisibly reinforcing structures of thought, language, and law. Thus, generalized notions of innocence and
guilt have little place in the struggle for transcendence; there is no blame among the living for the dimension of this historic crime, this national tragedy. 41 There is, however, responsibility for never forgetting one another's histories, and for making real the psychic obliteration which lives on as a factor in shaping relations, not just between blacks and whites, 42 or blacks and blacks, 43 but also between whites and whites.
Whites must consider how much this history has projected onto blacks the blame for all criminality, and for all of society's ills. It has become the means for keeping white criminality invisible. 44 The attempt to split bias from violence has been this society's most enduring and fatal rationalization. Prejudice does hurt, however, just as the absence of prejudice can nourish and shelter. Discrimination can repel and vilify,
ostracize and alienate. White people [*140] who do not believe this should try telling everyone they meet that one of their ancestors was black. I had a friend in college who having lived her life as a blonde, grey eyed white person, discovered that she was one-sixteenth black. She began to externalize all the unconscious baggage that "black" bore for her: the self-hatred that is racism. She did not think of herself as a racist
(nor had I) but she literally wanted to jump out of her skin, shed her flesh, and start life over again. She confided in me that she felt "fouled" and "betrayed." She also asked me if I had ever felt this way. Her question dredged from some deep corner of my suppressed memory the recollection of feeling precisely that, when at the age of three or so, some white playmates explained to me that God had mixed mud with the pure
clay of life in order to make me. In the Vietnamese language, "the word 'I' (toi) . . . means 'your servant'; there is no 'I' as such. When you talk to someone, you establish a relationship." 45 Such a concept of "self" is a way of experiencing the other, ritualistically sharing the other's essence, and cherishing it. In our culture, seeing and feeling the dimension of harm that results from separating self from "other" requires more
work. 46 Very little in our language or our culture encourages or reinforces any attempt to look at others as part of ourselves. With the imperviously divided symmetry of the marketplace, social costs to blacks are simply not seen as costs to whites, 47 just as blacks do not share in the advances whites may enjoy. [*141] This structure of thought is complicated by the fact that the distancing does not stop with the separation of
the white self from the black other. In addition, the cultural domination of blacks by whites means that the black self is placed at a distance even from itself, as in the example of blacks being asked to put themselves in the position of the white shopkeepers who view them. 48 So blacks are conditioned from infancy to see in themselves only what others who despise them see. 49 It is true that conforming to what others see
in us is every child's way of becoming socialized. 50 It is what makes children in our society seem so gullible, so impressionable, so "impolitely" honest, so blindly loyal, and so charming to the ones they imitate. 51 Yet this conformity also describes a way of being that relinquishes the power of independent ethical choice. Although such a relinquishment can have quite desirable social consequences, it also presumes a fairly
homogeneous social context in which values are shared and enforced collectively. Thus, it is no wonder that western anthropologists and ethnographers, for whom adulthood is manifested by the exercise of independent ethical judgment, so frequently denounce tribal cultures or other collectivist ethics as "childlike." By contrast, our culture constructs some, but not all, selves to be the servants of others. Thus, some "I's" are
defined as "your servant," some as "your master." The struggle for the self becomes not a true mirroring of self-in-other, but rather a hierarchically-inspired series of distortions, where some serve without ever being served, some master without ever being mastered, and almost everyone hides from this vernacular domination by clinging to the legally official definition of "I" as meaning "your equal." In such an environment,
relinquishing the power of individual ethical judgment to a collective ideal risks psychic violence, an obliteration of the self through domination by an all powerful other. In such an environment, it is essential at some stage that the self be permitted to retreat into itself and make its own decisions with self-love and self-confidence. What links child abuse, the mistreatment of [*142] women, and racism is the massive external
intrusion into psyche that dominating powers impose to keep the self from ever fully seeing itself. 52 Because the self's power resides in another, little faith is placed in the true self, that is, in one's own experiential knowledge. Consequently, the power of children, women and blacks is actually reduced to the "intuitive," rather than the real; social life is necessarily based primarily on the imaginary. 53 Furthermore, because it
is difficult to affirm constantly with the other the congruence of the self's imagining what the other is really thinking of the self, and because even that correlative effort is usually kept within very limited family, neighborhood, religious, or racial boundaries, encounters cease to be social and become presumptuous, random, and disconnected. This peculiarly distancing standpoint allows dramas, particularly racial ones like
Howard Beach, to unfold in scenarios weirdly unrelated to the incidents that generated them. At one end of the spectrum is a laissez faire response that privatizes the self in order to remain unassailably justified. At the other end is a pattern that generalizes individual or particular others into terrifyingly uncontrollable "domains" of public wilderness, against which proscriptive barriers must be built to protect the eternally
innocent self. The prototypical scenario of the privatized response is as follows: Cain: Abel's part of town is tough turf. 54 [*143] Abel: It upsets me when you say that; you have never been to my part of town. As a matter of fact, my part of town is a leading supplier of milk and honey. 55 Cain: The news that I'm upsetting you is too upsetting for me to handle. You were wrong to tell me of your upset because now I'm terribly
upset. 56 Abel: I felt threatened first. Listen to me. Take your distress as a measure of my own and empathize with it. Don't ask me to recant and apologize in order to carry this conversation further. 57 This type of discourse is problematic because Cain's challenge in calling Abel's turf "tough" is transformed into a discussion of the care with which Abel challenges that statement. While there is certainly an obligation to be
careful in addressing others the obligation to protect the feelings of those others gets put above the need to protect one's own. The self becomes subservient to the other, with no reciprocity, and the other becomes a whimsical master. Abel's feelings are deflected in deference to Cain's, and Abel bears the double burden of raising his issue properly and of being responsible for its impact on Cain. Cain is rendered
unaccountable for as long as this deflection continues because all the fault is assigned to Abel. Morality and responsiveness thus become dichotomized as Abel drowns in responsibility for valuative quality control, while Cain rests on the higher ground of a value neutral zone. Caught in conversations like this, blacks as well as whites will [*144] feel keenly and pressingly circumscribed. Perhaps most people never intend to be
racist, oppressive, or insulting. Nevertheless, by describing zones of vulnerability and by setting up fences of rigidified politeness, the unintentional exile of individuals as well as races may be quietly accomplished. Another scenario of distancing self from the responsibility for racism is the invention of some great public wilderness of others. In the context of Howard Beach, the specter against which the self must barricade
itself is violent: seventeen year old, black males wearing running shoes and hooded sweatshirts. It is this fear of the uncontrollable, overwhelming other that animates many of the more vengefully racist comments from Howard Beach, such as, "We're a strictly white neighborhood. . . . They had to be starting trouble." 58 These statements set up angry, excluding boundaries. They also CONTINUED Impacts EVAZON
Grayson 54 Racism Williams (2/2) CONTINUED imply that the failure to protect and avenge is bad policy, bad statesmanship, and an embarrassment. They raise the stakes beyond the unexpressed rage arising from the incident itself. Like the Cain and Abel example, the need to avenge becomes a separate issue of protocol and etiquette -- not a loss of a piece of the self, which is the real cost of real tragedies, but a
loss of self-regard. By self-regard, I do not mean self-concept as in selfesteem; I mean that view of the self that is attained by the self stepping outside the self to regard and evaluate the self. It is a process in which the self is watched by an imaginary other, a self-projection of the opinions of real others, where "I" means "your master" and where the designated other's refusal to be dominated is felt as personally assaultive.
Thus, the failure to avenge is felt as a loss of self-regard. It is a psychological metaphor for whatever trauma or original assault that constitutes the real loss to the self. 59 It is therefore more abstract, more illusory, more constructed, and more invented. Potentially, therefore, it is less powerful than "real" assault, in that with effort it can be unlearned as a source of vulnerability. This is the real message of the attempt to
distinguish between prejudice and violence: names, as in the old "sticks and stones" ditty, [*145] although undeniably and powerfully influential, can be learned or undone as motivation for future destructive action. 60 As long as they are not unlearned, however, the exclusionary power of such free-floating emotions makes its way into the gestalt of prosecutorial and jury decisions and into what the law sees as crime, or as
justified, provoked or excusable. 61 Law becomes described and enforced in the spirit of our prejudices. 62 The following passage is a description of the arraignment of three of the white teenagers who were involved in the Howard Beach beatings: The three defense lawyers also tried to case doubt on [the prosecutor's] account of the attack. The lawyers questioned why the victims walked all the way to the pizza parlor if, as
they said, their mission was to summon help for their car, which broke down three miles away. . . . At the arraignment, the lawyers said the victims passed two all-night gas stations and several other pizza shops before they reached the one they entered. [*146] A check yesterday of area restaurants, motels and gas stations listed in the Queens street directory found two eating establishments, a gas station and a motel that
all said they were open and had working pay phones on Friday night. A spokesman for the New York Telephone Company, Jim Crosson, said there are six outdoor pay telephones . . . on the way to the pizzeria. 63 In the first place, lawyers must wonder what relevance this has. Does the answer to any of the issues the defense raised serve to prove that these black men assaulted, robbed, threatened or molested these white
men? Does it even prove that the white men reasonably feared such a fate? The investigation into the number of phone booths per mile does not reveal why the white men would fear the black men's presence. Instead, it is relevant to prove that there is no reason a black man should walk or just wander around the community of Howard Beach. This is not semantic detail; it is central to understanding burdensomeness of
proof in such cases. It is this unconscious restructuring of burdens of proof into burdens of white over black that permits people who say and who believe that they are not racist to commit and condone crimes of genocidal magnitude. It is easy to rationalize this as linguistically technical, or as society's sorrow. As one of my students said, "I'm so tired of hearing the blacks say that society's done them wrong." Yet these
gyrations kill with their razor-toothed presumption. Lawyers are the modern wizards and medicine people who must define this innocent murderousness as crime. Additionally, investigations into "closer" alternatives eclipse the possibility of other explanation. They assume that the young men were not headed for the subway (which was in fact in the same direction as the pizzeria), and further, that black people must have
documented reasons for excursioning into white neighborhoods and out of the neighborhoods to which they are supposedly consigned. It is interesting to contrast the implicit requirement of documentation imposed on blacks walking down public streets in Howard Beach with the implicit license of the white officers who burst into the private space of Mrs. Bumpurs' apartment. In the Bumpurs case, lawmakers consistently
dismissed the availability of less intrusive options as presumption and idle hindsight. 64 This dismissal ignored the fact that police officers have an actual burden of employing the least harmful alternatives. In the context of Howard Beach, however, such an analysis invents and imposes a burden on nonresidents to stay [*147] out of strange neighborhoods. It implies harm in the presence of those who do not specifically
"own" something there. Both analyses skirt the propriety and necessity of public sector responsibility. Both redefine public accountability in privatized terms. Whether those privatized terms act to restrict or expand accountability is dichotomized according to the race of the actors. Finally, this factualized hypothesizing was part of a news story, not an editorial. "News," in other words, was reduced to hypothesis based on
silent premises: they should have used the first phone they encountered; they should have eaten at the first "eating establishment;" they should have gone into a gas station and asked for help; surely they should have had the cash and credit cards to do any of the above or else not travel in strange neighborhoods. In elevating these to relevant issues, however, The New York Times did no more than mirror what was
happening in the courtroom. In an ill-fated trip to the neighborhood of Jamaica, in the borough of Queens, Mayor Koch attempted to soothe tensions by asking a congregation of black churchgoers to understand the disgruntlement of Howard Beach residents about the interracial march by 1400 protesters through "their" streets. He asked them how they would feel if 1400 white people took to the streets of the predominantly
black neighborhood of Jamaica. 65 This remark, from the chief executive of New York City, accepts and even advocates a remarkable degree of possessiveness about public streets. This possessiveness, moreover, is racially rather than geographically bounded. In effect, Koch was pleading for the acceptance of the privatization of public space. This is the de facto equivalent of segregation. It is exclusion in the guise of deepmoated private property "interests" and "values." In such a characterization, the public nature of the object of discussion, the street, is lost. 66 Mayor Koch's question suggests that 1400 black people took to the streets of Howard Beach. In fact, the crowd was integrated -- blacks, browns, and whites, residents and nonresidents of Howard Beach. Apparently, crowds in New York are subject to the unwritten equivalent of
Louisiana's race statutes (which provide that 1/72 black [*148] ancestry renders a person black) and to the Ku Klux Klan's "contamination by association" standard ("blacks and white-blacks" was how one resident of Forsythe County, Georgia described an interracial crowd of protesters there). On the other hand, if Mayor Koch intended to direct attention to the inconvenience, noise, and pollution of such a crowd in those small
streets, then I am sympathetic. My sympathy is insignificant, however, compared to my recognition of the necessity and propriety of the protestors' spontaneous, demonstrative, peaceful outpouring of rage, sorrow, and pain. If, however, Mayor Koch intended to ask blacks to imagine 1400 angry white people descending on a black community, then I agree, I would be frightened. This image would also conjure up visions of
1400 hooded white people burning crosses, 1400 Nazis marching through Skokie, and 1400 cavalry men riding into American Indian lands. These visions would inspire great fear in me, because of the possibility of grave harm to the residents. But there is a difference, and that is why the purpose of the march is so important. That is why it is so important to distinguish mass protests of violence from organized hate groups
that openly threaten violence. By failing to make this distinction, Mayor Koch created the manipulative specter of unspecified mobs sweeping through homes in pursuit of vague and diffusely dangerous ends. From this perspective, he appealed to thoughtlessness, to the pseudoconsolation of hunkering down and bunkering up against the approaching hoards, to a glacially overgeneralized view of the unneighborhooded
"public" world. Moreover, the Mayor's comments reveal that he is ignorant of the degree to which the black people have welcomed, endured, and suffered white marchers through their streets. White people have always felt free to cruise through black communities and to treat them possessively. Most black neighborhoods have existed only as long as whites have permitted them to exist. Blacks have been this society's
perpetual tenants, sharecroppers, and lessees. Blacks went from being owned by others, to having everything around them owned by others. In a civilization that values private property above all else, this effectuates a devaluation of humanity, a removal of blacks not just from the market, but from the pseudospiritual circle of psychic and civic communion. As illustrated in the microcosm of my experience at the store, 67
this limbo of disownedness keeps blacks beyond the pale of those who are entitled to receive the survival gifts of commerce, the [*149] property of life, liberty, and happiness, whose fruits our culture places in the marketplace. In this way, blacks are positioned analogically to the rest of society, exactly as they were during slavery or Jim Crow. 68 There is a subtler level to the enactment of this dispossession. The following
story may illustrate more fully what I mean: Not long ago, when I first moved back to New York after some twenty years, I decided to go on a walking tour of Harlem. The tour, which took place on Easter Sunday, was sponsored by the New York Arts Society, and except for myself, was attended exclusively by young, white, urban, professional, real estate speculators. They were pleasant looking, with babies strapped to their
backs and balloons in their hands. They all seemed like very nice people. Halfway through the tour, the guide asked the group if they wanted to "go inside some churches." The guide added, "It'll make the tour a little longer, but we'll probably get to see some services going on . . . Easter Sunday in Harlem is quite a show." A casual discussion ensued about the time that this excursion might take. What astonished me was that
no one had asked the people in the churches if they minded being stared at like living museums. I wondered what would happen if a group of blue-jeaned blacks were to walk uninvited into a synagogue on Passover or St. Anthony's of Padua in the middle of High Mass. Just to peer, not pray. My overwhelming instinct is that such activity would be seen as disrespectful. Apparently, the disrespect was invisible to this welleducated, affable group of people. They deflected my observations with comments such as, "We just want to look"; "No one will mind"; "There's no harm intended." As well intentioned as they were, I was left with the impression that no one existed for them whom their intentions could not govern. 69 Despite the lack of apparent malice in their demeanor, 70 it seemed to me that to live so noninteractively is a liability [*150]
as much as a luxury. To live imperviously to one's impact on others is a fragile privilege, which depends ultimately on the inability of others to make their displeasure known. Reflecting on Howard Beach brought to mind a news story from my fragmentary grammar school recollections of the 1960's: a white man acting out of racial motives killed a black man who was working for some civil rights organization or cause. The
man was stabbed thirty-nine times, a number which prompted a radio commentator to observe that the point was not just murder, but something beyond. What indeed was the point, if not murder? I wondered what it was that would not die, which could not be killed by the fourth, fifth, or even tenth knife blow; what sort of thing that would not die with the body but lived on in the mind of the murderer. Perhaps, as
psychologists have argued, what the murderer was trying to kill was a part of his own mind's image, a part of himself and not a real other. After all, statistically and corporeally, blacks as a group are poor, powerless, and a minority. It is in the minds of whites that blacks become large, threatening, powerful, uncontrollable, ubiquitous, and supernatural. There are certain societies that define the limits of life and death very
death may occur long before the body ceases to function, and under
the proper circumstances, life may continue for some time after the body is
carried to its grave. 71 These non-body-bound, uncompartmentalized ideas
recognize the power of spirit, or what we in our secularized society might
describe as the dynamism of self as reinterpreted by the perceptions of
differently than our own. For example,
[*151] other. 72 These ideas comprehend the fact that a part of ourselves is
beyond the control of pure physical will and resides in the sanctuary of those
around us. A fundamental part of ourselves and of our dignity is dependent
upon the uncontrollable, powerful, external observers who constitute society.
73 Surely a part of socialization ought to include a sense of caring
responsibility for the images of others that are reposited within us. 74 Taking
the example of the man who was stabbed thirty-nine times out of the context
of our compartmentalized legal system, and considering it in the hypothetical
framework of a legal system that encompasses and recognizes morality,
religion, and psychology, I am moved to see this act as not merely body
murder but spirit-murder as well. I see it as spirit-murder, only one of whose
manifestations is racism -- cultural obliteration, prostitution, abandonment of
the elderly and the homeless, and genocide are some of its other guises. I
see spirit-murder as no less than the equivalent of body murder. One of the
reasons that I fear what I call spirit-murder, or disregard for others whose
lives qualitatively depend on our regard, is that its product is a system of
formalized distortions of thought. It produces social structures centered
around fear and hate; it provides a tumorous outlet for feelings elsewhere
unexpressed. 75 For example, when Bernhard Goetz shot four black
teenagers in a New York City subway, an acquaintance of mine said that she
could understand his fear because it is a "fact" that blacks commit most
crimes. What impressed me, beyond the factual inaccuracy of this statement,
76 was the reduction of Goetz' crime to "his fear," which I translate to mean
her fear. The four teenage victims became all blacks everywhere, and "most
crimes" clearly meant that most blacks
Racism make nuclear war inevitable

KOVEL 1988
(Joel, Distinguished Professor of Social Studies at Bard University, White Racism: A Psychohistory,
1988, p. xxix-xxx)
As people become dehumanized, the states become more powerful and warlike.
Metaracism signifies the triumph of technical reasoning in the racial sphere. The same technocracy applies to
militarization in general, where it has led to the inexorable drive toward thermonuclear weaponry and the transformation
There is an indubitable although largely obscure, link between

the inner dynamic of a society, including its racism, and the external
projection of social violence. Both involve actions taken toward an Other , a term
of the state into the nuclear state.
we may define as the negation of the socially affirmed self. Communist, black, Jewall have been Other to the white
West.
The Jew has, for a while at least, stepped outside of the role thanks to the
integration of Israel within the nations of the West, leaving the black and the Communist to suffer the
respective technocratic violences of metaracism and thermonuclear deterrence. Since the initial writing of WHITE
RACISM, these closely linked phenomena have grown enormously. Of course, there is a major, cataclysmic difference
between the types of technocratic domination. Metaracism can be played out quite a while longer. Indeed, since it is a
racism that proceeds on the basis of anti-racism, it appears capable of a vastly greater degree of integration than either
dominative or aversive racism, at least under the firmly entrenched conditions of late capitalist society.
Thermonuclear deterrence, on the other hand, has already decayed into the
apocalyptic logic of first-strike capability (or counterforce means of pursing nuclear war), which
threatens to put an end to history itself. Thus the nuclear crisis is now the leading item on the
global agenda. If it is not resolved civilization will be exterminated while if it is resolved, the terms of society and the
state will undoubtedly be greatly altered. This will of course profoundly affect the racial situation. At the same time
the
disposition of racism will play a key role in the outcome of the nuclear crisis .
For one thing, the effectiveness of an antinuclear movement will depend heavily on its ability to involve people of all races
in contrast to its present makeup, which is almost entirely white and middle class. To achieve such mobilization and
carry it through, however, the movement will have to be able to make the linkages between militarization and racial
oppression very clearly and forcefully. For if the third, and last world war becomes thermonuclear, it will most likely be in
a place defined by racial oppositions.
commit crimes.
Racism outweighs death

Patricia Williams, Associate Professor of Law at City University of New York,
September, 1987
Spirit-murdering the Messenger: The Discourse of Finger-Pointing as the Laws
Response to Racism, University of Miami Law Review, Lexis
The second purpose of this article is to examine racism as a crime, an offense
so deeply painful and assaultive as to constitute something I call "spiritmurder." Society is only beginning to recognize that racism is as devastating,
as costly, and as psychically obliterating as robbery or assault; For
example, death may occur long before the body ceases to function, and
under the proper circumstances, life may continue for some time after the
body is carried to its grave. 71 These non-body-bound, uncompartmentalized
ideas recognize the power of spirit, or what we in our secularized society
might describe as the dynamism of self as reinterpreted by the perceptions of
[*151] other. 72 These ideas comprehend the fact that a part of ourselves is
beyond the control of pure physical will and resides in the sanctuary of those
around us. A fundamental part of ourselves and of our dignity is dependent
upon the uncontrollable, powerful, external observers who constitute society.
73 Surely a part of socialization ought to include a sense of caring
responsibility for the images of others that are reposited within us. 74 Taking
the example of the man who was stabbed thirty-nine times out of the context
of our compartmentalized legal system, and considering it in the hypothetical
framework of a legal system that encompasses and recognizes morality,
religion, and psychology, I am moved to see this act as not merely body
murder but spirit-murder as well. I see it as spirit-murder, only one of whose
manifestations is racism -- cultural obliteration, prostitution, abandonment of
the elderly and the homeless, and genocide are some of its other guises. I
see spirit-murder as no less than the equivalent of body murder . One of the
reasons that I fear what I call spirit-murder, or disregard for others whose
lives qualitatively depend on our regard, is that its product is a system of
formalized distortions of thought. It produces social structures centered
around fear and hate; it provides a tumorous outlet for feelings elsewhere
unexpressed. 75 For example, when Bernhard Goetz shot four black
teenagers in a New York City subway, an acquaintance of mine said that she
could understand his fear because it is a "fact" that blacks commit most
crimes. What impressed me, beyond the factual inaccuracy of this statement,
76 was the reduction of Goetz' crime to "his fear," which I translate to mean
her fear. The four teenage victims became all blacks everywhere, and "most
crimes" clearly meant that most blacks commit crimes.
Reject
Reject racism in every instanceits a moral sideconstraint
Albert Memmi, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Paris, 1999 (Racism,
Published by the University of Minnesota Press, ISBN 0816631654, p. 163-165)
The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without
remission, probably never achieved. Yet, for this very reason, it is a struggle to
be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be
indulgent toward racism; one must not even let the monster in the house,
especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment
diminish what is
human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to
endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the
the bestial part in us and in other people, which is to
dark [end page 163] history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the
outsider will always be a possible victim (and which man is not himself an
outsider relative to someone else?). Racism illustrates, in sum, the
inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated; that is, it

illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist
struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the
prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to humanity. In that sense, we
cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it remains true that one's
moral conduct only emerges from a choice; one has to want it. It is a choice
among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its
consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct
oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human

order, for which racism is the very negation. This is almost a
redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative
order, on racism, because racism signifies the exclusion of the
other, and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an
ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious language, racism is "the
truly capital sin."22 It is not an accident that almost all of humanity's spiritual
traditions counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is
not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested commandments.
Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such
sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in [end page 164]
banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course,
this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the
assault on and oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of
remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust
society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to
treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. "Recall," says the
Bible, "that you were once a stranger in Egypt," which means both that you
ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you
risk becoming one again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal--indeed,
it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism
is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality. Because,
in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice, a just
society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual
principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and
destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday
to live in peace.
S-6 Visa
Review process for the visa is stringent enough to prevent
double agents no concern of terrorists being imported.
Ester, Report for Congress, 05(Karma Ester, Technical Information Specialist,

Attorney General and Secretary of State have determined possesses critical,
reliable information concerning a terrorist organization, operation, or
enterprise, and who is willing to supply or has supplied information to
federal law enforcement authorities or to a federal court. The Attorney General and
Secretary must also determine that the alien has been or will be placed in danger as a result of providing information, and is eligible to
receive a cash reward under 36(a) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956.7 The number of informants admitted under this
classification may not exceed 50 in any fiscal year. No terrorist informants have been admitted under the S-6 category since 1996.
S-6 visa Granting process

Ester, Report for Congress, 05
(Karma Ester, Technical Information Specialist

Attorney General and Secretary of State have determined
possesses critical, reliable information concerning a terrorist
organization, operation, or enterprise, and who is willing to supply or has
supplied information to federal law enforcement authorities or to a federal
court. The Attorney General and Secretary must also determine that the alien
has been or will be placed in danger as a result of providing information, and
is eligible to receive a cash reward under 36(a) of the State Department
Basic Authorities Act of 1956.7 The number of informants admitted under
this classification may not exceed 50 in any fiscal year. No terrorist
informants have been admitted under the S-6 category since 1996.
S-6 Visas are Given only after review from Secretary of

State
Immigration.Com, 09 (Immigration.com, April 7, 2009, S Visa Law,
http://www.immigration.com/regulations/s-visa/s-visa-law )
Alien witness or informant in counterterrorism matter An
alien may be classified as an

S-6 alien counterterrorism witness or informant under the provisions of section 101(a)(15)(S)(ii) of the Act
if it is determined by the Secretary of State and the Commissioner acting jointly, in the exercise of their
discretion, pursuant to an application on Form I-854 by an interested federal LEA, that the alien: (i)
Possesses critical reliable information concerning a terrorist organization,

enterprise, or operation; (ii) Is willing to supply or has supplied such information to a
federal LEA; (iii) Is in danger or has been placed in danger as a result of providing such information;
and (iv) Is eligible to receive a reward under section 36(a) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act
of 1956, 22 U.S.C. 2708(a). - See more at: http://www.immigration.com/regulations/s-visa/s-visalaw#sthash.Ov4ORbDj.dpuf
Strict Scrutiny Standard

concern outside of religion- prevents policies that infringe
on religious practices such as mosque monitoring
Uddin 2012 [Asma, (attorney @ the Becket Fund for Religious Liberties), A First
Amendment Analysis of Anti-Sharia Initiatives, First Amendment Law Review, Winter
2012, http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/A-FIRST-AMENDMENTANALYSIS-OF-ANTI-SHARIA-INITIATIVES.pdf, Accessed 7/16/15, AX]
in determining whose interests are sufficient to warrant a departure
from a common legal scheme, when the government makes a value judgment in
favor of secular motivations, but not religious motivations, the governments actions
must survive heightened scrutiny.109[I]f the object of a law is to
infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious
motivation, the law is not neutral and it is invalid unless it is
justified by a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to advance
that interest.110Notably, one significant interpretation of the First Amendment that
has been advanced gives a higher level of protection to individual behavior
motivated by religious belief.111 This interpretation would demand strict scrutiny of
any law burdening religious practice.
Further,
The strict scrutiny standard solves
Figueroa 12 [Tiffani, (associate @ Morrison Foersters

Litigation Department), "ALL MUSLIMS ARE LIKE THAT":
HOW ISLAMOPHOBIA IS DIMINISHING AMERICANS' RIGHT TO
RECEIVE INFORMATION, Hofstra Law Review, Winter 2012,
AX]
As in the case of Islamophobia, it is easy to target a specific
group because some Americans automatically associated the
9/11 hijackers with all Muslims and those perceived as
Muslim. 3 1 Similarly, in the interest of national security, the
government at times partook in practices that people may
view as discriminatory. The government failed to protect the
free speech rights of Muslims as a targeted group, and these
actions subsequently harmed the right to receive information
for Americans. Although the government's purpose in
enforcing the laws discussed in this Note was not to close off
Muslim ideas, the effects may show otherwise.352 Justice
Antonin Scalia stated, "[t]he vice of content based

legislation-what renders it deserving of the high
standard of strict scrutiny-is not that it is always used
for invidious, thought-control purposes, but that it
lends itself to use for those purposes. 353 "Unavoidable
targeting" stemming from a government regulation is
included within this "vice of content-based legislation." This
phenomenon may shine light on what has occurred following
the 9/11 attacks. By employing an effects test in the First
Amendment analysis, courts will more efficiently investigate
whether there is viewpoint discrimination affecting the right
to receive information since the courts must first establish if
a government action falls disproportionately on a specific
group.354
2. The strict scrutiny standard would immediately declare the
most invasive and abusive Islamophobic policies unConstitutional and reduce the executional ability of these
agencies solves both federal and local discrimination
Love 2012 [Erik, (Assistant Professor of Sociology @ Dickinson
College), "NYPD: Whose side are you on?", Institute for Social Policy
and
Understanding,http://www.ispu.org/GetArticles/48/2461/Publications.as
px, Accessed 7/16/15, AX]
Despite the recent outpouring of support of these discriminatory
programmes, a federal investigation of the NYPD's practices is sorely
needed. It's likely that if the NYPD's crudely constructed policies of
religious and racial profiling were brought into the courts, the judicial
principle of strict scrutiny would definitively show that the NYPD had
grossly violated the constitutional right to equal protection under the
law. Strict scrutiny is the standard applied by the courts to determine
whether the government can move beyond constitutional limits due to
extraordinary circumstances. It's called "strict" because the
government must rise to a tripartite standard: first, it must prove that
it has a compelling interest; second, that the policy is narrowly tailored
to achieve that interest; and, finally, the policy must use the least
restrictive means to achieve that interest. Preventing terrorism is,
undoubtedly, a compelling state interest. But spying on anyone who
happens to be in a mosque or restaurant cannot possibly be
"narrowly tailored". Similarly, a programme so paranoid that it
spied on its own anti-terrorism partners and kept track of any

Muslim who changed their name clearly isn't the "least
restrictive means" towards achieving the goal of antiterrorism. The case for proving that the NYPD has violated the
constitution appears easy to prove in a court. The inability of Muslim American and
civil liberties advocates to get these programmes into the courts, so far, is another
sign of political oppression. What might be even worse than the flagrant violation of civil rights,
however, is that the NYPD programme is likely to make New York and the rest of the
country less safe from terrorism. The best scholarship on terrorism suggests that devout Muslims
are very unlikely to join up with terrorists. A February 2012 report from the Triangle Center on Terrorism
terrorism from Muslim Americans was a "miniscule

threat to public safety". An earlier report from the same centre found that Muslim American
and Homeland Security concluded that
"practices" effectively "prevent radicalisation".
Islamophobia is cultivated and perpetuated at the policy

level- extensive federal surveillance mechanisms create
justifications for widespread anti-Muslim sentiments and
fractures local communities
Khalek 2014
[Rania, "How NSA Spying Impacts Muslim Communities and Cultivates Islamophobia,"
Dispatches from the Underclass, http://raniakhalek.com/2014/01/26/how-nsa-spying-impacts-muslimcommunities-and-cultivates-islamophobia/, Accessed 7/13/15, AX]
the fear of Islam, the fear of Muslims, is a notion I

cultivated by policy choices at the federal level. The use of airport
screenings, that inevitably cultivates and reflects the bias that people have
against Muslims, has I think created space for an anti-Muslim movement to take
ABBAS: I agree wholeheartedly that
think has been
root. Right after September 11, you didnt have your Act for Americas, your David Yerushalmis,
your Center for Security Policysthis
well-organized, well-financed movement

dedicated towards marginalizing Muslims and that gave rise to essentially and
engine of generating anti-Muslim sentiment that creates this terrible and
despicable cycle where now you have the overt argument being made that
Muslims are here in the United States to abrogate the US constitution, to
overthrow the US government and replace it with Sharia law, which couldnt
be further from the truth. As the facts would have it, the American Muslim community is a
well-educated, well-integrated and looking to continue to do so in the world. You cant identify an
American Muslim radical voice in the United States, whereas if you go to Europe, you can find
people that have a platform that say despicable objectionable things. In the US, thats just not the
the US, which is really exporting anti-Muslim sentiment to

other parts of the world especially Europe, we still have this fear of Islam that
absolutely does give rise to justify these surveillance policies. GOSZTOLA: So for
case. But we still have in
people who are hearing this debate and they maybe think its kind of abstract, weve been
hearing people talk about collection of the information and then weve been hearing about how
when were talking about the program under

the Patriot Act, the Section 215 program, which is the bulk records collection of the
phone records, its all about whos going to hold it, whos going to store it, and its
kind of like were not talking about the collection. Id like you to talk about why the
the information is stored. And right now
collection would be really bad and I think a thing you could address is how the collection of
collecting
that information is the beginning of the injustice. ABBAS: Absolutely. What we
know a lot about now regarding the NSAs surveillance programs is what is
collected, some of the searching mechanisms that can be utilized to sift through the
collected information. But what we really get to see in more granular detail with the
peoples information in Muslim communities in New York is a huge deal for them and
NYPDs specifically designed Muslim surveillance program is how

indiscriminately collected information gets utilized and what people in
positions of authority that can collect such information think is an appropriate
use of taxpayer dollars. And what we find is that the NYPD thought it was absolutely
worth taxpayer money to send their agents on camping trips of 19 and 20-year-old
college students. They thought it was absolutely critical for them to map the
Muslim community in Newark, New Jersey, and beyond, identifying every halal grocery
store, every halal restaurant. These things are laughable when we see them up close and in
granular detail and just like the PCLOB board has determined itself, a board that was authorized
sifting through everybodys information on an ongoing

basis actually is not only objectionable in itself but its not productive by any
criteria. So you have for instance James Clapper arguing that theres the peace of mind
quotients that is part of the benefit of their surveillance program because were
monitoring everything. At the very least we know that nothing is happening. But this
mentality that gave rise to the NSA program is really the objectionable thing
that needs to end because it gives rise to not only indiscriminate collection of
information automatically through these telecommunications companies, but
its also given rise to a network of 15,000 FBI informants that have saturated
the Muslim community across the country, that are sent to mosques without any
type of criminal predicate just to collect information because theres a sense
that thats where the problem. And thats the inevitable result of indiscriminate collection.
Its always going to be the case that indiscriminate collectionin addition to not
being productivewill lead to despicable consequences.
by Congress years ago, that the
1. The strict scrutiny standard solves-it requires the

government to demonstrate a legitimate, nontargeted justification for surveillance- policies
restricting the expression of Islamic ideas fail to
meet
Figueroa 12 [Tiffani, (associate @ Morrison Foersters Litigation Department),
"ALL MUSLIMS ARE LIKE THAT": HOW ISLAMOPHOBIA IS DIMINISHING
AMERICANS' RIGHT TO RECEIVE INFORMATION, Hofstra Law Review, Winter
2012, AX]
As in the case of Islamophobia, it is easy to target a specific group because
some Americans automatically associated the 9/11 hijackers with all Muslims
and those perceived as Muslim. 3 1 Similarly, in the interest of national security,
the government at times partook in practices that people may view as
discriminatory. The government failed to protect the free speech rights of
Muslims as a targeted group, and these actions subsequently harmed the
right to receive information for Americans. Although the government's
purpose in enforcing the laws discussed in this Note was not to close off
Muslim ideas, the effects may show otherwise.352 Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "[t]he
vice of content based legislation-what renders it deserving of the high
standard of strict scrutiny-is not that it is always used for invidious,
thought-control purposes, but that it lends itself to use for those
purposes. 353 "Unavoidable targeting" stemming from a government
regulation is included within this "vice of content-based legislation." This phenomenon may
shine light on what has occurred following the 9/11 attacks. By employing an effects test
in the First Amendment analysis, courts will more efficiently investigate
whether there is viewpoint discrimination affecting the right to receive
information since the courts must first establish if a government action falls
disproportionately on a specific group.354
2. Strict scrutiny standards are historically tough for

governments to meet- extending the standards to
include religion solves extensive Islamophobic
actions.
Parvaresh 2014 [ROMTIN, J.D., University of Southern California; B.A., B.S.,
University of California, Berkeley, PRAYER FOR RELIEF: ANTI-MUSLIM
DISCRIMINATION AS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW
REVIEW, 2014, http://lawreview.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/Parvaresh-FinalPDF.pdf, Accessed 7/16/15, AX]
In late 2011, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) made national and
international headlines when its secret surveillance of Muslims across the New
York City area was discovered. 2 Under the guise of counterterrorism, the
NYPD monitored the daily lives of thousands of Muslims for about a decade, 3
using techniques such as taking photographs, collecting license plate numbers at
mosques, and utilizing informants known as mosque crawlers to infiltrate
Muslim organizations. 4 From recording sermons to monitoring businesses and grade
schools, the NYPD targeted individuals not because of a reasonable suspicion that
they specifically were linked to terrorism, but rather because of one common
characteristic: they were or were believed to be Muslim. As one might expect, the
police surveillance program has come under fire, as it chills religious participation and
casts innocent Muslims as potential terror suspects. 5 In mid-2012, a group of
Muslim plaintiffs filed suit in federal court challenging the NYPDs program. 6
Though their complaint alleged First Amendment violations, including violations
of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, their likelihood for success
may be hampered: Recent findings indicate that Muslim plaintiffs as a class are less
likely to succeed on First Amendment challenges relative to other religious
groups. 7 Indeed, in early 2014, the case was dismissed on standing and pleading grounds,8
and it was under appeal in the Third Circuit as of August 2014. Of greater interest, however, is the
plaintiffs additional claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. This claim, too, faces a doctrinal obstacle religion
is not a suspect
classification and is thus not subject to strict scrutiny. Only classifications
based on race and national origin are suspect and thus warrant strict scrutiny ;
9 by contrast, religion, more so than race or national origin, appears to
be the primary, if not sole, basis for the NYPDs surveillance. This Note,
however, does not look to resolve the constitutionality of the NYPD surveillance program. Rather,
it explores an idea impliedly raised by the case: the intersection of race and religion in post-9/11
the NYPD lawsuit plaintiffs might have bolstered

to frame the alleged equal protection violations in the context of
race, and thus have the NYPDs actions analyzed under strict scrutinya
historically tough burden for the government to meet. 10 The question then
America. For instance, one way
their case
would have been
becomes whether anti-Muslim discrimination could be interpreted as a form of racial

discrimination. This Note therefore seeks to place anti-Muslim discrimination into current legal
anti-Muslim discrimination
should be treated as racial discrimination.11 In short, because Muslims, along with
Middle Easterners and South Asians, have increasingly become racialized in both the
immediate and prolonged aftermath of 9/11, they now warrant additional legal
protection given the various forms of discrimination they experience in both
understandings of race. It argues that, in some instances,
private and public contexts.
Opening racial discrimination claims to them would be one
way to provide such relief.

monitoring
practice.
4. Strict scrutiny solves

Shahabuddin 15 (Madiha Shahabuddin, JD at Chapman University Dale E.
Fowler School of Law and BA at University of California, Irvine, "The More
Muslim You Are, the More Trouble You Can Be: How Government Surveillance
of Muslim Americans Violates First Amendment Rights, February 16 2015,
http://www.chapman.edu/law/_files/publications/clr-18-shahabuddin.pdf) //mL
B. Muslim American Associational Rights Infringed The jurisprudence on associational
rights discussed above provides a few key methods of first assessing whether
government conduct rises to the kind of level that merits strict scrutiny, and
then deciding whether the compelling interest and narrowly tailored
government conduct that may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to
associate should be subjected to strict scrutiny.108 Such effects have
included economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion,
and other manifestations of public hostility. 109 The Ninth Circuit provided more
relevant examples of suppression of religious expression, including (1) withdrawal
by congregants from actively participating, (2) decline in financial support or
donations, (3) congregants reluctance in seeking religious counseling or being
open during prayer, (4) diversion of clergies or religious leaders time from
congregation duties to dealing with the effects of surveillance, and (5) fear or
apprehension of conversations being bugged (recorded), which have a
negative impact on congregants morale.110 Muslim American surveillance has
exhibited similarly chilling effects on mosque-goers, demonstrating the need
for strict scrutiny application of the government programs aimed at
Muslim Americans in regions like the East Coast have also suffered from the
loss of business; diminished or affected employment opportunities ;111 other
furthering justification of hate crimes against Muslims113 because of the specter
left upon the Muslim community in the wake of media reports of NYPD surveillance.114 Moreover,
the surveillance of Muslims has placed a particularly ominous mark on the

community through the governments use of informants to infiltrate mosques,
Muslim Student Associations on college campuses, and the Muslim community
in general.
5. Status quo surveillance policies create a chilling

effect on Muslim American populations. Only
adopting a strict scrutiny standard for domestic
surveillance solves.
Shahabuddin 15 (Madiha Shahabuddin, JD, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler
School of Law, May 2015; BA, University of California, Irvine, "The More Muslim You Are, the More
Trouble You Can Be: How Government Surveillance of Muslim Americans Violates First Amendment
Rights, Chapman Law Review 18 Chap. L. Rev. 577, Spring, 2015, SMahajan)

associational rights discussed above provides a few key methods of first
assessing whether government conduct rises to the kind of level that
merits strict scrutiny, and then deciding whether the compelling interest
and narrowly tailored elements of the strict scrutiny test itself are met . As
established by case law, government conduct that may have the effect
of curtailing the freedom to associate should be subjected to
strict scrutiny.108 Such effects have included economic reprisal,
loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other
manifestations of public hostility. 109 The Ninth Circuit provided more
relevant examples of suppression of religious expression, including (1)
withdrawal by congregants from actively participating , (2) decline in
financial support or donations, (3) congregants reluctance in seeking
religious counseling or being open during prayer , (4) diversion of
clergies or religious leaders time from congregation duties to dealing
with the effects of surveillance, and (5) fear or apprehension of
conversations being bugged (recorded), which have a negative
impact on congregants morale.110 Muslim American surveillance
has exhibited similarly chilling effects on mosque-goers,
demonstrating the need for strict scrutiny application of the
government programs aimed at widespread Muslim
surveillance. Like the curtailment the Court found in Patterson, Muslim Americans in
regions like the East Coast have also suffered from the loss of business;
diminished or affected employment opportunities;111 other
manifestations of public hostility such as stigma;112 and the enabling

or furthering justification of hate crimes against Muslims 113 because of the
specter left upon the Muslim community in the wake of media reports of NYPD surveillance.114
Moreover, the surveillance of Muslims has placed a particularly

ominous mark on the community through the governments use of
informants to infiltrate mosques, Muslim Student Associations on
college campuses, and the Muslim community in general.
6. Prohibiting racial profiling and passing surveillance

reform can solve discriminatory practices
Amnesty International 14 (Non-governmental organization focused on
human rights with over 7 million members and supporters around the world,
Surveillance of American Muslims Underscores Lack of Safeguards, Amnesty
International USA, 7/9/14, http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/pressreleases/surveillance-of-american-muslims-underscores-lack-of-safeguards-0,
al)
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - Revelations today in The Intercept about the apparently
arbitrary surveillance of several prominent American Muslims underscore the
lack of safeguards to protect the rights of persons targeted by U.S.
surveillance operations, Amnesty International said today. If it is true, as alleged, that
the term "Mohammed Raghead" was used as a placeholder in a government
document about how to make surveillance requests, there is good reason to
be concerned that anti-Muslim bias tainted the process. Any surveillance
conducted on the basis of religion, rather than probable cause to believe that
the defendant violated the law, would constitute discriminatory interference
with the right to privacy, prohibited by both the Constitution and international
human rights law. "The burden is on President Obama to demonstrate that the
surveillance was lawful, and specifically that the government had probable
cause to monitor the men, and was not motivated by racial or religious bias,"
said Steven W. Hawkins, executive director of Amnesty International USA. "Given the
indicators of discrimination, as well as the system's lack of meaningful
safeguards, we are very concerned that the monitoring was arbitrary and
abusive. It is simply unacceptable to discriminate against people on the basis
of their religion or race." While the story is not clear on this point, the government may
have been granted warrants by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to conduct
surveillance of the men. The court operates almost entirely in secret, however, relying upon
secret interpretations of controversial laws, and lacking sufficient protections against abuse. In
particular, the court hears only one side of a request for surveillance: the government's side. In
addition, the court's judges are chosen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, an
appointments process that damages its independence and impartiality. Amnesty International
believes that these flaws greatly erode the FISC's capacity to serve as a meaningful check on
executive power and its willingness to consider the right to privacy as well as the needs of
legitimate law enforcement. Despite the system's obvious problems, calls for legislative reform
have stalled, with Congress failing to move forward on draft legislation. Amnesty International
Under
international human rights law, any surveillance must be necessary and
proportionate to a legitimate aim, such as countering serious crime, and be
the least intrusive means of achieving that aim. Furthermore, the use of
surveillance must be enshrined in law, be based on probable cause, and be
subject to independent review. Surveillance must be targeted at individuals
and be based on probable cause. It should not be conducted on the basis of
religion, race, nationality, gender or other discriminatory factors. As a step
believes that the concerns raised by these cases demonstrate the urgent need for reform.
President Obama should publicly commit to

following international human rights law in U.S. surveillance efforts at home
and abroad. He should ensure that his administration does not profile people
on the basis of religion or race, including by improving the Department of Justice's
"Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies." Congress
should pass the End Racial Profiling Act as well as comprehensive
surveillance reform legislation that upholds the human rights of all people
around the world and in the United States.
toward remedying the system's failures,

monitoring
practice.
8. The strict scrutiny standard would immediately

declare the most invasive and abusive Islamophobic
policies un-Constitutional and reduce the executional
ability of these agencies solves both federal and
local discrimination
Love 2012 [Erik, (Assistant Professor of Sociology @

Dickinson College), "NYPD: Whose side are you on?",
Institute for Social Policy and Understanding,
http://www.ispu.org/GetArticles/48/2461/Publications.aspx,
Accessed 7/16/15, AX]
Despite the recent outpouring of support of these
discriminatory programmes, a federal investigation of the
NYPD's practices is sorely needed. It's likely that if the
NYPD's crudely constructed policies of religious and racial
profiling were brought into the courts, the judicial principle of

strict scrutiny would definitively show that the NYPD had
grossly violated the constitutional right to equal protection
under the law. Strict scrutiny is the standard applied by the
courts to determine whether the government can move
beyond constitutional limits due to extraordinary
circumstances. It's called "strict" because the government
must rise to a tripartite standard: first, it must prove that it
has a compelling interest; second, that the policy is narrowly
tailored to achieve that interest; and, finally, the policy
must use the least restrictive means to achieve that
interest. Preventing terrorism is, undoubtedly, a compelling
state interest. But spying on anyone who happens to be
in a mosque or restaurant cannot possibly be
"narrowly tailored". Similarly, a programme so
paranoid that it spied on its own anti-terrorism
partners and kept track of any Muslim who changed
their name clearly isn't the "least restrictive means"
towards achieving the goal of anti-terrorism. The case
for proving that the NYPD has violated the constitution
appears easy to prove in a court. The inability of Muslim
American and civil liberties advocates to get these
programmes into the courts, so far, is another sign of
political oppression. What might be even worse than the
flagrant violation of civil rights, however, is that the NYPD
programme is likely to make New York and the rest of the
country less safe from terrorism. The best scholarship on
terrorism suggests that devout Muslims are very unlikely to
join up with terrorists. A February 2012 report from the
Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security
concluded that terrorism from Muslim Americans was a
"miniscule threat to public safety". An earlier report from the
same centre found that Muslim American "practices"
effectively "prevent radicalisation".
War on Terror
1. Islamophobia justifies the torture of many innocent
people.
Hudson 10.
One key element of American imperial history is its use of torture, which can be traced back to Americas
an analysis of torture, especially in the post-9/11 era,

is very uncommon in mainstream political discourse. As such, before I proceed, it is
important to dispel the current myths about torture propagated in the mainstream media. As is well
known, the United States has tortured hundreds of detainees suspected of
being involved in terrorism. It is hard not to notice when the former Vice President brags about
personally authorizing the use of torture on national television[v]. These acts included waterboarding, physical beatings, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and, in some
cases, murder[vi]. The primary justification is that torture is a necessary tool
to extract information from people who might know about impending threats of
terrorism. Politicians (both Republican and Democrat), intellectuals, pundits and other leaders argue
that America faces a new kind of threat. America is up against extremist, religious
fanatics who hate the United States and wish to kill innocent Americans.
treatment of African slaves. Such
Current domestic and international laws and law enforcement tactics are not sufficient to subdue this
threat. As Alberto Gonzalez said to former President George W. Bush, the Geneva Conventions are
As a result, the United States must be

willing to torture terrorist suspects in order to extract vital information that
could prevent the next terrorist attack. This apocalyptic mindset has
impacted the current American psyche and post-9/11 American foreign policy .
obsolete in this new war against terrorism.[vii]
Since the war is against a nebulous enemy, the war against terrorism is essentially a permanent war.
Despite the compelling arguments used to justify torture, adopting an objective view of the facts rips them
asunder. First, there is little to no evidence to prove that torture is a useful interrogation technique. In fact,
the evidence that does exist proves the opposite that torture is ineffective because the suspect will say
anything, whether its true or not, in order to make the torture stop. Ali Soufan, an intelligence official who
interrogated Guantanamo terror suspect Abu Zubaydah, stated[viii]that conventional interrogation
techniques compelled Zubaydah to provide actionable intelligence. It was only after Zubaydah was
most of the
people detained, usually indefinitely, in places like Guantanamo Bay and CIAowned black sites are not diehard terrorists. The vast majority of them are
innocent. Even President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and other high
government officials may have been aware of this[ix]. Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to
waterboarded several times that he could not provide useful intelligence. Second,
former Secretary of State Colin Powell said that Cheney had absolutely no concern that the vast majority
of Guantanamo detainees were innocentIf hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to
detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.
The apocalyptic mindset of the broader
War on Terror justified this tragedy.

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken
from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black; Latino and Asian; immigrants and American-born; moms and dads;
daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens and all of them were part of our American family. Tonight, I want to talk with
you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe. The FBI is still gathering the facts about what
happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their coworkers and his wife.
So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy
the two of them had gone down the dark path of

radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war
against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of
here at home. But it is clear that
terrorism, designed to kill innocent people. President Obama: 'This was an act of terrorism' President Obama: 'This was an act of
terrorism' 01:15 Our nation has been at war with terrorists since al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we've
Intelligence and law

enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and
overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe. Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued
hardened our defenses -- from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure .
terrorist networks overseas -- disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama bin Laden, and decimating al Qaeda's
leadership. Over the last few years, however, the terrorist threat has evolved into a new phase. As we've become better at preventing
complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common
in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino. And as
groups like ISIL grew stronger
amidst the chaos of war in Iraq and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the distance
between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San
Bernardino killers. For seven years, I've confronted this evolving threat each morning in my intelligence briefing. And since the day I took this
I know how real the danger is. As

Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the
American people. As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves
office, I've authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because
with friends and coworkers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in
Paris. And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.
The threat from terrorism is real
Well, here's what I want you to know:

, but we will overcome it. We will
destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won't depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into
fear. That's what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing
upon every aspect of American power. Here's how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is
necessary. In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our
closest allies -- including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom -- have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will
help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL. Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and
Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens. In both countries, we're deploying Special Operations Forces
who can accelerate that offensive. We've stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and we'll continue to invest more in approaches that

operations -- to disrupt plots,
are working on the ground. Third,
cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more fighters. Since the attacks in Paris, we've surged intelligence-sharing
with our European allies. We're working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria. And we are cooperating with Muslim-majority countries -- and with our Muslim communities here at home -- to counter the vicious
ideology that ISIL promotes online. Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process -- and timeline -- to pursue ceasefires and a political resolution to the Syrian war.
Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL -- a group that threatens us all. This is our strategy to
destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy
to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done. That's why I've ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa (waiver) program under which the female terrorist in
San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that's why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice. Now, here at home, we
have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away. To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What
could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security. We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like
the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies -- no matter how effective they are -cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do -- and must do -- is make it harder for them to kill. Next, we should put in
place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they've traveled to warzones. And we're working with members of both parties in Congress to do
exactly that. Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered
our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it's time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight. My fellow Americans, these
are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat. Let me now say a word about what we should not do. We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria.
That's what groups like ISIL want. They know they can't defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can
maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops, draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits. The strategy that we are using now -- airstrikes, Special Forces, and working
with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country -- that is how we'll achieve a more sustainable victory. And it won't require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die
We cannot turn against one another by letting

this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is
what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and
killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more
than a billion Muslims around the world -- including millions of patriotic
Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast
majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we're to
succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities
as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through
suspicion and hate. That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim
for another decade on foreign soil. Here's what else we cannot do.
communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue
working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against
not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect,
and human dignity. But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization
, it
is the responsibility of all Americans -- of every faith -- to reject

discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It's our responsibility to reject
proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road,
we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends
and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes -- and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of
our country. We have to remember that. President Obama: 'Freedom is more powerful than fear' President Obama: 'Freedom is
more powerful than fear' 02:15 My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of
. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity
history
-- that no matter who you are, or where you
come from, or what you look like, or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law. Even in this
political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future Presidents must take to keep our country safe, let's make sure we never
forget what makes us exceptional. Let's not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear; that we have always met challenges -- whether
war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks -- by coming together around our common ideals as one nation, as one people. So long
as we stay true to that tradition, I have no doubt America will prevail. Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of
America.
The defining characteristic of 21st century American

politics is Islamophobia. The security sphere has been
altered- political fears of Muslims determine and dictate
proposals and actions. This xenophobic politics justifies
the worst of orientalist violence racism, internment, and
torture come to be seen as acceptable in Bushs words,
a domestic crusade against Islam is made possible.
Ali 12
(Yaser Ali, JD in law from UC Berkeley, Managing Attorney at Yaser Ali Law and was the Judicial Law
Clerk in the US Court of Appeals, Shariah and CitizenshipHow Islamophobia Is Creating a Second-Class
Citizenry in America, August 1 2012, http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=4176&context=californialawreview) //mL
There was a clear discursive shift in Islamophobic discourse after 9/11. What was
previously considered unacceptable speech now permeated the discourse. During this
time, pundits and public officials construed the stereotypical Muslim male
personifying all the Orientalist tropes and characteristics Lewis and Huntington described in
the 1990sas the primary threat to American security .97 The discursive shift
transcended political affiliation. One prominent conservative columnist, Ann Coulter, wrote on
September 12, 2001, We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert
them to Christianity. We werent punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler
and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. Thats war.
And this is war.98 Richard Cohen, writing in the Washington Post one month after 9/11, added:
One hundred percent of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 mass murder were
Arabs. Their accomplices, if any, were probably Arabs too, or at least Muslims.
Ethnicity and religion are the very basis of their movement. It hardly makes sense,
therefore, to ignore that fact and, say, give Swedish au pair girls heading to the
United States the same scrutiny as Arab men coming from the Middle East.99
Politicians, too, appeared to be competing as to who could look strongest on national defense. Attorney
General John Ashcroft, one of the most vociferous critics of Islam in public office at the time, stated, Islam
is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God
sends his son to die for you.100 In a speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, he stated: Let the
terrorists among us be warned: if you overstay your visaeven by one daywe will arrest you. If you
violate a local law, you will be put in jail and kept in custody as long as possible. We will use every
available statute. We will seek every prosecutorial advantage.101 Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Republican
Senator from Georgia, went even further, stating that homeland security would be improved by turning the
Perhaps the most

notorious and destructive comment was President Bushs description of the War on
Terror as a crusade,103 a statement that outraged Muslims around the world and led
to intense damage control efforts on the part of the White House.104 Although it was
sheriff loose to arrest every Muslim that comes across the state line.102
the comment
nonetheless suggested that the collective enemy was Islam; and further, to some
Muslims, it engendered strong notions of the Middle Ages, when Christian armies
embarked on numerous battles with an expressed goal of conquering Muslim
lands.105 Professor Victor Romero describes how the underlying rhetoric after 9/11 was
reminiscent of that used toward the Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl
Harbor.106 He cites a quote from General DeWitt, the chief enforcer of the internment camps: Further
conceivably just an ill advised and unintentional statement by the President,
evidence of the Commanding Generals attitude toward individuals of Japanese ancestry is revealed in his
voluntary testimony on April 13, 1943, in San Francisco before the House Naval Affairs Subcommittee to
Investigate Congested Areas: . . . I dont want any of them (persons of Japanese ancestry) here. They are
a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty. The west coast contains too many vital
installations essential to the defense of the country to allow any Japanese on this coast . . . . The danger of
the Japanese was, and is nowif they are permitted to come back espionage and sabotage. It makes no
difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not
necessarily determine loyalty . . . . But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off
the map. Sabotage and espionage will make problems as long as he is allowed in this area . . . . 107 As
described above, the language employed by General DeWitt was indeed strikingly similar to that used
As a result of this framing, the average Muslim in

America was presumptively considered disloyal and a threat, irrespective of his or her
formal citizenship status. In fact, according to one poll, less than half of the
respondents during the period shortly after 9/11 believed that American Muslims
were loyal to the United States.108 In one particularly troubling Gallup Poll shortly
after 9/11, one-third of respondents supported such drastic measures as the
internment of Arab Americans or the special surveillance of Arabs living in the United
States.109 This biased public perception was no doubt a necessary precursor to the
large-scale encroachment on civil liberties that targeted American Muslims in the
following months and years. 2. Ramifications for the Muslim Community The repercussions of
such statements were severe in both the private and public spheres. Muslims were
cast as disloyal outsiders and noncitizens. Under the broad umbrella of national security
policy, the government institutionalized numerous civil liberties violations, including
intrusive airport inspections, increased FBI surveillance and warrantless
wiretapping, the use of agents provocateurs in mosques, and, in some cases,
even torture and suspension of habeas corpus rights.110 Within two months of
9/11, law enforcement officials detained more than 1200 individuals in dragnet
searches, most of whom were from the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa.111
In 2004 alone, the FBI initiated a campaign to interview 5000 Muslim men to obtain
leads on terrorist attacks.112 The government detained countless others as material witnesses,
against American Muslims after 9/11.
but neither the exact number nor the names of such persons have been revealedagain for national
security purposes.113 Similarly, whereas before 9/11 President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft
publicly denounced racial profiling tactics,114 their positions quickly changed after 9/11. 115
Public
sentiment on the issue followed suit, with over half of Americans polled approving
racial profiling at airports nearly two weeks after the attacks.116 The government
seizing on the public endorsement of discriminatory policies toward Muslims at the
timeimplemented four distinct practices of targeting people who appeared
Muslim: profiling airline passengers, secret arrests , the institution of new racebased immigration policies, and selective enforcement of generally applicable
immigration laws.117 Airlines frequently removed Muslim passengers from flights
without causeeven removing one of President Bushs Secret Service agents because
he looked Muslim.118 Professor Muneer Ahmad cites two particularly egregious examples of profiling.
The first involved a United Airlines pilot refusing to fly a U.S. citizen of Egyptian origin out of Tampa,
Florida, because his name was Mohammad, and the second was a situation in Austin, Texas, where
passengers applauded as two Pakistani men were removed from a flight.119
AT: Direct Cards
AT: No Mosque surveillance

If they read Careccia 13:
This article is written by an Islamophobic man who has
not educated himself on the injustices in the Muslim
community and continues to degrade Muslims based on a
bias and flawed view on their beliefs and religion. He is
calling Muslims a threat to the average American
Citizen and mocking Muslims for trying to stand up for
their rights. This proves our case, because it shows there
are islamophobes in the status quo and education would
be a much-needed step to show them the error in their
ways.
John Careccia 13, Islamic Mosques: Excluded From Surveillance By
Feds, 6-17-2013, Western Journalism,
http://www.westernjournalism.com/islamic-mosques-excluded-fromsurveillance-by-feds/
Homeland Insecurity: The White House assures us that tracking our every phone call and keystroke is necessary to stop terrorists, and yet it
wont snoop in mosques, where the terrorists emanate from. Fact Many of the terrorists have been radicalized in Mosques and Muslim
According to the NSA the governments sweeping

surveillance of our most private communications excludes Mosques and
Muslim affiliated facilities. Supposedly this is done to protect the
sensibilities of innocent Muslims who worship in Mosques. Since
October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents . Surveillance or undercover sting
agencies right here in America.
operations are not allowed without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive
Operations Review Committee (SORC). Who makes up this body, and under what methodology do they review requests nobody knows. The
names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret. Why is it necessary to keep the names and titles of the people who decide whether
or not to protect the rest of the country from radical Muslims, secret? We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups
who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panels formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to
infiltrate and monitor mosques in Americas second largest city. Another defeat for the politically correct imbeciles in our government. Before
mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting
operations against homegrown radicals inside mosques, and disrupted dozens of plots against innocent American citizens across the United
States. If only they were allowed to continue, perhaps the many innocent victims of the Boston Marathon bombings would not have lost their
lives and limbs. The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15 attacks, and it did not check out the radical Boston
mosque where the Muslim bombers worshiped even though they were supposedly on the governments watch list. The bureau didnt even
contact mosque leaders for help in identifying their images after those images were captured on closed-circuit TV cameras and cellphones.
Advertisement - story continues below Sponsored by Revcontent Remove Your Eye Bags In Under 2 Minutes Avoid Botox - Do This Instead
Politically Correct attitude

of the Obama administration is dangerous to the well being of the
average hard working American citizen. There are many religious communities in the United States.
3 Foods Surgeons Are Now Calling "Death Foods" As I have repeatedly pointed out, the
choose to defend
the actions of another belief system that espouses violence and
murder of Westerners who they classify as infidels. Even though the FBI was tipped by
How can the government attack one of the oldest and most established religions in the United States and
Russia more than a year before about the leanings of the two Boston bombers, they apparently chose to ignore it. Now after the fact we learn
that one of the Muslim bombers made extremist outbursts during worship, yet because the mosque wasnt monitored, red flags didnt go off
inside the FBI about his increasing radicalization before the attacks. Why didnt the Imam contact the FBI? Why dont these people of peace
Maybe its because

they see us as an opportunity to expand their Caliphate and dont really care
what happens to the infidels in their way who dont deserve to live. This is particularly
speak up when they hear people in their congregation espousing hate of the country they have adopted.
disturbing in light of recent independent surveys of American mosques, which reveal some 80% of them preach violent jihad and distribute
Islam is not a religion in the strict sense (it is more of a socio-economic way of
life), if Church doors are open to anyone or anything then Mosques should be too . If Muslims have nothing to
hide then they should not object to being treated the same or equal
to other religious organizations. If our Federal agencies are going to protect us from attack, they have to
violent literature to worshipers. Even though
adopt strong measures to root out these radicals and a plan to counter those who would commit atrocities against citizens of the the United
States.
Turn: FBI Is just circumventing because mosque

surveillance is still going on
The FBI goes to extremes to spy on the private lives of
innocent Muslims former informant Craig Monteilhs
story proves
devout facade
known as
Farouk al-Aziz,
"The FBI paid me to

The FBI
trained me
a Muslim male
," he said.


2014
final.pdf )
The NYPD used
and South Asian

populations.
the NYPD
identified
3

AT: Muslim Poll Sidhu 7

This card, cut from that actual article featuring the poll,
further proves what we are claiming, which is that
Muslims are being surveilled. Turn their card.
Sidhu 7 (Dawinder S. Sidhu, Associate Professor of Law, B.A. 2000 from University of Pennsylvania, M.A. 2003 from Johns Hopkins
University, J.D. 2004 from The George Washington University, Member of the Maryland Bar, served as a fellow at the Supreme Court of the
United States, received a Distinguished Service Award, taught at the Georgetown University Law Center and University of Baltimore School of
Law, held visiting research posts at the Oxford University Faculty of Law and Georgetown University Law Center, held fellowships at Harvard
University and Stanford University research centers, presented at various law schools, including the University of Pennsylvania Law School and
Stanford Law School, participated in programs at leading think tanks, such as the Aspen Institute and Council on Foreign Relations, served as a
legal observer of the military commissions at Guantanamo, cited by the Solicitor General of the United States and U.S. Department of Justice,
cited in briefs submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States, 2007, The Chilling Effect of Government Surveillance Programs on the
Use of the Internet by Muslim-Americans, 7 U. Md. L.J. Race, Religion, Gender & Class, Available online at
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1134&context=rrgc )
77.2% of respondents stated that they were not personally aware of any other Muslims in the United
States who changed, in any way, their Internet usage after 9/11, because of a concern that the
government may be monitoring their activities. 11.9% of respondents stated they were personally aware
of any other Muslims in the United States who changed, in any way, their Internet usage after 9/11,
because of a concern that the government may be monitoring their activities. Of these respondents,
45.6% stated that they are personally aware of other Muslim-Americans who have not visited certain
web sites after 9/11, because of a concern that the government may be monitoring their online
GENDER & CLASS V. CONCLUSION The

survey indicates that Muslim-Americans overwhelmingly believe
that since 9/11 the U.S. government has monitored their general
and online activities. The government has a clear interest in tracking the
behavior, online and otherwise, of terrorists. It appears, though, that MuslimAmericans believe that the post-9/11 government surveillance measures
reach not only suspected terrorists, but also ordinary Muslims in the United States; the net
cast by the electronic monitoring is, in other words, over inclusive
activities. 2007] U. MD. L.J. RACE, RELIGION,
AT: Hearts and Minds/Trust
Hearts and Minds

No Muslims will trust the federal governmentcant win
hearts and minds
Daniel Benjamin, October 2008, Brookings Foreign Policy, Policy Paper 7,
Strategic
Counterterrorism,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2008/10/terrorismbenjamin/10_terrorism_benjamin.pdf, /Bingham-MB
What principles should guide the policies to create those facts? If we

understand the radical Islamist challenge as one of narrative, it is not difficult
to imagine what our counter-narrative should be: the U.S. is a benign power
that seeks to help all those who wish to modernize their societies, improve
their conditions, participate in the global economy, and create a better future
for their children. Nations that play by the international rules of the road will
receive our assistance and our support in the global community. We harbor
no enmity for any religion or race or ethnic group. We recognize that our
future depends in no small measure on continuing improvements in
conditions around the world. We know that we cannot swim as others sink.
Few, if any Americans, will find this account objectionable. Few Muslims
would believe it. Can we make that case? One frequently heard counterargument is that we cannotthat the structure of attitudes among most
Muslims is so hardened that any effort to change hearts and minds
will fail, and that any U.S. action will be reinterpreted into the framework of
Muslim grievance. Unfortunately, this is not a frivolous objection .
Among some Muslims, it is accepted that the U.S. stood secretly behind the
killing in Bosnia and Kosovo and only intervened when events threatened to
get out of hand; that the 1991 Gulf War was not about liberating Kuwaitis and
safeguarding other neighbors of Iraq so much as humiliating the one country
in the region that stood up to Washingtonand so on.
1. We do not claim to solve all hearts and minds, just

taking away the shovel
2. Card says" We recognize that our future depends in no
small measure on continuing improvements in
conditions around the world. " Shows improvement is
necessary to solve heart and mind Turn, our plan
improves
3. Their reason from not solving hearts and minds is
because Muslims are not "American", but different.
Turn card, Islamophobia. (If neg makes case they are
not talking about American Muslims but rather those
from other countries, then card is not applicable
because our policy affects AMERICAN Muslims)
4. Quote from same article, proves change can happen
and change hearts and minds is possible. Turn card:
Daniel Benjamin, October 2008, Brookings Foreign Policy, Policy Paper 7,
Strategic
Counterterrorism,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2008/10/terrorismbenjamin/10_terrorism_benjamin.pdf, /Bingham-MB
Can we make that case? One frequently heard counter-argument is that we

cannotthat the structure of attitudes among most Muslims is so hardened
that any effort to change hearts and minds will fail , and that any U.S. action will be
reinterpreted into the framework of Muslim grievance. Unfortunately, this is not a frivolous objection. Among some Muslims, it is accepted
that the U.S. stood secretly behind the killing in Bosnia and Kosovo and only intervened when events threatened to get out of hand; that
the 1991 Gulf War was not about liberating Kuwaitis and safeguarding other neighbors of Iraq so much as humiliating the one country in
But there is no evidence that a sustained

American effort to rehabilitate its image would bear no fruit and
surely much would depend on how the case was made.4 The fact remains that
the region that stood up to Washingtonand so on.
America was once viewed as the great anti-colonial power in the Middle East and elsewhere, and just a few years ago, polls showed
Muslims enamored of American freedoms and American society. Moreover, the degrading conditions in many Muslim countries as depicted,
for example, in the Arab Human Development Report, together with the projected demographics of the region, mediocre economic
performance and environmental decay, suggest that the pressure for change will only grow, and the inclination to blame the United States
for the current situation may increase.
Trust
Too many alt causes to building trustcant solve
Spalek, 2010
Spalek, Basia. "Community policing, trust, and Muslim communities in
relation to 'new terrorism'." Politics & Policy 38.4 (2010): 789+. Academic
OneFile. Web. 28 June 2015. /Bingham-MB
Within the context of "new terrorism," building trust between police officers
and Muslim communities is incredibly difficult because of the wider arena of
"hard" policing strategies. Indeed, this is illustrated by the following quotation
from a Muslim community member. And trust is not only a feeling it manifests
itself in actions and practices. Only when we do so, I mean it's no good saying
or the police saying "listen, we do not suspect the Muslim community" when
the figures show that the stop and search rates are through, are going
through the roof. When Muslims are being detained and held by the terrorism
laws, for no reason but hearsay, suspicion, maybe they're up to something,
maybe they looked at something on the internet. It's no good just saying
things when you're practising something else. (Muslim Community Member
[2] 2008)
1. Extend 1AC cards saying Muslims will cooperate when

they perceive to be fair
2. Card talking can't solve Trust in SQ, plan will change
SQ, not applicable
3. Card Says "And trust is not only a feeling it manifests
itself in actions and practices" turn card, proves that by
passing our plan we can solve trust, in the mind of this
card
AT: Islam Bad/Not religion
Quotes from Quran to counter Violence quote

Quote from Quran, (5:32)
For this reason, We made it a law for the children of Israel that the killing of a
person for reasons other than legal retaliation or for stopping corruption in
the land is as great a sin as murdering all of mankind. However, to save a life
would be as great a virtue as to save all of mankind. Our Messengers had
come to them with clear authoritative evidence but many of them (Israelites)
thereafter started doing wrong in the land.
Quotes from the Quran preaching peace and religious

freedom
Good News Network, 15 (Good News Network, 6 Quran Quotes That Teach
Love, Tolerance and Freedom of Religion February 9, 2015,
http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/6-quran-quotes-teach-love-tolerancefreedom-religion/ )
Islam according to the Quran teaches love and compassion for every human
being, no matter their religion, says author Adnan Oktar whose television show is watched by millions in Turkey and
the Arab world. He believes the problem for the majority of Muslims is that some groups
are following traditions and superstitions invented centuries after
the Quran was first sent and the Prophet lived, and these have
gotten more radical over time. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, Oktar published a book, Islam
Denounces Terrorism. He argues that violent and intolerant beliefs about Islam go against the
teachings of the Quran. Here, he presents six quotes that support his claim. 1) Peace is the
cornerstone The word Islam is derived from the word meaning
peace in Arabic. Islam is a religion revealed to mankind with the intention of presenting a peaceful life where the infinite
compassion and mercy of God manifests on earth. God calls all people to live by the moral values He sets so that compassion, mercy, peace
O You who believe! Enter absolutely into peace

(Islam). Do not follow in the footsteps of satan. He is an outright enemy to
you. (Holy Quran: 2, 208) In the verse above, Islam intrinsically calls for peace and fosters a life in absolute sincerity
and love can be experienced all over the world.
and honesty before God. Therefore it is vitally important for an individual to believe in God with his own will and aspiration, and observe Gods
commands and advice through personal conscientious contentment.coffee-cup-CC-Katherine_Lim-ultraklm-flickr CHECK OUT: 20 Muslim
2) No one should be forced to believe in Islam

There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned. (Holy
Quran: 2/ 256) As stated in the verse, no one can be compelled to live by Islamic morals. Conveying the existence of God and
Inventions that Shaped Our World
the morals of the Quran to other people is a duty for believers, but they call people to the path of God with kindness and love and they never
You cannot guide

those you would like to but God guides those He wills. He has best knowledge
of the guided. (Holy Quran/28: 56) 3) Freedom of thought and religion are paramount The Quran provides
force them. It is only God Who guides people to the right way. This is related in the following verse:
an environment where people can fully enjoy freedom of thought and freedom of religion and allows people to live by the faith and values they
. According to Islam, everyone has the right to live freely by his beliefs,
whatever they may be. Anyone who wants to support a church, a synagogue or a mosque must be free to do so. In this
believe in
sense, freedom of religion, or freedom of belief, is one of the basic tenets of Islam. There is always freedom of religion wherever the moral
values of the Quran prevail. That is why Muslims also treat Jews and Christians, described in the Quran as the People of the Book, with
great justice, love and compassion. God says in the Quran: God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in
the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just. (Surat al-Mumtahana, 8) 4)
Compete with each other in doing good Muslims who share these basic values believe in the need to act together with Christians and Jews.
They therefore strive to eliminate prejudices stemming from provocations by unbelievers and fanatics. Jews, Christians and Muslims should
strive together to spread moral virtues across the world. God explicitly states that the existence of people from different faiths and opinions
We
have appointed a law and a practice for every one of you. Had God
willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted
to test you regarding what has come to you. So compete with each
other in doing good. Every one of you will return to God and He will
inform you regarding the things about which you differed. (Surat alMaida, 48) In acknowledgment of this fact, Muslims have an inner love and compassion for people of all faiths, races and nations,
is something that we have to acknowledge and welcome heartily, for this is how He created and predestined humankind in this world:
for they consider them as the manifestations of God in this world and treat them with an heartfelt respect and love. This is the very basis of
communities administered by Islamic morality. The values of the Quran hold a Muslim responsible for treating all people, whether Muslim or
non-Muslim, kindly and justly, protecting the needy and the innocent and preventing the dissemination of mischief. Mischief comprises all
forms of anarchy and terror that remove security, comfort and peace.
God does not love corruption. (Surat
al Baqara, 205)
Also Turn their argument, Islamophobia
All Muslims are terrorists

First, Turn their argument, Islamophobia duh
93% of Muslim are not Radicals and do not believe in
violent extremism
Mogahed, 06 (Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director of Muslim Studies, The
Battle for Hearts and Minds: Moderate vs. Extremist Views in the Muslim
World A Gallup World Poll Special Report, 2006,
http://media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PDF/ExtremismInMuslimWorld.pdf )
Vocal extremists spreading religious rhetoric have led many in the West to believe that the
Islamic faith itself is a root cause of terrorism. A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in March
2006, for example, found that a full third of Americans -- 33% -- believe mainstream Islam encourages violence against non-Muslims. If that
were true, it would follow that widespread religiosity in predominantly Muslim countries implies widespread popular support for terrorist acts,
, Gallup data intended to

gauge the prevalence of an extremist mindset among Muslims debunk the
notion that terrorism enjoys widespread support. Not only are those who
sympathize with terrorist acts a relatively small minority, but the most
frequently cited aspect of the Muslim world that Muslims themselves say
they admire least is narrow-minded fanaticism and violent extremism . Radicals
leading to one apparent solution: Actively work to secularize Muslim societies. However
vs. the Moderate Masses In order to investigate characteristics that distinguish Muslim world residents who are potentially prone to
radicals were those who

met the following criteria: 1) they felt the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
were completely justified, and 2) they indicate that they have an unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of the
United States. Those who did not say the attacks were completely justified were
termed moderates. The radical group represents about 7% of the
total population across the 10 countries.
extremist views, we divided respondents from the region into two groups. Classified as political
MULSIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS.

Alnatour, 15 (Omar Alnatour, January 9, 2015, Muslims Are Not Terrorists: A
Factual Look at Terrorism and Islam, Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-notterrorist_b_8718000.html )
Every time an act of terror or shooting occurs, Muslims closely watch the news with extreme trepidation praying that the suspect is not
, we see
amplified mass media coverage and extreme unjustified hatred towards
Muslims. As a Muslim, I am tired of condemning terrorist attacks being
carried out by inherently violent people who hijack my religion. I am tired of condemning
these attacks to people who are calm and apathetic when Muslims are killed by these same radicalized
terrorists. I am tired of hearing the word "terrorist" not being used when the suspect in a terrorist attack is a non-Muslim. I am tired of
Muslim. This is not because these terrorists are likely to be Muslim but rather because in the instances where they happen to be
hundreds of
terrorist attacks carried out by non-Muslims not get the same coverage of
even a single terrorist attack where the suspect happens to be Muslim.
Above it all, I am tired of having to repeatedly say that Muslims are
not terrorists. It is time we silence this Islamophobia with facts. My
next five points will prove once and for all that Muslims are not terrorists: 1.
Non-Muslims make up the majority of terrorists in the United States:
According to the FBI, 94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the U nited States from
1980 to 2005 have been by non-Muslims. This means that an American terrorist suspect is over nine times more likely
the "mentally disabled" excuse being recycled when the suspect in a terrorist attack is a Caucasian. I am tired of seeing
to be a non-Muslim than a Muslim. According to this same report, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism in the United States than Islamic,
yet when was the last time we heard about the threat of Jewish terrorism in the media? For the same exact reasons that we cannot blame the
entire religion of Judaism or Christianity for the violent actions of those carrying out crimes under the names of these religions, we have
absolutely no justifiable grounds to blame Muslims for terrorism. 2.
terrorists in Europe:
Non-Muslims make up the majority of
There have been over one thousand terrorist attacks in Europe in the past five years. Take a guess at
less than 2%. 3. Even if all terrorist

attacks were carried out by Muslims, you still could not associate terrorism
with Islam: There have been 140,000 terror attacks committed worldwide since
1970. Even if Muslims carried out all of these attacks (which is an absurd
assumption given the fact mentioned in my first point), those terrorists would
represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims. To put things into perspective, this means that
what percent of those terrorists were Muslim. Wrong, now guess again. It's
you are more likely to be struck by lightening in your lifetime than a Muslim is likely to commit a terrorist attack during that same timespan.
4. If all Muslims are terrorists, then all Muslims are peacemakers: The same statistical assumptions being used to falsely portray Muslims as
violent people can be used more accurately to portray Muslims as peaceful people. If all Muslims are terrorists because a single digit
5 out of the past 12 Nobel

Peace Prize winners (42 percent) have been Muslims. 5. If you are scared of Muslims then you
percentage of terrorists happen to be Muslim, then all Muslims are peacemakers because
should also be scared of household furniture and toddlers: A study carried out by the University of North Carolina showed that less than
0.0002% of Americans killed since 9/11 were killed by Muslims. (Ironically, this study was done in Chapel Hill: the same place where a
Caucasian non-Muslim killed three innocent Muslims as the mainstream media brushed this terrorist attack off as a parking dispute). Based on
, the average American is more likely

to be crushed to death by their couch or television than they are to be killed
by a Muslim. As a matter of fact, Americans were more likely to be killed by a toddler in 2013 than they were by a so-called "Muslim
terrorist". When a drunk driver causes a car accident, we never blame the
car manufacturer for the violent actions of that driver. This is
because we understand that we cannot blame an entire car company
that produces millions of safe vehicles just because one of their cars
was hijacked by a reckless person who used it to cause harm. So
what right do we have to blame an entire religion of over 1.6 Billion
peaceful people because of the actions of a relatively insignificant
few? I will not deny that terrorism is a real threat, it definitely is. However, it is extremely incorrect to associate the words "Muslim" and
these numbers, and those of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
"terrorist" when literally all the facts implore you to do otherwise. The only way that we as Americans can defeat terrorism at home and across
the world is by accurately targeting its root causes. There have been 355 mass shootings in the United States this year and falsely blaming
. It is time that we
begin addressing terrorism on an educated and factual level . As an American
Muslims for the San Bernardino shooting will do absolutely nothing to address this serious problem
Muslim, I plead you all to deeply consider the facts mentioned here the next time you see a news headline about Muslims and terrorism.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that". We cannot allow the disparity in media coverage to blind
us from the facts and turn us into hateful people, we are smarter than that.
AT: Nuke War/ Extinctions in

general
Not likely-General
There is no nuclear risk from great powers, rogue states,

or terrorism low risk should be treated as no risk
Mueller 10, John Mueller is a professor of political science at Ohio State University Calming Our
Nuclear Jitters, Issues In Science and Technology, Winter 2010, http://issues.org/26-2/mueller/
An exaggerated fear of nuclear weapons has led to many wrongheaded policy decisions. A more sober assessment is needed. The fearsome
destructive power of nuclear weapons provokes understandable dread, but in crafting public policy we must move beyond this initial reaction
to soberly assess the risks and consider appropriate actions. Out of awe over and anxiety about nuclear weapons, the worlds super-powers
accumulated enormous arsenals of them for nearly 50 years. But then, in the wake of the Cold War, fears that the bombs would be used
vanished almost entirely. At the same time, concerns that terrorists and rogue nations could acquire nuclear weapons have sparked a new
excessive fear about nuclear weapons led to many

policies that turned out to be wasteful and unnecessary. We should take the time to assess
surge of fear and speculation. In the past,
these new risks to avoid an overreaction that will take resources and attention away from other problems. Indeed, a more thoughtful analysis
will reveal that the new perceived danger is far less likely than it might at first appear. Albert Einstein memorably proclaimed that nuclear
weapons have changed everything except our way of thinking. But the weapons actually seem to have changed little except our way of
thinking, as well as our ways of declaiming, gesticulating, deploying military forces, and spending lots of money. To begin with, the bombs
Nuclear weapons are, of course,

routinely given credit for preventing or deterring a major war during the Cold
War era. However, it is increasingly clear that the Soviet Union never had the
slightest interest in engaging in any kind of conflict that would remotely
resemble World War II, whether nuclear or not. Its agenda emphasized
revolution, class rebellion, and civil war, conflict areas in which nuclear
weapons are irrelevant. Thus, there was no threat of direct military
aggression to deter. Moreover, the possessors of nuclear weapons have never been able to find much military reason to use
impact on substantive historical developments has turned out to be minimal.
them, even in principle, in actual armed conflicts. Although they may have failed to alter substantive history, nuclear weapons have inspired
legions of strategists to spend whole careers agonizing over what one analyst has called nuclear metaphysics, arguing, for example, over
how many MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) could dance on the head of an ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile).
The result was a colossal expenditure of funds. Most important for current policy is the fact that contrary to decades of hand-wringing about
most countries have actually found them to be a

substantial and even ridiculous misdirection of funds, effort, and scientific
talent. This is a major if much-underappreciated reason why nuclear proliferation has been so much slower than predicted over the
decades. In addition, the proliferation that has taken place has been substantially inconsequential. When the quintessential rogue
the inherent appeal of nuclear weapons,
state, Communist China, obtained nuclear weapons in 1964, Central Intelligence Agency Director John McCone sternly proclaimed that nuclear
war was almost inevitable. But far from engaging in the nuclear blackmail expected at the time by almost everyone,
China built
its weapons quietly and has never made a real nuclear threat. Despite this experience,
proliferation anxiety continues to flourish. For more than a decade, U.S. policymakers obsessed about the
possibility that Saddam Husseins pathetic and technologically dysfunctional regime in Iraq could in time
obtain nuclear weapons, even though it took the far more advanced Pakistan
28 years. To prevent this imagined and highly unlikely calamity, damaging and destructive economic sanctions were imposed and then
a war was waged, and each venture has probably resulted in more deaths than were suffered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. (At
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, about 67,000 people died immediately and 36,000 more died over the next four months. Most estimates of the Iraq
war have put total deaths there at about the Hiroshima-Nagasaki levels, or higher.) Today, alarm is focused on the even more pathetic regime
in North Korea, which has now tested a couple of atomic devices that seem to have been fizzles. There is even more hysteria about Iran, which
has repeatedly insisted it has no intention of developing weapons. If that regime changes its mind or is lying, experience suggests it is likely to
find that, except for stoking the national ego for a while, the bombs are substantially valueless and a very considerable waste of money and
Politicians of all stripes preach to an anxious, appreciative, and very

numerous choir when they, like President Obama, proclaim atomic terrorism to be the
most immediate and extreme threat to global security . It is the problem that, according to
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, currently keeps every senior leader awake at night. This is hardly a new anxiety . In
effort.
1946, atomic bomb maker J. Robert Oppenheimer ominously warned that if three or four men could smuggle in units for an atomic bomb, they
could blow up New York. This was an early expression of a pattern of dramatic risk inflation that has persisted throughout the nuclear age. In
fact, although expanding fires and fallout might increase the effective destructive radius, the blast of a Hiroshima-size device would blow up
about 1% of the citys areaa tragedy, of course, but not the same as one 100 times greater. In the early 1970s, nuclear physicist Theodore
Taylor proclaimed the atomic terrorist problem to be immediate, explaining at length how comparatively easy it would be to steal nuclear
material and step by step make it into a bomb. At the time he thought it was already too late to prevent the making of a few bombs, here
and there, now and then, or in another ten or fifteen years, it will be too late. Three decades after Taylor, we continue to wait for terrorists
to carry out their easy task. In contrast to these predictions, terrorist groups seem to have exhibited only limited desire and even less
progress in going atomic. This may be because, after brief exploration of the possible routes, they, unlike generations of alarmists, have
discovered that the tremendous effort required is scarcely likely to be successful. The most plausible route for terrorists, according to most
experts, would be to manufacture an atomic device themselves from purloined fissile material (plutonium or, more likely, highly enriched
uranium). This task, however, remains a daunting one, requiring that a considerable series of difficult hurdles be conquered and in sequence.
Outright armed theft of fissile material is exceedingly unlikely not only because of the resistance of guards, but because chase would be
immediate. A more promising approach would be to corrupt insiders to smuggle out the required substances. However, this requires the
terrorists to pay off a host of greedy confederates, including brokers and money-transmitters, any one of whom could turn on them or, either
out of guile or incompetence, furnish them with stuff that is useless. Insiders might also consider the possibility that once the heist was
accomplished, the terrorists would, as analyst Brian Jenkins none too delicately puts it, have every incentive to cover their trail, beginning
If terrorists were somehow successful at obtaining a

sufficient mass of relevant material, they would then probably have to
transport it a long distance over unfamiliar terrain and probably while being
pursued by security forces.
with eliminating their confederates.
Crossing international borders would be facilitated by following established smuggling routes, but these are not as chaotic as they appear and are often under the watch of suspicious and
careful criminal regulators. If border personnel became suspicious of the commodity being smuggled, some of them might find it in their interest to disrupt passage, perhaps to collect the bounteous reward money that would probably be offered by alarmed governments once the
uranium theft had been discovered. Once outside the country with their precious booty, terrorists would need to set up a large and well-equipped machine shop to manufacture a bomb and then to populate it with a very select team of highly skilled scientists, technicians, machinists,
and administrators. The group would have to be assembled and retained for the monumental task while no consequential suspicions were generated among friends, family, and police about their curious and sudden absence from normal pursuits back home. Members of the bombbuilding team would also have to be utterly devoted to the cause, of course, and they would have to be willing to put their lives and certainly their careers at high risk, because after their bomb was discovered or exploded they would probably become the targets of an intense
worldwide dragnet operation. Some observers have insisted that it would be easy for terrorists to assemble a crude bomb if they could get enough fissile material. But Christoph Wirz and Emmanuel Egger, two senior physicists in charge of nuclear issues at Switzerlands Spiez
Laboratory, bluntly conclude that the task could hardly be accomplished by a subnational group. They point out that precise blueprints are required, not just sketches and general ideas, and that even with a good blueprint the terrorist group would most certainly be forced to redesign.
They also stress that the work is difficult, dangerous, and extremely exacting, and that the technical requirements in several fields verge on the unfeasible. Stephen Younger, former director of nuclear weapons research at Los Alamos Laboratories, has made a similar argument, pointing
out that uranium is exceptionally difficult to machine whereas plutonium is one of the most complex metals ever discovered, a material whose basic properties are sensitive to exactly how it is processed. Stressing the daunting problems associated with material purity, machining,
and a host of other issues, Younger concludes, to think that a terrorist group, working in isolation with an unreliable supply of electricity and little access to tools and supplies could fabricate a bomb is farfetched at best. Under the best circumstances, the process of making a bomb
could take months or even a year or more, which would, of course, have to be carried out in utter secrecy. In addition, people in the area, including criminals, may observe with increasing curiosity and puzzlement the constant coming and going of technicians unlikely to be locals. If the
effort to build a bomb was successful, the finished product, weighing a ton or more, would then have to be transported to and smuggled into the relevant target country where it would have to be received by collaborators who are at once totally dedicated and technically proficient at
handling, maintaining, detonating, and perhaps assembling the weapon after it arrives. The financial costs of this extensive and extended operation could easily become monumental. There would be expensive equipment to buy, smuggle, and set up and people to pay or pay off. Some
operatives might work for free out of utter dedication to the cause, but the vast conspiracy also requires the subversion of a considerable array of criminals and opportunists, each of whom has every incentive to push the price for cooperation as high as possible. Any criminals
competent and capable enough to be effective allies are also likely to be both smart enough to see boundless opportunities for extortion and psychologically equipped by their profession to be willing to exploit them. Those who warn about the likelihood of a terrorist bomb contend that
a terrorist group could, if with great difficulty, overcome each obstacle and that doing so in each case is not impossible. But although it may not be impossible to surmount each individual step, the likelihood that a group could surmount a series of them quickly becomes vanishingly
small. Table 1 attempts to catalogue the barriers that must be overcome under the scenario considered most likely to be successful. In contemplating the task before them, would-be atomic terrorists would effectively be required to go though an exercise that looks much like this. If and
when they do, they will undoubtedly conclude that their prospects are daunting and accordingly uninspiring or even terminally dispiriting. It is possible to calculate the chances for success. Adopting probability estimates that purposely and heavily bias the case in the terrorists favor
for example, assuming the terrorists have a 50% chance of overcoming each of the 20 obstaclesthe chances that a concerted effort would be successful comes out to be less than one in a million. If one assumes, somewhat more realistically, that their chances at each barrier are one
in three, the cumulative odds that they will be able to pull off the deed drop to one in well over three billion. Other routes would-be terrorists might take to acquire a bomb are even more problematic. They are unlikely to be given or sold a bomb by a generous like-minded nuclear state
for delivery abroad because the risk would be high, even for a country led by extremists, that the bomb (and its source) would be discovered even before delivery or that it would be exploded in a manner and on a target the donor would not approve, including on the donor itself.
Another concern would be that the terrorist group might be infiltrated by foreign intelligence. The terrorist group might also seek to steal or illicitly purchase a loose nuke somewhere. However, it seems probable that none exist. All governments have an intense interest in controlling
any weapons on their territory because of fears that they might become the primary target. Moreover, as technology has developed, finished bombs have been out-fitted with devices that trigger a non-nuclear explosion that destroys the bomb if it is tampered with. And there are other
security techniques: Bombs can be kept disassembled with the component parts stored in separate high-security vaults, and a process can be set up in which two people and multiple codes are required not only to use the bomb but to store, maintain, and deploy it. As Younger points
out, only a few people in the world have the knowledge to cause an unauthorized detonation of a nuclear weapon. There could be dangers in the chaos that would emerge if a nuclear state were to utterly collapse; Pakistan is frequently cited in this context and sometimes North Korea
as well. However, even under such conditions, nuclear weapons would probably remain under heavy guard by people who know that a purloined bomb might be used in their own territory. They would still have locks and, in the case of Pakistan, the weapons would be disassembled. The
al Qaeda factor The degree to which al Qaeda, the only terrorist group that seems to want to target the United States, has pursued or even has much interest in a nuclear weapon may have been exaggerated. The 9/11 Commission stated that al Qaeda has tried to acquire or make
nuclear weapons for at least ten years, but the only substantial evidence it supplies comes from an episode that is supposed to have taken place about 1993 in Sudan, when al Qaeda members may have sought to purchase some uranium that turned out to be bogus. Information about
this supposed venture apparently comes entirely from Jamal al Fadl, who defected from al Qaeda in 1996 after being caught stealing $110,000 from the organization. Others, including the man who allegedly purchased the uranium, assert that although there were various other scams
taking place at the time that may have served as grist for Fadl, the uranium episode never happened. As a key indication of al Qaedas desire to obtain atomic weapons, many have focused on a set of conversations in Afghanistan in August 2001 that two Pakistani nuclear scientists
reportedly had with Osama bin Laden and three other al Qaeda officials. Pakistani intelligence officers characterize the discussions as academic in nature. It seems that the discussion was wide-ranging and rudimentary and that the scientists provided no material or specific plans.
Moreover, the scientists probably were incapable of providing truly helpful information because their expertise was not in bomb design but in the processing of fissile material, which is almost certainly beyond the capacities of a nonstate group. Kalid Sheikh Mohammed, the apparent
planner of the 9/11 attacks, reportedly says that al Qaedas bomb efforts never went beyond searching the Internet. After the fall of the Taliban in 2001, technical experts from the CIA and the Department of Energy examined documents and other information that were uncovered by
intelligence agencies and the media in Afghanistan. They uncovered no credible information that al Qaeda had obtained fissile material or acquired a nuclear weapon. Moreover, they found no evidence of any radioactive material suitable for weapons. They did uncover, however, a
nuclear-related document discussing openly available concepts about the nuclear fuel cycle and some weapons-related issues. Just a day or two before al Qaeda was to flee from Afghanistan in 2001, bin Laden supposedly told a Pakistani journalist, If the United States uses
chemical or nuclear weapons against us, we might respond with chemical and nuclear weapons. We possess these weapons as a deterrent. Given the military pressure that they were then under and taking into account the evidence of the primitive or more probably nonexistent nature
of al Qaedas nuclear program, the reported assertions, although unsettling, appear at best to be a desperate bluff. Bin Laden has made statements about nuclear weapons a few other times. Some of these pronouncements can be seen to be threatening, but they are rather coy and
indirect, indicating perhaps something of an interest, but not acknowledging a capability. And as terrorism specialist Louise Richardson observes, Statements claiming a right to possess nuclear weapons have been misinterpreted as expressing a determination to use them. This in turn
has fed the exaggeration of the threat we face. Norwegian researcher Anne Stenersen concluded after an exhaustive study of available materials that, although it is likely that al Qaeda central has considered the option of using non-conventional weapons, there is little evidence that
such ideas ever developed into actual plans, or that they were given any kind of priority at the expense of more traditional types of terrorist attacks. She also notes that information on an al Qaeda computer left behind in Afghanistan in 2001 indicates that only $2,000 to $4,000 was
earmarked for weapons of mass destruction research and that the money was mainly for very crude work on chemical weapons. Today, the key portions of al Qaeda central may well total only a few hundred people, apparently assisting the Talibans distinctly separate, far larger, and
very troublesome insurgency in Afghanistan. Beyond this tiny band, there are thousands of sympathizers and would-be jihadists spread around the globe. They mainly connect in Internet chat rooms, engage in radicalizing conversations, and variously dare each other to actually do
something. Any threat, particularly to the West, appears, then, principally to derive from self-selected people, often isolated from each other, who fantasize about performing dire deeds. From time to time some of these people, or ones closer to al Qaeda central, actually manage to do
some harm. And occasionally, they may even be able to pull off something large, such as 9/11. But in most cases, their capacities and schemes, or alleged schemes, seem to be far less dangerous than initial press reports vividly, even hysterically, suggest. Most important for present
purposes, however, is that any notion that al Qaeda has the capacity to acquire nuclear weapons, even if it wanted to, looks farfetched in the extreme. It is also noteworthy that, although there have been plenty of terrorist attacks in the world since 2001, all have relied on conventional
destructive methods. For the most part, terrorists seem to be heeding the advice found in a memo on an al Qaeda laptop seized in Pakistan in 2004: Make use of that which is available rather than waste valuable time becoming despondent over that which is not within your reach.
In fact, history consistently demonstrates that terrorists prefer weapons that they know and understand, not new, exotic ones. Glenn Carle, a 23-year CIA veteran and once its deputy intelligence officer for transnational threats, warns, We must not take fright at the specter our leaders
have exaggerated. In fact, we must see jihadists for the small, lethal, disjointed, and miserable opponents that they are. al Qaeda, he says, has only a handful of individuals capable of planning, organizing, and leading a terrorist organization, and although the group has threatened
attacks with nuclear weapons, its capabilities are far inferior to its desires. Policy alternatives The purpose here has not been to argue that policies designed to inconvenience the atomic terrorist are necessarily unneeded or unwise. Rather, in contrast with the many who insist that
atomic terrorism under current conditions is rather likely indeed, exceedingly likelyto come about, I have contended that it is hugely unlikely. However, it is important to consider not only the likelihood that an event will take place, but also its consequences. Therefore, one must be
At some point, however, probabilities

become so low that, even for catastrophic events, it may make sense to
ignore them or at least put them on the back burner; in short, the risk becomes acceptable. For
concerned about catastrophic events even if their probability is small, and efforts to reduce that likelihood even further may well be justified.
example, the British could at any time attack the United States with their submarine-launched missiles and kill millions of Americans, far more
than even the most monumentally gifted and lucky terrorist group. Yet the risk that this potential calamity might take place evokes little
concern; essentially it is an acceptable risk. Meanwhile, Russia, with whom the United States has a rather strained relationship, could at any
time do vastly more damage with its nuclear weapons, a fully imaginable calamity that is substantially ignored. In constructing what he calls
a case for fear, Cass Sunstein, a scholar and current Obama administration official, has pointed out that if there is a yearly probability of 1 in
100,000 that terrorists could launch a nuclear or massive biological attack, the risk would cumulate to 1 in 10,000 over 10 years and to 1 in
5,000 over 20. These odds, he suggests, are not the most comforting. Comfort, of course, lies in the viscera of those to be comforted, and,
as he suggests, many would probably have difficulty settling down with odds like that. But there must be some point at which the concerns
even of these people would ease. Just perhaps it is at one of the levels suggested above: one in a million or one in three billion per attempt. As
for that other central policy concern, nuclear proliferation, it seems to me that policymakers should
maintain their composure. The pathetic North Korean regime mostly seems to be engaged in a process of extracting aid
and recognition from outside. A viable policy toward it might be to reduce the threat level and to wait while continuing to be extorted, rather
than to carry out policies that increase the already intense misery of the North Korean people. If the Iranians do break their pledge not to
develop nuclear weapons (a conversion perhaps stimulated by an airstrike on its facilities), they will probably use any nuclear capacity in the
same way all other nuclear states have: for prestige (or ego-stoking) and deterrence. Indeed, suggests strategist and Nobel laureate Thomas
Schelling, deterrence is about the only value the weapons might have for Iran. Nuclear weapons, he points out, would be too precious to give
away or to sell and too precious to waste killing people when they could make other countries hesitant to consider military action. It
seems overwhelmingly probable that, if a nuclear Iran brandishes its weapons to intimidate others or to get its way, it will find that those
threatened, rather than capitulating to its blandishments or rushing off to build a compensating arsenal of their own, will ally with others,
including conceivably Israel, to stand up to the intimidation. The popular notion that nuclear weapons furnish a country with the capacity to
dominate its region has little or no historical support. The application of diplomacy and bribery in an effort to dissuade these countries from
pursuing nuclear weapons programs may be useful; in fact, if successful, we would be doing them a favor. But although it may be heresy to
the world can live with a nuclear Iran or North Korea, as it has lived now
for 45 years with a nuclear China, a country once viewed as the ultimate
rogue. Should push eventually come to shove in these areas, the problem will be to establish orderly deterrent and containment
strategies and to avoid the temptation to lash out mindlessly at fancied threats. Although there is nothing wrong
with making nonproliferation a high priority, it should be topped with a
somewhat higher one: avoiding policies that can lead to the deaths of tens or
hundreds of thousands of people under the obsessive sway of worst-case
say so,
scenario fantasies.
In the end, it appears to me that, whatever their impact on activist rhetoric, strategic theorizing, defense
budgets, and political posturing, nuclear weapons have had at best a quite limited effect on history, have been a substantial waste of money
and effort, do not seem to have been terribly appealing to most states that do not have them, are out of reach for terrorists, and are unlikely
to materially shape much of our future.
The odds of successful nuclear terrorism are one in 3 and

half billion Look at the round through a lens of
probability rather than magnitude
Schneidmiller, Global Security Newswire, 1-13-09 (Chris, Experts
Debate Threat of Nuclear, Biological Terrorism,
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090113_7105.php)
In even the most likely scenario of nuclear terrorism, there are 20 barriers
between extremists and a successful nuclear strike on a major city, said John Mueller,
a political science professor at Ohio State University. The process itself is seemingly
straightforward but exceedingly difficult -- buy or steal highly enriched uranium,
manufacture a weapon, take the bomb to the target site and blow it up.
Meanwhile, variables strewn across the path to an attack would increase the
complexity of the effort, Mueller argued. Terrorists would have to bribe officials in a
state nuclear program to acquire the material, while avoiding a sting by authorities
or a scam by the sellers. The material itself could also turn out to be bad. "Once
the purloined material is purloined, [police are] going to be chasing after you. They
are also going to put on a high reward, extremely high reward, on getting the weapon
back or getting the fissile material back," Mueller said during a panel discussion at a two-day Cato
Institute conference on counterterrorism issues facing the incoming Obama administration. Smuggling the
material out of a country would mean relying on criminals who "are very good at
extortion" and might have to be killed to avoid a double-cross , Mueller said. The
terrorists would then have to find scientists and engineers willing to give up their
normal lives to manufacture a bomb, which would require an expensive and
sophisticated machine shop. Finally, further technological expertise would be needed to
sneak the weapon across national borders to its destination point and conduct a
successful detonation, Mueller said. Every obstacle is "difficult but not impossible" to overcome, Mueller
said, putting the chance of success at no less than one in three for each. The likelihood of successfully
passing through each obstacle, in sequence, would be roughly one in 3 1/2 billion,
he said, but for argument's sake dropped it to 3 1/2 million. "It's a total gamble. This is a very
expensive and difficult thing to do," said Mueller, who addresses the issue at greater length in an
upcoming book, Atomic Obsession. "So unlike buying a ticket to the lottery ... you're basically
putting everything, including your life, at stake for a gamble that's maybe one in 3
1/2 million or 3 1/2 billion." Other scenarios are even less probable , Mueller said. A
nuclear-armed state is "exceedingly unlikely" to hand a weapon to a terrorist
group, he argued: "States just simply won't give it to somebody they can't control."
Terrorists are also not likely to be able to steal a whole weapon, Mueller asserted,
dismissing the idea of "loose nukes." Even Pakistan, which today is perhaps the nation of
greatest concern regarding nuclear security, keeps its bombs in two segments
that are stored at different locations, he said (see GSN, Jan. 12). Fear of an "extremely improbable
event" such as nuclear terrorism produces support for a wide range of homeland security activities, Mueller said.
He argued that there has been a major and costly overreaction to the terrorism threat -- noting that the Sept. 11
attacks helped to precipitate the invasion of Iraq, which has led to far more deaths than the original event. Panel
moderator Benjamin Friedman, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, said academic and governmental
of acts of nuclear or biological terrorism have tended to focus on "worstcase assumptions about terrorists' ability to use these weapons to kill us." There
is need for consideration for what is probable rather than simply what is possible ,
discussions
he said.
No risk of nuclear terror

A. no loose nukes or state sponsors, cant smuggle into
the U.S.
Francis Gavin, Tom Slick Professor of International Affairs, Univeristy of
Texas at Austin, "Same As It Ever Was: Nuclear Alarmism, Proliferation,
and the Cold War," INTERNATIONAL SECURITY v. 34 n. 3, Winter
2009/2010, p. 19-20.
Experts disagree on whether nonstate actors have the scientic, engineering,

nancial, natural resource, security, and logistical capacities to build a nuclear bomb
from scratch. According to terrorism expert Robin Frost, the danger of a nuclear
black market and loose nukes from Russia may be overstated. Even if a terrorist
group did acquire a nuclear weapon, delivering and detonating it against a U.S.
target would present tremendous technical and logistical difficulties.51 Finally, the
feared nexus between terrorists and rogue regimes may be exaggerated. As
nuclear proliferation expert Joseph Cirincione argues, states such as Iran and North
Korea are not the most likely sources for terrorists since their stockpiles, if any,
are small and exceedingly precious, and hence well-guarded.52 Chubin states
that there is no reason to believe that Iran today, any more than Sadaam Hussein
earlier, would transfer WMD [weapons of mass destruction] technology to terrorist
groups like al-Qaida or Hezbollah.53
B. worse case is unlikelyodds are high that terrorists will

fail
Francis Gavin, Tom Slick Professor of International Affairs, Univeristy of
Texas at Austin, "Same As It Ever Was: Nuclear Alarmism, Proliferation,
and the Cold War," INTERNATIONAL SECURITY v. 34 n. 3, Winter
2009/2010, p. 20.
Even if a terrorist group were to acquire a nuclear device, expert Michael Levi
demonstrates that effective planning can prevent catastrophe: for nuclear

terrorists, what can go wrong might go wrong, and when it comes to nuclear
terrorism, a broader, integrated defense, just like controls at the source of
weapons and materials, can multiply, intensify, and compound the possibilities of
terrorist failure, possibly driving terrorist groups to reject nuclear terrorism
altogether. Warning of the danger of a terrorist acquiring a nuclear weapon, most
analyses are based on the inaccurate image of an infallible tenfoot- tall enemy. This
type of alarmism, writes Levi, impedes the development of thoughtful strategies that
could deter, prevent, or mitigate a terrorist attack: Worst-case estimates have their
place, but the possible failure-averse, conservative, resource-limited ve-foot-tall
nuclear terrorist, who is subject not only to the laws of physics but also to
Murphys law of nuclear terrorism, needs to become just as central to our
evaluations of strategies.
C. will use conventional weapons

STRATFOR, "Debunking Myths About Nuclear Weapons and Terrorism,"
5-29-09, www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090528_debunking_myths_about_nuclear_weapons_and_terrorism, accessed 8-12-09.
Though the history of the use of CBRN in terrorist attacks is limited, the fact of the
matter is that most cases where groups have considered pursuing these
capabilities have ultimately led to them being abandoned in favor of more

obtainable and efficient tactics. They simply fall well short of the destruction
wrought by simpler and more conventional explosive devices. Pound for pound,
dollar for dollar and hour for hour of effort, high explosives are far more effective
at inflicting massive casualties. The innovation of using hijacked civilian airliners as
human-guided cruise missiles is far more in line with al Qaeda operational thinking
than concepts of concentrating so much in easily targetable facilities for long periods
of time. Doing so runs in the face of basic operational security considerations for
any terrorist organization.
D. terror groups know its too hard, wont even try

John Mueller, Professor, Political Science, Ohio State University,
ATOMIC OBSESSION: NUCLEAR ALARMISM FROM HIROSHIMA TO ALQAEDA, 2010, p. 163.
In this spirit, Keller relays the response of then Secretary of Homeland Security Tom
Ridge when asked what he worried about most: Ridge "cupped his hands prayerfully
and pressed his fingertips to his lips. 'Nuclear,' he said simply." On cue, when the
presidential candidates were specifically asked by Jim Lehrer in their first debate in
September 2004 to designate the "single most serious threat to the national security
of the United States," the candidates had no difficulty agreeing on one. It was, in
George W. Bush's words, a nuclear weapon "in the hands of a terrorist enemy"
Concluded Lehrer, "So it's correct to say the single most serious threat you believe,
both of you believe, is nuclear proliferation?" George W. Bush: "In the hands of a
terrorist enemy." John Kerry: "Weapons of mass destruction, nuclear proliferation....
There's some 600-plus tons of unsecured material still in the former Soviet Union and
Russia.... there are terrorists trying to get their hands on that stuff today." And
Defense Secretary Robert Gates contends that every senior leader in the government
is kept awake at night by "the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass
destruction, especially nuclear."3 If there has been a "failure of imagination" over all
these decades, however, perhaps it has been in the inability or unwillingness to

consider the difficulties confronting the atomic terrorist. Thus far, terrorist groups
seem to have exhibited only limited desire and even less progress in going
atomic. This may be because, after brief exploration of the possible routes to go
atomic, they, unlike generations of alarmed pundits, have discovered that the
tremendous effort required is scarcely likely to be successful .
Terrorists wont use nukes damages their causes

Kapur 08
[S. Paul Assoc Prof in Dept of Strategic Research at the US Naval War College. Nuclear Terrorism, in The Long Shadow:
Nuclear Weapons and Security in 21st Century Asia. Ed. Muthiah Alagappa. p. 324]
Before a terrorist group can attempt to use nuclear weapons, it must meet two basic
requirements. First, the group must decide that it wishes to engage in nuclear
terrorism. Analysts and policy makers often assume that terrorist groups necessarily
want to do so (Carter 2004; U.S. Government 2002). However, it is not clear that
terrorist organizations would necessarily covet nuclear device s. Although
analysts often characterize terrorism as an irrational activity (Laqeuer 1999: 4-5),
extensive empirical evidence indicates that terrorist groups in fact behave
rationally, adopting strategies designed to achieve particular ends (Crenshaw
1995: 4; Pape 2003: 344). Thus whether terrorists would use nuclear weapons is
contingent on whether doing so is likely to further their goals . Under what
circumstances could nuclear weapons fail to promote terrorists' goals? For certain
types of terrorist objectives, nuclear weapons could be too destructive. Largescale devastation could negatively influence audiences important to the terrorist
groups. Terrorists often rely on populations sympathetic to their cause for political,
financial, and military support. The horrific destruction of a nuclear explosion could
alienate segments of this audience. People who otherwise would sympathize with
the terrorists may conclude that in using a nuclear device terrorists had gone too far
and were no longer deserving of support. The catastrophic effects of nuclear
weapons could also damage or destroy the very thing that the terrorist group most
values. For example, if a terrorist organization were struggling with another group
for control of their common homeland, the use of nuclear weapons against the
enemy group would devastate the terrorists' own home territory. Using nuclear
weapons would be extremely counterproductive for the terrorists in this scenario. It
is thus not obvious that all terrorist groups would use nuclear weapons. Some groups
would probably not. The propensity for nuclear acquisition and use by terrorist
groups must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Wont pursue nukes because of risk of detection

Charles Ferguson, scientist-in-residence at Monterey Institute of
International Studies, and William Potter, professor and director of the
Center for Nonproliferation Studies at Monterey Institute of
International Studies, 04, The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism, p.
http://www.nti.org/c_press/analysis_4faces.pdf
A final disincentive to terrorists considering the option of nuclear terrorism could be

that the planning, training, and acquisition of necessary capabilities might create
unique "signatures," making them more vulnerable to discovery by intelligence
operatives and law enforcement agents. In addition, since a nuclear terrorist incident would
involve a terrorist group in novel, complex, technical, and untried activities, the
potential for accidents and emergence of unforeseen problems would be much
greater than what might be expected for more conventional terrorism.
Most likely scenario is a dirty bomb.

Con Coughlin, @ The Telegraph, 08
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/2700195/Terror-groups-developing-dirty-bomb-say-security-chiefs.html]
"Islamist militant groups want to carry out terror attacks on a massive scale, and
there is no better way for them to achieve that objective than to develop some form
of primitive nuclear device," said a senior U.S. security official.

The most likely terror device using nuclear material is a "dirty bomb", where
conventional explosives are fitted with radioactive material. Security experts
believe the detonation of such a device in a city like London would provoke
widespread panic and chaos, even though the area of contamination would be
relatively small.
Impact is small.
John Mueller, professor of political science at the University of Rochester,
and Karl Mueller, assistant professor of Comparative Military Studies at
the School of Advanced Airpower Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base,
May/June 1999, Foreign Affairs, Sanctions of Mass Destruction, p. Lexis
Nuclear weapons clearly deserve the weapons of mass destruction designation

because they can indeed destroy masses of people in a single blow. Even so, it is
worth noting that any nuclear weapons acquired by terrorist groups or rogue
states, at least initially, are likely to be small. Contrary to exaggerated Indian and
Pakistani claims, for example, independent analyses of their May 1998 nuclear tests
have concluded that the yields were Hiroshima-sized or smaller. Such bombs can
cause horrible though not apocalyptic damage. Some 70,000 people died in
Hiroshima and 40,000 in Nagasaki. People three miles away from the blast sites
received only superficial wounds even when fully exposed, and those inside bomb
shelters at Nagasaki were uninjured even though they were close to ground zero.
Some buildings of steel and concrete survived, even when they were close to the
blast centers, and most municipal services were restored within days. A Hiroshimasized bomb exploded in a more fire-resistant modern city would likely be
considerably less devastating. Used against well-prepared , dug-in, and dispersed
troops, a small bomb might actually cause only limited damage. If a single such
bomb or even a few of them were to fall into dangerous hands, therefore, it would
be terrible, though it would hardly threaten the end of civilization.
High risk aversion means no motivation.
Maerli (Science Program Fellow, Center for Intl Security

&Cooperation, Stanford Univ.) 2K [Morten Bremer, Relearning the
ABCs: Terrorists and Weapons of Mass Destruction, The
Nonproliferation Review, Summer, pp. 108-119]
Furthermore, a groups interest in ABC weaponry is not the same as obtaining such
capabilities. Before any decision to deploy either conventional or non-conventional
weapons, a terrorist group will have to judge its competence to use the weapon
effectively. This will involve practical assessments of the level of training, skills, and
technical and logistical capabilities requires. Terrorists are dependent on success,
as failure could threaten the cohesiveness or the very existence of the group.
This creates an environment of risk aversion where known and proven tactics will
be preferred. Surely, if the stakes are high, terrorists , as others, can accept further
risks. But there have always been enormous gaps between the potential of a
weapon and the abilities and/or will to employ it by terrorists. Most terrorist groups,
even those pursuing suicidal ends, protect their resources. Wasting personnel
and money will inevitably harm the group and its long-term goals . Consequently,
new means and methods of violence with unknown outcomes would be less
appealing.
Terminal defense wed adapt to even the worst case

scenario.
Gregg Easterbrook, WIRED, November 7, 03
(http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html)
If we're talking about doomsday - the end of human civilization - many scenarios
simply don't measure up. A single nuclear bomb ignited by terrorists, for example,
would be awful beyond words, but life would go on. People and machines might
converge in ways that you and I would find ghastly, but from the standpoint of the
future, they would probably represent an adaptation.
Chem, bio, and radio weapons cannot kill more than a

handful of people and nuclear terrorism is overhyped and
unlikely for 4 reasonsterrorists will use conventional
techniques
Bergen 08 (Peter, CNN National Security Analyst, Commentary: WMD
terrorism fears are overblown, CNN, 8/5,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/05/bergen.wmd/)
So is the sky falling? Not really. Terrorists have already used w eapons of m ass
d estruction in the past decade in attacks around the world, and they have proven
to be something of a dud. In the fall of 2001, the anthrax attacks in the United States
that targeted politicians and journalists caused considerable panic but did not lead to
many deaths. Five people were killed. The alleged author of that attack, Bruce E.
Ivins, was one of the leading biological weapons researchers in the United States.
Even this brilliant scientist could only "weaponize" anthrax to the point that it killed
a handful of people. Imagine then how difficult it would be for the average terrorist,
or even the above-average terrorist, to replicate such efforts. Similarly, the bizarre
Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, which recruited leading scientists and had hundreds
of millions of dollars in the bank, embarked on a large-scale WMD program in the
early 1990s in which cult members experimented with anthrax and invested in land
in Australia to mine uranium. In the end, Aum found biological and nuclear attacks
too complex to organize and settled instead on a chemical weapons operation,
setting off sarin gas in the Tokyo subway in 1995 that killed 12 commuters. It is hard
to imagine a place better suited to killing a lot of people than the jam-packed Tokyo
subway, yet the death toll turned out to be small in Aum's chemical weapons assault.
More recently, in 2006 and 2007 al Qaeda's Iraqi affiliate laced several of its bombs
with chlorine. Those attacks sickened hundreds of Iraqis, but victims who died in the
assaults did so more from the blast of the bombs than because of inhaling chlorine. Al
Qaeda stopped using chlorine in its bombs in Iraq more than a year ago. There is a
semantic problem in any discussion of WMDs because the ominous term ''Weapons of
Mass Destruction'' is something of a misnomer. In the popular imagination, chemical,
biological and nuclear devices are all weapons of mass destruction. In fact, there is
only one weapon of mass destruction that can kill tens or hundreds of thousands and
that is a nuclear device. So the real question is: Can terrorists deploy nuclear
weapons any time in the next five years or even further in the future? To do so,
terrorists would have one of four options: to buy, steal, develop or be given a
nuclear weapon. But none of those scenarios are remotely realistic outside the
world of Hollywood. To understand how complex it is to develop a nuclear weapon, it
is worth recalling that Saddam Hussein put tens of millions of dollars into his
nuclear program with no success. Iran, which has had a nuclear program for almost
two decades, is still years away from developing a nuclear bomb. Terrorist groups
simply don't have the massive resources of states, and so the notion that they could
develop their own, even crude, nuclear weapons is fanciful. Well, what about
terrorists being given nukes? Preventing this was one of the underlying rationales of
the push to topple Hussein in 2003. This does not pass the laugh test. Brian Michael
Jenkins, one of the leading U.S. terrorism experts in a book published this year, "Will
Terrorists Go Nuclear?," points out that there are two reasons this is quite unlikely.
First, governments are not about to hand over their crown jewels to organizations
that are "not entirely under state control and whose reliability is not certain." Second,
"giving them a nuclear weapon almost certainly exposes the state sponsor to
retaliation." For the same reason that states won't give nukes to terrorists, they also
won't sell them either, which leaves the option of stealing a nuclear weapon. But
that is similarly unlikely because nuclear-armed governments, including Pakistan,
are pretty careful about the security measures they place around their most valued
weapons. None of this of course is to suggest that al Qaeda is not interested in
deploying nuclear devices. Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders have
repeatedly bloviated about the necessity of nuking the West and have even implied
that they have the capability to do so. This is nonsense. Yes, in the mid-1990s when
Al Qaeda was based in Sudan, members of the group tried to buy highly enriched
uranium suitable for a nuke, but the deal did not go through. And it is certainly the
case that a year or so before 9/11, bin Laden was meeting with veterans of Pakistan's
nuclear program to discuss how al Qaeda might get into the nuclear weapons
business. But all of this was aspirational, not operational. There is not a shred of
evidence that any of this got beyond the talking stage. In 2002, former U.N.
weapons inspector David Albright undertook a careful study of al Qaeda's nuclear
research program and concluded it was virtually impossible for al Qaeda to have
acquired any type of nuclear weapon. However, there is plenty of evidence that the
group has experimented with crude chemical and biological weapons, and also
attempted to acquire radioactive materials suitable for a "dirty" bomb, a device that
marries conventional explosives to radioactive materials. But even if al Qaeda

successfully deployed a crude chemical, biological or radiological weapon these
would not be weapons of mass destruction that killed thousands. Instead, these
would be weapons of mass disruption, whose principal effect would be panic -- not
mass casualties. So if not WMDs, what will terrorists use in their attacks over the next
five years? Small-bore chemical, biological and radiological attacks are all quite
probable, but those attacks would kill scores, not thousands. What we are likely to
see again and again are the tried and tested tactics that terrorists have used for
decades: The first vehicle bomb blew up on Wall Street in 1920 detonated by an
Italian-American anarchist. Since then, the car/truck bomb has been reliably
deployed by terrorists thousands of times. Assassinations, such as the one that
killed Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914, sparking one of the bloodiest wars in
history. Hijackings, such as those that inaugurated the worst terrorist attack in
history on 9/11. Guys armed with AK-47s intent on murder and mayhem as we
saw in Mumbai, India, brought one of the world's largest countries to a standstill and
generated continuous news coverage around the globe for 60 hours. Why go the
deeply uncertain, and enormously complex and expensive WMD route when other
methods have proved so successful in getting attention for terrorists in the past?
The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and
Terrorism makes all sorts of sensible recommendations. Among them is creating a
WMD adviser in the White House who would coordinate all the issues of WMD
proliferation and terrorism, something the Obama administration would do well to
implement. Right now, responsibility for this important job is diffused over numerous
agencies, from the Department of Energy to the Pentagon. But the report's overall
conclusion that WMD terrorism is likely to happen "somewhere in the world" in the
next five years is simultaneously stating the obvious -- because terrorists already
have engaged in crude chemical and biological weapons attacks -- but also highly
unlikely because deploying true WMDs remains beyond the capabilities of terrorist
groups today and for the foreseeable future.
The chance of a nuclear war is just as likely as it was a

half century ago.
Daily Newscaster November 15, 2008
(World conflict brewing but nuclear war unlikely, http://74.125.47.132/search?
q=cache:SLntzFWp_iEJ:www.dailynewscaster.com/2008/11/15/world-conflict-brewingbut-nuclear-war-unlikely/
+"World+conflict+brewing+but+nuclear+war+unlikely"&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=
us)
In August, oilgeopolitical expert F.W. Engdahl wrote, The signing on August

14th of an agreement between the governments of the United States and
Poland to deploy on Polish soil US interceptor missiles is the most
dangerous move towards nuclear war the world has seen since the 1962
Cuba Missile crisis. Now, I dont like being in a position where I
have to contradict the leading analyst of the New World Order,

but there is no chance we are any closer to a nuclear war than
we were in the 1950s, 1962, or any time in the last 58 years . I
cant speak for Mr. Engdahl but most NWO conspiracy theorists expect a
depopulation event to rid the planet of 5 billion useless eaters. The
Illuminati, they say, need only 500 million of us for slaves when they take
over the world. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying there couldnt be a
depopulation event before 2012 but a nuclear war is not in the cards.
Nuclear World War III would make too much of the planet
uninhabitable and that would include the One World governors
as well as the 500 million humans they need for slaves. Think
about it: why havent we had a nuclear accident since the 50s ?
Where is Dr. Strangelove or some insane Air Force General Jack D. Ripper
who orders a first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union or how about just
a plain f up? If things can go wrong, they will go wrong and the
U.S. government or any nuclear power are not exactly the

sharpest tools in the shed.
-Rising Costs
Major war is obsolete nuclear weapons and rising cost check aggression
Michael Mandelbaum, American foreign policy professor at the Nitze School

of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, 1999 Is Major
War Obsolete?, http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/cfr10/
My argument says, tacitly, that while this point of view, which was widely
believed 100 years ago, was not true then, there are reasons to think that it
is true now. What is that argument? It is that major war is obsolete. By
major war, I mean war waged by the most powerful members of the
international system, using all of their resources over a protracted period of
time with revolutionary geopolitical consequences. There have been four
such wars in the modern period: the wars of the French Revolution, World War
I, World War II, and the Cold War. Few though they have been,their
consequences have been monumental. They are, by far, the most influential
events in modern history. Modern history which can, in fact, be seen as a
series of aftershocks to these four earthquakes. So if I am right, then what
has been the motor of political history for the last two centuries that has
been turned off? This war, I argue, this kind of war, is obsolete; less than
impossible, but more than unlikely. What do I mean by obsolete? If I may
quote from the article on which this presentation is based, a copy of which
you received when coming in, Major war is obsolete in a way that styles of
dress are obsolete. It is something that is out of fashion and, while it
could be revived, there is no present demand for it. Major war is
obsolete in the way that slavery, dueling, or foot-binding are obsolete. It is a
social practice that was once considered normal, useful, even desirable, but
that now seems odious. It is obsolete in the way that the central planning of
economic activity is obsolete. It is a practice once regarded as a plausible,
indeed a superior, way of achieving a socially desirable goal, but that
changing conditions have made ineffective at best, counterproductive at
worst. Why is this so? Most simply, the costs have risen and the
benefits of major war have shriveled. The costs of fighting such a
war are extremely high because of the advent in the middle of this
century of nuclear weapons, but they would have been high even
had mankind never split the atom. As for the benefits, these
now seem, at least from the point of view of the major powers, modest
to non-existent. The traditional motives for warfare are in retreat, if not
extinct. War is no longer regarded by anyone, probably not even Saddam
Hussein after his unhappy experience, as a paying proposition. And as for the
ideas on behalf of which major wars have been waged in the past, these are
in steep decline. Here the collapse of communism was an important
milestone, for that ideology was inherently bellicose. This is not to say that
the world has reached the end of ideology; quite the contrary. But the
ideology that is now in the ascendant, our own, liberalism, tends to be pacific.
Moreover, I would argue that three post-Cold War developments have
made major war even less likely than it was after 1945. One of these
is the rise of democracy, for democracies, I believe, tend to be
peaceful. Now carried to its most extreme conclusion, this eventuates in an
argument made by some prominent political scientists that democracies
never go to war with one another. I wouldnt go that far. I dont believe that
this is a law of history, like a law of nature, because I believe there are no
such laws of history. But I do believe there is something in it. I believe there is
a peaceful tendency inherent in democracy. Now its true that one important
cause of war has not changed with the end of the Cold War. That is the
structure of the international system, which is anarchic. And realists, to whom
Fareed has referred and of whom John Mearsheimer and our guest Ken Waltz
are perhaps the two most leading exponents in this country and the world at
the moment, argue that that structure determines international activity, for it
leads sovereign states to have to prepare to defend themselves, and those
preparations sooner or later issue in war. I argue, however, that a post-Cold
War innovation counteracts the effects of anarchy. This is what I have called
in my 1996 book, The Dawn of Peace in Europe, common security. By
common security I mean a regime of negotiated arms limits that reduce
the insecurity that anarchy inevitably produces by transparencyevery state can know what weapons every other state has and what it
is doing with them-and through the principle of defense dominance, the
reconfiguration through negotiations of military forces to make them more
suitable for defense and less for attack. Some caveats are, indeed, in
order where common security is concerned. Its not universal. It exists only in
Europe. And there it is certainly not irreversible. And I should add that what I
have called common security is not a cause, but a consequence, of the major
forces that have made war less likely. States enter into common security
arrangements when they have already, for other reasons, decided
that they do not wish to go to war. Well, the third feature of the post-Cold
War international system that seems to me to lend itself to warlessness is the
novel distinction between the periphery and the core, between the powerful
states and the less powerful ones. This was previously a cause of conflict and
now is far less important. To quote from the article again, While for much of
recorded history local conflicts were absorbed into great-power conflicts, in
the wake of the Cold War, with the industrial democracies debellicised and
Russia and China preoccupied with internal affairs, there is no great-power
conflict into which the many local conflicts that have erupted can be
absorbed.
Deterrence
Nuclear deterrence prevents great power
G John Ikenberry Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International

Affairs at Princeton University The Rise of China and the Future of the West
Foreign Affairs January/February 2008
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87102/g-john-ikenberry/therise-of-china-and-the-future-of-the-west.html
The most important benefit of these features today is that they give
the Western order a remarkable capacity to accommodate rising
powers. New entrants into the system have ways of gaining status and
authority and opportunities to play a role in governing the order. The fact
that the United States, China, and other great powers have nuclear
weapons also limits the ability of a rising power to overturn the
existing order. In the age of nuclear deterrence, great-power war is,
thankfully, no longer a mechanism of historical change. War-driven
change has been abolished as a historical process.
International System
The international system prevents wareconomic, military, and
ideological trends have changed.
Fettweiss, April prof security studies naval war college,

Comparative Strategy 22.2 April 2003 p 109-129
Christopher
Mackinder can be forgiven for failing to anticipate the titanic changes in the
fundamental nature of the international system much more readily than can his
successors. Indeed, Mackinder and his contemporaries a century ago would hardly
recognize the rules by which the world is run todaymost significantly, unlike their
era, ours is one in which the danger of major war has been removed, where
World War III is, in Michael Mandelbaums words, somewhere between impossible
and unlikely.25 Geopolitical and geo-strategic analysis has not yet come to terms
with what may be the central, most significant trend of international politics: great
power war, major war of the kind that pit the strongest states against each
other, is now obsolete.26 John Mueller has been the most visible, but by no means
the only, analyst arguing that the chances of a World War III emerging in the next
century are next to nil.27 Mueller and his contemporaries cite three major arguments
supporting this revolutionary, and clearly controversial, claim.
First, and most obviously, modern military technology has made major war too
expensive to contemplate. As John Keegan has argued, it is hard to see how
nuclear war could be considered an extension of politics by other meansat the
very least, nuclear weapons remove the possibility of victory from the calculations of
the would-be aggressor.28 Their value as leverage in diplomacy has not been
dramatic, at least in the last few decades, because nuclear threats are not credible in
the kind of disagreements that arise between modern great powers. It is unlikely
that a game of nuclear chicken would lead to the outbreak of a major
war. Others have argued that, while nuclear weapons surely make war an irrational
exercise, the destructive power of modern conventional weapons make todays great
powers shy away from direct conflict.29 The world wars dramatically reinforced
Angells warnings, and today no one is eager to repeat those experiences, especially
now that the casualty levels among both soldiers and civilians would be even higher.
Second, the shift from the industrial to the information age that seems to
be gradually occurring in many advanced societies has been accompanied
by a new definition of power, and a new system of incentives which all but
remove the possibility that major war could ever be a cost-efficient
exercise. The rapid economic evolution that is sweeping much of the world,
encapsulated in the globalization metaphor so fashionable in the media and
business communities, has been accompanied by an evolution in the way national
wealth is accumulated.30 For millennia, territory was the main object of war because
it was directly related to national prestige and power. As early as 1986 Richard
Rosecrance recognized that two worlds of international relations were emerging,
divided over the question of the utility of territorial conquest.31 The intervening
years have served only to strengthen the argument that the major industrial powers,
quite unlike their less-developed neighbors, seem to have reached the revolutionary
conclusion that territory is not directly related to their national wealth and prestige.
For these states, wealth and power are more likely to derive from an increase in
economic, rather than military, reach. National wealth and prestige, and therefore
power, are no longer directly related to territorial control.32 The economic

incentives for war are therefore not as clear as they once may have been.
Increasingly, it seems that the most powerful states pursue prosperity rather than
power. In Edward Luttwaks terminology, geopolitics is slowly being replaced by
geoeconomics, where the methods of commerce are displacing military methods
with disposable capital in lieu of firepower, civilian innovation in lieu of military
technical advancement, and market penetration in lieu of garrisons and bases.33
Just as advances in weaponry have increased the
cost of fighting, a socioeconomic evolution has reduced the rewards that a major war
could possibly bring. Angells major error was one that has been repeated over and
over again in the social sciences ever sincehe overestimated the rationality of
humanity. Angell recognized earlier than most that the industrialization of military
technology and economic interdependence assured that the costs of a European war
would certainly outweigh any potential benefits, but he was not able to convince his
contemporaries who were not ready to give up the institution of war. The idea of war
was still appealingthe normativecost/benefit analysis still tilted in the favor of
fighting, and that proved to be the more important factor. Today, there is reason to
believe that this normative calculation may have changed. After the war, Angell
noted that the only things that could have prevented the war were surrendering of
certain dominations, a recasting of patriotic ideals, a revolution of ideas.34 The third
and final argument of Angells successors is that today such a revolution of ideas has
occurred, that a normative evolution has caused a shift in the rules that govern state
interaction. The revolutionary potential of ideas should not be underestimated.
Beliefs, ideologies, and ideas are often, as Dahl notes, a major independent
variable, which we ignore at our peril.35 Ideas, added John Mueller, are very often
forces themselves, not flotsam on the tide of broader social or economic patterns . . .
it does not seem wise in this area to ignore phenomena that cannot be easily
measured, treated with crisp precision, or probed with deductive panache.36 The
heart of this argument is the moral progress that has brought a change in
attitudes about international war among the great powers of the world,37
creating for the first time, an almost universal sense that the deliberate
launching of a war can no longer be justified.38 At times leaders of the past
were compelled by the masses to defend the national honor, but today popular
pressures push for peaceful resolutions to disputes between industrialized states.
This normative shift has rendered war between great powers subrationally
unthinkable, removed from the set of options for policy makers, just as dueling is
no longer a part of the set of options for the same classes for which it was once
central to the concept of masculinity and honor. As Mueller explained, Dueling, a form
of violence famed and fabled for centuries, is avoided not merely because it has
ceased to seem necessary, but because it has sunk from thought as a viable,
conscious possibility. You cant fight a duel if the idea of doing so never occurs to you
or your opponent.39 By extension, states cannot fight wars if doing so does not occur
to them or to their opponent. As Angell discovered, the fact that major war was futile
was not enough to bring about its endpeople had to believe that it was futile.
Angells successors suggest that such a belief now exists in the industrial (and
postindustrial) states of the world, and this autonomous power of ideas, to borrow
Francis Fukuyamas term, has brought about the end of major, great power war.40
No nuclear terrordeterrence and prevention solves

Mearsheimer 10 John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished
Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, Imperial by
Design, The National Interest, 12/16/2010,
http://nationalinterest.org/print/article/imperial-by-design-4576
This assessment of Americas terrorism problem was flawed on every count. It was threat inflation of the
highest order. It made no sense to declare war against groups that were not trying to harm the United
States. They were not our enemies; and going after all terrorist organizations would greatly complicate the
daunting task of eliminating those groups that did have us in their crosshairs. In addition, there was no
alliance between the so-called rogue states and al-Qaeda. In fact, Iran and Syria cooperated with
Washington after 9/11 to help quash Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. Although the Bush administration
and the neoconservatives repeatedly asserted that there was a genuine connection between Saddam
Hussein and al-Qaeda, they never produced evidence to back up their claim for the simple reason that it
did not exist. The fact is that states have strong incentives to distrust terrorist groups ,
in part because they might turn on them someday, but also because countries cannot control what
This is
why there is hardly any chance that a rogue state will give a nuclear weapon
to terrorists. That regimes leaders could never be sure that they would not
be blamed and punished for a terrorist groups actions. Nor could they be
certain that the United States or Israel would not incinerate them if either
country merely suspected that they had provided terrorists with the ability to
carry out a WMD attack. A nuclear handoff, therefore, is not a serious threat. When you get down
to it, there is only a remote possibility that terrorists will get hold of an atomic
bomb. The most likely way it would happen is if there were political chaos in a
nuclear-armed state, and terrorists or their friends were able to take advantage of the ensuing
confusion to snatch a loose nuclear weapon. But even then, there are additional obstacles to
overcome: some countries keep their weapons disassembled, detonating one
is not easy and it would be difficult to transport the device without being
detected. Moreover, other countries would have powerful incentives to work with
Washington to find the weapon before it could be used. The obvious implication is that
terrorist organizations do, and they may do something that gets their patrons into serious trouble.
we should work with other states to improve nuclear security, so as to make this slim possibility even more
the ability of terrorists to strike the American homeland has been

blown out of all proportion. In the nine years since 9/11, government officials
and terrorist experts have issued countless warnings that another major
attack on American soil is probableeven imminent. But this is simply not
the case.3 The only attempts we have seen are a few failed solo attacks by
individuals with links to al-Qaeda like the shoe bomber, who attempted to blow up
an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami in December 2001, and the underwear bomber,
who tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit in December 2009. So, we do
have a terrorism problem, but it is hardly an existential threat . In fact, it is a minor
unlikely. Finally,
threat. Perhaps the scope of the challenge is best captured by Ohio State political scientist John Muellers
the number of Americans killed by international terrorism

since the late 1960s . . . is about the same as the number killed over the
same period by lightning, or by accident-causing deer, or by severe allergic
reactions to peanuts.
telling comment that
Also no motivationnuclear attack is suicideterrorists

prefer smaller strikes
Umana 11 Felipe Umana, Loose Nukes: Real Threat? Foreign Policy in
Focus, 8/17/2011, http://www.fpif.org/articles/loose_nukes_real_threat?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed
%3A+FPIF+%28Foreign+Policy+In+Focus+%28All+News%29%29
threat of military, political, and economic repercussions from foreign
actors provides another viable deterrent. For example, the existence of a nuclear
weapon or the confirmed knowledge that a belligerent non-state actor has
developed a feasible nuclear weapon can goad major world governments to
join forces and unleash a rapid and strong military operation on the region
where these non-state actors. Atomic weapons in the hands of terrorist
organizations are likely to remain immobile (seeing as the proper resources to
move and handle it carefully are likely absent or of low quality), so an allied
military procedure from the worlds most powerful militaries could then aim
to neutralize an entire organization. The complete annihilation of a groups
membership and hideouts is an extremely unattractive measure from the
perspective of any terrorist organization. The country that hosts these
organizations, deliberately or inadvertently, would face severe opprobrium if
it did not deal with radicals within its own borders. Diplomatic and economic
sanctions could similarly be used to dissuade these states from potentially
aiding the belligerent non-state actors, while also restricting corruption
tactics from diverting financial flows to radical groups. Even more
importantly, sanctions could serve as punishment or discouragement against
states seeking nuclear capabilities for an offensive atomic program. Iran, for
The
instance, has faced a long history of economic sanctions, partly because of its nuclear program
Not likely- Specific
North Korea
North Korea wouldnt Use a nuclear weapon, too many
complications
Quester, Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland,
2005
(George Quester, Professor of government and politics at the University of
Maryland, Spring 2005, Naval War College Review, If the Nuclear Taboo gets
broken, https://portal.nwc.navy.mil/press/Naval%20War%20College
%20Review/2005/Article%20by%20Quester%20Spring%202005.pdf)
history of successful nuclear

deterrence suggests that nations have indeed been in awe of
nuclear weapons, have been deterred by the prospect of their
use, even while they were intent on deterring their adversaries
as well. Would the nations that have been so successfully
deterred (sinceNagasaki) fromusing nuclear weapons not then be
stopped in their tracks once deterrence had failed, once the
anticipated horror of the nuclear destruction of even a single
city had been realized?2 Another of the more probable scenarios
has been a use of such weapons by North Korea , a state perhaps
Yet on the more positive note, the
not quite as undeterrable as the suicidal pilots of 11 September 2001 but

given to rational calculations that are often very difficult to sort out. This use
could come in the form of a North Korean nuclear attack against Japan,
South Korea, or even the United States. 3 The nearest targets for a
North Korean nuclearweaponwould be South Korea and Japan,

but therewould be many complications should Pyongyang use
such weapons against either.
-Pakistan
Nuclear Power plants have excellent security
CTC Sentinel, The Combating Terrorism Center is an independent educational
and research institution based in the Department of Social Sciences at the
West Point, 2009
(CTC Sentinel, The Combating Terrorism Center is an independent educational
West Point, July 2009 http://www.ctc.usma.edu/sentinel/CTCSentinelVol2Iss7.pdf)
Pakistan has established a robust set of measures to assure the

security of its nuclear weapons. These have been based on
copying U.S. practices, procedures and technologies, and
comprise: a) physical security; b) personnel reliability programs; c)
technical and procedural safeguards; and d) deception and
secrecy. These measures provide the Pakistan Armys Strategic Plans
Division (SPD)which oversees nuclear weapons operations a high degree of
confidence in the safety and security of the countrys nuclear
weapons.2 In terms of physical security, Pakistan operates a
layered concept of concentric tiers of armed forces personnel to
guard nuclear weapons facilities, the use of physical barriers
and intrusion detectors to secure nuclear weapons facilities, the
physical separation of warhead cores from their detonation
components, and the storage of the components in protected
underground sites. With respect to personnel reliability, the Pakistan Army
conducts a tight selection process drawing almost exclusively
on officers from Punjab Province who are considered to have fewer links with
religious extremism or with the Pashtun areas of Pakistan from which groups such as the
Pakistani Taliban mainly garner their support. Pakistan operates an analog to the U.S.
Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) that screens individuals for Islamist sympathies,
personality problems, drug use, inappropriate external affiliations, and sexual deviancy. 3
The army uses staff rotation and also operates a two-person

rule under which no action, decision, or activity involving a
nuclear weapon can be undertaken by fewer than two persons .4
The purpose of this policy is to reduce the risk of collusion with
terrorists and to prevent nuclear weapons technology getting
transferred to the black market. In total, between 8,000 and 10,000
individuals from the SPDs security division and from Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence
Directorate (ISI), Military Intelligence and Intelligence Bureau agencies are involved in the
security clearance and monitoring of those with nuclear weapons duties. 5 Despite formal
command authority structures that cede a role to Pakistans civilian leadership, in practice
It
imposes its executive authority over the weapons through the
use of an authenticating code system down through the
command chains that is intended to ensure that only authorized
the Pakistan Army has complete control over the countrys nuclear weapons.
nuclear weapons activities and operations occur. It
operates a tightly
controlled identification system to assure the identity of those involved in the nuclear
chain of command, and it also uses a rudimentary Permissive Action Link (PAL) type
This system uses technology

similar to the banking industrys chip and pin to ensure that
even if weapons fall into terrorist hands they cannot be
detonated.6 Finally, Pakistan makes extensive use of secrecy and
deception. Significant elements of Pakistans nuclear weapons
infrastructure are kept a closely guarded secret. This includes
the precise location of some of the storage facilities for nuclear
core and detonation components, the location of preconfigured
nuclear weapons crisis deployment sites, aspects of the nuclear
command and control arrangements,7 and many aspects of the
system to electronically lock its nuclear weapons.
arrangements for nuclear safety and security (such as the numbers of those removed
under personnel reliability programs, the reasons for their removal, and how often
authenticating and enabling (PAL-type) codes are changed). In addition, Pakistan uses
deceptionsuch as dummy missilesto complicate the calculus of adversaries and is
Taken
together, these measures provide confidence that the Pakistan
Army can fully protect its nuclear weapons against the internal
terrorist threat, against its main adversary India, and against
the suggestion that its nuclear weapons could be either spirited
out of the country by a third party (posited to be the United States) or
destroyed in the event of a deteriorating situation or a state
collapse in Pakistan.
-ISIS
likely to have extended this practice to its nuclear weapons infrastructure.
No threat of nuclear terrorism

Stratfor 15, [5/14/2015. Don't Take Terrorism Threats at Face Value, Security Weekly,
https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/dont-take-terrorism-threats-face-value.]
The Islamic State has demonstrated in the past year that it is quite adept in
its use of social media as a tool to raise money, recruit fighters and inspire
grassroots jihadists to conduct attacks. This week, however, its social media
network was heavily focused on making threats. On May 11, Twitter users associated
with the Islamic State unleashed two seemingly unrelated threat campaigns. One using the
hashtag #LondonAttack, displayed photos of London and weapons (including AK-47 rifles and
what appeared to be suicide bombs) and urged Muslims in the United Kingdom not to visit
shopping malls. The second campaign threatened to launch a cyber war against the United
States and Europe. The Islamic State took credit for the botched May 3 attack in
Garland, Texas, saying it would carry out harder and "more bitter" attacks
inside the United States. Coinciding with the Islamic State's threats, FBI Director James
Comey warned that his agency does not have a handle on the grassroots terrorism problem in
the United States. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson noted that the
United States has entered "a new phase in the global terrorist threat, where the so-called lone
wolf could strike at any moment." Michael Morell, the former Deputy Director of the
CIA, added his voice by claiming that the Islamic State has the ability to
conduct a 9/11-style attack today. While these statements and warnings
paint a bleak picture, a threat should never be taken at face value when
placed into context, these claims aren't as dire as they seem . Analyzing Threats
When analyzing a direct threat from a person or organization it is important

to understand that in most cases they come from a position of weakness
rather than power. The old saying "all bark and no bite" is based on this
reality. This applies to personal threats as well as terror-related threats. Terrorism is
frequently used by weak actors as a way of taking asymmetrical military
action against a superior opponent . Despite its battlefield successes against the Iraqi
and Syrian governments and militant groups, the Islamic State is certainly far weaker militarily
than the United States and Europe. An important part of threat evaluation is assessing if the
party making the threat possesses both the intention to conduct such an action and the
capability to carry out that intent. Indeed, many threats are made by groups or
individuals who have neither intent nor capability. They are made simply to
create fear and panic or to influence the conduct or behavior of the target, as in the cases
of a person who sends a "white powder" letter to a government office or a student who phones
in a bomb threat to his school to get out of taking a test. Generally, if a person or group
possesses both the intent and capability to conduct an act of violence, they
just do it. There is little need to waste the time and effort to threaten what they are about to
do. In fact, by telegraphing their intent they might provide their target with
the opportunity to avoid the attack . Professional terrorists often invest a lot of time and
resources in a plot, especially a spectacular transnational attack. Because of this, they take
great pains to hide their operational activity so that the target or authorities do not catch wind
of it and employ countermeasures that would prevent the successful execution of the scheme.
Instead of telegraphing their attack, terrorist groups prefer to conduct the attack and exploit it
after the fact, something sometimes called the propaganda of the deed. Certainly, people who
possess the capability to fulfill the threat sometimes make threats. But normally in such cases
the threat is made in a conditional manner. For example, the United States threatened to
invade Afghanistan unless the Taliban government handed over Osama bin Laden. The Islamic
State, however, is not in that type of dominating position. If it dispatched a team or teams of
professional terrorist operatives to the United States and Europe to conduct terrorist attacks,
the very last thing it would want to do is alert said countries to the presence of those teams
and have them get rolled up. Trained terrorist operatives who have the ability to travel in the
United States or Europe are far too valuable to jeopardize with a Twitter threat. Rather than
reveal a network of sophisticated Islamic State operatives poised to conduct

devastating attacks on the United States and Europe, these threats are
meant to instill fear and strike terror into the hearts of one of their intended
audiences: the public at large. I say one of their audiences because these threats are
not only aimed at the American and European public. They are also meant to send a message
to radicalize and energize grassroots jihadists like those who have conducted Islamic Staterelated attacks in the West. Examining the Statements First, it is important to
understand the context of the statements made by FBI Director Comey,

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Johnson and former CIA Deputy
Director Morell. Comey's statement about not having a complete handle on
the grassroots terrorist threat is true. The very nature of such operatives
makes them difficult for governments to combat. However, the FBI has been
very successful in interdicting grassroots plots in recent months . In fact, I cannot
recall so many grassroots operatives being arrested so closely together. However, one of the
factors driving Comey's recent remarks is his steadfast belief that
technological developments, such as encryption, are creating "dark spaces"
that the FBI does not have the ability to investigate . Comey contends that there is
no place in the physical world that the FBI cannot get a warrant to search, but technology has
permitted criminals and terrorists to create virtual places where the FBI simply cannot
Comey's recent statement is

part of his campaign to convince the public and congress that the FBI needs
the ability to investigate those places. Secretary Johnson's statement about
the new jihadist threat is also nothing new. Indeed, I heard him make the
same statement last November and took issue with it then. Leaderless
resistance, the terrorist operational model that stresses the importance of
lone wolf operatives, is simply not a new problem in the United States. It has
existed for decades and been actively promoted in the jihadist world since at
least 2004. Michael Morell is on a book tour and attempting to sell as many
books as possible. One way to accomplish that is to make eye-popping
claims. If the Islamic State had the capability to launch a 9/11-style attack
inside the United States, or a similar spectacular terrorist attack, it would
have already done so. Instead, the Islamic State has been forced to rely on
grassroots operatives to conduct less than spectacular attacks on its behalf .
penetrate even if they procure the proper search warrants.
Furthermore, the pre-9/11 paradigm has changed and there is simply no way an airline captain
is going to relinquish control of his aircraft to be used as a guided cruise missile nor would
the passengers permit it. Because of this, it is very hard to imagine the Islamic
State conducting a 9/11-style attack.
No Escalation/retalliation
No public or international support
Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group, senior fellow at the World
Policy Institute, September 13, 04, New Statesman, Suppose a new
9/11 hit America, p. Lexis
What would happen if there were a new terrorist attack inside the United States on 11
September 2004? How would it affect the presidential election campaign? The conventional wisdom is that
Americans - their patriotic defiance aroused - would rally to President George W Bush and make him an all but
certain winner in November. But consider the differences between the context of the original 9/11 and that of any
attack which might occur this autumn. In 2001, the public reaction was one of disbelief and incomprehension.
Many Americans realised for the first time that large-scale terrorist attacks on US soil were not only conceivable;
they were, perhaps, inevitable. A majority focused for the first time on the threat from al-Qaeda, on the Taliban
and on the extent to which Saudis were involved in terrorism. This time, the public response would move much
it is
difficult to imagine how the Bush administration could focus its response on an
external enemy. Should the US send 50,000 troops to the Afghan-Pakistani border to intensify the hunt for
more quickly from shock to anger; debate over how America should respond would begin immediately. Yet
Osama Bin Laden and 'step up' efforts to attack the heart of al-Qaeda? Many would wonder if that wasn't what the
administration pledged to do after the attacks three years ago. The president would face intensified criticism from
those who have argued all along that Iraq was a distraction from 'the real war on terror'. And what if a significant
number of the terrorists responsible for the pre-election attack were again Saudis? The
Bush
administration could hardly take military action against the Saudi government at a
time when crude-oil prices are already more than $45 a barrel and global supply is
stretched to the limit. While the Saudi royal family might support a co-ordinated
attack against terrorist camps, real or imagined, near the Yemeni border where
recent searches for al-Qaeda have concentrated that would seem like a trivial,
insufficient retaliation for an attack on the US mainland. Remember how the Republicans criticised Bill
Clinton's administration for ineffectually 'bouncing the rubble' in Afghanistan after the al-Qaeda attacks on the US
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in the 1990s. So what kind of response might be credible? Washington's
concerns about Iran are rising. The 9/11 commission report noted evidence of co-operation between Iran and alQaeda operatives, if not direct Iranian advance knowledge of the 9/11 hijacking plot. Over the past few weeks, US
in the
absence of an official Iranian claim of responsibility for this hypothetical terrorist
attack, the domestic opposition to such a war and the international outcry it would
provoke would make quick action against Iran unthinkable. In short, a decisive
response from Bush could not be external. It would have to be domestic. Instead of
Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, leading a war effort abroad Tom Ridge, the
officials have been more explicit, too, in declaring Iran's nuclear programme 'unacceptable'. However,
homeland security secretary, and John Ashcroft, the attorney general, would pursue an anti-terror campaign at
home. Forced to use legal tools more controversial than those provided by the Patriot Act, Americans would
experience stepped-up domestic surveillance and border controls, much tighter security in public places and the
detention of a large number of suspects. Many Americans would undoubtedly support such moves. But ,
concern for civil liberties and personal freedom would ensure that the government
would have nowhere near the public support it enjoyed for the invasion of
Afghanistan.
B. No targets, cannot trace

Dowle 05 (Mark, Teaches at the Graduate School of Journalism at
Berkeley, California Monthly,
September,http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/Alumni/Cal_Monthly/September_2005/COVER_STORY-_Berkeleys_Big_Bang_Project_.asp)
Because terrorists tend to be stateless and well hidden , immediate retaliation in

kind is almost impossible. But some nuclear explosions do leave an isotopic
signature, a DNA-like fingerprint that allows forensic physicists such as Naval
Postgraduate School weapons systems analyst Bob Harney to possibly determine the
origin of the fissile material in the bomb. Nuclear forensics is not a precise
science, Harney warns. Post-attack sites are almost certain to be contaminated
with unrelated or naturally occurring radioactivity, and there are numerous, highly
enriched uranium stashes in the world with unknown signatures. But there is no
question, according to Peter Huessy, a member of the Committee on the Present
Danger and consultant to the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., that
Russian forensic experts could quickly detect Russian isotopes, and that highly
enriched uranium (HEU) from, say, France could readily be differentiated from
American HEU. But, Huessy warns, distinguishing post-blast residues of Pakistani
uranium from North Korean uranium would be more challenging, probably
impossible. Because neither country is a member of the International Atomic
Energy Agency, IAEA inspectors have been unable to collect from their facilities
reliable isotope samples that could be compared to post-attack residues. Even if
the uranium were traced, the source nation could claim that the material had
been stolen.
C. Democracy checks
Joseph F. Pilat, Research Assoc. Intl Inst. For Strat. Studies, 99 (Survival
40.4, WMD Terrorism: An Exchange)
The belief that NBC terrorist acts will have an impact disproportionate to their real
physical damage because of public health hysteria about WMD is not groundless, but
it is exaggerated. Falkenrath himself recognises that NBC attacks are unlikely to be
apocalyptic, but he does not follow his own logic to its conclusion. The belief that
widespread panic or perhaps the collapse of public order would result from such
attacks is speculative and ill-founded. The societal responses to accidents or
natural disasters that produce massive destruction or disruption have been on the
whole measured and reasonable: public order in Japan did not collapse in the
wake of the Kobe earthquake of 1995 or the subway gassing in Tokyo. The strength
and resilience of liberal-democratic societies in the face of such threats tends to

be underestimated.
D. Especially true of Obama

Ruwe 08 [Daniel, Barack Obama: Gaffe Machine, The Next Right,
May 28,
http://www.thenextright.com/daniel-ruwe/barack-obama-gaffe-machine]
Another revealing Obama quote is his answer to a debate question regarding a

hypothetical terrorist attack on an American city. (Remember when there was a presidential
debate about every two weeks? That seems so long ago). Obamas answer: the first thing wed have to do is
make sure weve got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we
had a hurricane in New Orleans. And I think we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural
disaster but also a terrorist attack. The second thing is to make sure that weve got good intelligence. . . . But
what we cant do is then alienate the world community based on faulty
intelligence, based on bluster and bombast. If that answer still is Obamas position (Obamas
views are maddeningly hard to pin down), then he clearly has not the vaguest idea of how to respond to a
terrorist attack. The emergency response required for a terrorist attack is completely different than that required
for a natural disasterfor example, natural disasters are handled first by state and local governments, while
terrorist attacks fall squarely into the federal governments bailiwick. In addition, terrorist attacks are preventable.
Obama might want to consider retaliating against those who attacked us, a
concept missing from his reply. Lack of retaliation against Americas enemies
seems to be a premise of his foreign policyif we talk to them, they wont attack
us. He seems to base his opposition to the Iraq War not so much on the strategic reasons behind it, but because
he seems to think that war in general is almost always unacceptable . This quote is
Also,
revealing because he rarely enunciates this idea so openly.
Nuclear war wont escalate; the US could disarm any

nuclear opponent before they could retaliate
Liber, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame,
and Press Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of
Pennsylvania 2006
(Keir Liber, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre
Dame, and Press Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of
Pennsylvania, Spring 2006, International Security, The End of Mad The
Nuclear dimension of US Primacy
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.30.4.7)
For nearly half a century, the worlds most powerful nucleararmed countries have been locked in a military stalemate
known as mutual assured destruction (MAD). By the early 1960s,
the United States and the Soviet Union possessed such large, welldispersed
nuclear arsenals that neither state could entirely destroy the others nuclear
forces in a rst strike. Whether the scenario was a preemptive strike during a
crisis, or a bolt-from-the-blue surprise attack, the victim would always be
able to retaliate and destroy the aggressor. Nuclear war was therefore
tantamount to mutual suicide. Many scholars believe that the nuclear
stalemate helped prevent conict between the superpowers during the Cold
War, and that it remains a powerful force for great power peace today. 1 The
age of MAD, however, is waning. Today the United States
stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy vis--vis its

plausible great power adversaries. For the frst time in decades,
it could conceivably disarm the long-range nuclear arsenals of
Russia or China with a nuclear first strike . A preemptive strike on an
alerted Russian arsenal would still likely fail, but a surprise attack at
peacetime alert levels would have a reasonable chance of
success. Furthermore, the Chinese nuclear force is so
vulnerable that it could be destroyed even if it were alerted
during a crisis.
A US first strike would cripple Russia, retaliation would be

impossible
Pennsylvania 2006
A critical issue for the outcome of a U.S. attack is the ability of

Russia to launch on warning (i.e., quickly launch a retaliatory strike
before its forces are destroyed ). It is unlikely that Russia could do
this. Russian commanders would need 713 minutes to carry
out the technical steps involved in identifying a U.S. attack and
launching their retaliatory forces. They would have to (1) confirm the
sensor indications that an attack was under way; (2) convey the news to
political leaders; (3) communicate launch authorization and launch codes to
the nuclear forces; (4) execute launch sequences; and (5) allow the missiles
to fly a safe distance from the silos. 38 This timeline does not include the time
required by Russian leaders to absorb the news that a nuclear attack is The
End of MAD? 21 under way and decide to authorize retaliation. Given that
both Russian and U.S. early warning systems have had false
alarms in the past, even a minimally prudent leader would need
to think hard and ask tough questions before authorizing a
catastrophic nuclear response.39 Because the technical steps
require 713 minutes, it is hard to imagine that Russia could
detect an attack, decide to retaliate, and launch missiles in less
than 1015 minutes. The Russian early warning system would
probably not give Russias leaders the time they need to
retaliate; in fact it is questionable whether it would give them
any warning at all. Stealthy B-2 bombers could likely penetrate
Russian air defenses without detection. Furthermore, low-flying B-52
bombers could fire stealthy nuclear-armed cruise missiles from
outside Russian airspace; these missilessmall, radarabsorbing, and flying at very low altitude would likely provide
no warning before detonation. Finally, Russias vulnerability is
compounded by the poor state of its early warning system.
Russian satellites cannot reliably detect the launch of SLBM s;
Russia relies on groundbased radar to detect those warheads. 40 But there is
a large east-facing hole in Russias radar network; Russian
leaders might have no warning of an SLBM attack from the
Pacific.41 Even if Russia plugged the east-facing hole in its radar
network, its leaders would still have less than 10 minutes
warning of a U.S. submarine attack from the Atlantic, and

perhaps no time if the U.S. attack began with hundreds of
stealthy cruise missiles and stealth bombers.
No Extinction
Nuke war wont cause extinction their predictions are
biased.
Martin 82 (Brian Martin, Professor of Science Technology and Society at
the University of Wollongon, International Director and President of the
Whistleblowers, PhD in Theoretical Physics from the University of Sydney,
Journal of Peace Research, No 4,
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82jpr.html)
Here I outline a number of possible reasons for exaggeration of the effects of nuclear war and emphasis on
worst cases. While the importance of most of these reasons may be disputed, I feel it is necessary to raise
them for discussion. The points raised are not meant to lay blame on anyone, but rather to help ensure
that peace movement theory and strategy are founded on sound beliefs. By understanding our motivations
and emotional responses, some insight may be gained into how better to struggle against nuclear war.(a)
Exaggeration to justify inaction. For many people, nuclear war is seen as such a terrible event, and as
something that people can do so little about, that they can see no point in taking action on peace issues
For those who have never been concerned or

taken action on the issue, accepting an extreme account of the effects of
nuclear war can provide conscious or unconscious justification for this
inaction. In short, one removes from one's awareness the upsetting topic of
nuclear war, and justifies this psychological denial by believing the worst . This
and do not even think about the danger.
suggests two things. First, it may be more effective in mobilising people against nuclear war to describe
the dangers in milder terms. Some experiments have shown that strong accounts of danger - for example,
of smoking[17] - can be less effective than weaker accounts in changing behaviour. Second, the peace
movement should devote less attention to the dangers of nuclear war and more attention to what people
can do to oppose it in their day-to-day lives. (b) Fear of death. Although death receives a large
amount of attention in the media, the consideration of one's own death has been one of the most taboo
Nuclear war as an issue raises the topic

insistently, and unconsciously many people may prefer to avoid the issue for
this reason. The fear of and repression of conscious thoughts about personal
death may also lead to an unconscious tendency to exaggerate the effects of
nuclear war. One's own personal death - the end of consciousness - can be especially
threatening in the context of others remaining alive and conscious. Somehow
the death of everyone may be less threatening. Robert Lifton[19] argues that children
topics in western culture, at least until recently.[18]
who learn at roughly the same age about both personal death and nuclear holocaust may be unable to
separate the two concepts, and as a result equate death with annihilation, with undesirable consequences
Another factor here

may be a feeling of potential guilt at the thought of surviving and having done
for coping individually with life and working collectively against nuclear war.
nothing, or not enough or not the right thing, to prevent the deaths of others. Again, the idea that nearly
Exaggeration to
stimulate action. When people concerned about nuclear war describe the threat to others, in many
everyone will die in nuclear war does not raise such disturbing possibilities. (c)
cases this does not trigger any action. An understandable response by the concerned people is to expand
the threat until action is triggered. This is valid procedure in many physiological and other domains. If a
person does not heed a call of 'Fire!', shouting louder may do the trick. But in many instances of
intellectual argument this procedure is not appropriate. In the case of nuclear war it seems clear that the
threat, even when stated very conservatively, is already past the point of sufficient stimulation. This
means that what is needed is not an expansion of the threat but rather some avenue which allows and
encourages people to take action to challenge the threat. A carefully thought out and planned strategy for
challenging the war system, a strategy which makes sense to uncommitted people and which can easily
accommodate their involvement, is one such avenue.[20] (d) Planning and defeatism. People may identify
thinking about and planning for an undesirable future - namely the occurrence and aftermath of nuclear
war - with accepting its inevitability (defeatism) or even actually wanting it. By exaggerating the effects of
nuclear war and emphasising the worst possible case, there becomes no post-war future at all to prepare
for, and so this difficulty does not arise. The limitations of this response are apparent in cases other than
nuclear war. Surely it is not defeatism to think about what will happen when a labour strike is broken, when
a social revolution is destroyed (as in Chile) or turns bad (as in the Soviet Union), or when political events
develop in an expected though unpleasant way (as Nazism in the 1920s and 1930s). Since, I would argue,
some sort of nuclear war is virtually inevitable unless radical changes occur in industrialised societies, it is
realism rather than defeatism to think about and take account of the likely aftermath of nuclear war. An
effective way to deal with the feeling or charge of defeatism is to prepare for the political aftermath of
nuclear war in ways which reduce the likelihood of nuclear war occurring in the first place. This can be
done for example by developing campaigns for social defence, peace conversion and community selfmanagement in ways which serve both as preparation to resist political repression in time of nuclear crisis
Exaggeration
to justify concern (I). People involved with any issue or activity tend to exaggerate
its importance so as to justify and sustain their concern and involvement. Nuclear war
is only one problem among many pressing problems in the world, which include starvation, poverty,
or war, and as positive steps to build alternatives now to war-linked institutions.[21] (e)
exploitation, racial and sexual inequality and repressive governments. By concentrating on peace issues,
An unconscious tendency to
exaggerate the effects of nuclear war has the effect of reducing conscious or
unconscious guilt at not doing more on other issues. Guilt of this sort is undoubtedly
one must by necessity give less attention to other pressing issues.
common, especially among those who are active on social issues and who become familiar with the wide
range of social problems needing attention. The irony is that those who feel guilt for this reason tend to be
those who have least cause to feel so. One politically effective way to overcome this guilt may be to
strengthen and expand links between anti-war struggles and struggles for justice, equality and the like. (f)
Exaggeration to justify concern (II). Spokespeople and apologists for the military establishment tend to
emphasise conservative estimates of the effects of nuclear war. They also are primarily concerned with
military and economic 'survival' of society so as to confront further threats to the state. One response to
this orientation by people favouring non-military approaches to world order and peace is to assume that
the military-based estimates are too low, and hence to exaggerate the effects and emphasise worst cases.
The emotional underpinning for this response seems to be something like this: 'if a militarist thinks nuclear
war will kill 100 million people and still wants more nuclear weapons, and because I am totally opposed to
nuclear war or plans for waging it, therefore nuclear war surely would kill 500 million people or everyone
on earth.' This sort of unconscious reasoning confuses one's estimate of the size of a threat with one's
attitude towards it. A more tenable conclusion is that the value structures of the militarist and the peace
activist are sufficiently different to favour very different courses of action when considering the same
evidence. The assumption that a given item of information will lead to a uniform emotional response or
conclusion about its implications is false. The primary factor underlying differences in response to the
threat of nuclear war is not differences in assessments of devastation, but political differences.
It is impossible to kill all humans.

Schilling 00
But others have pointed out that the human animal (as opposed
to human civilization) would be almost impossible to kill off at
this point. People have become too widespread and too
capable, a few pockets of individuals would find ways to survive
almost any conceivable nuclear war or ecological collapse.
These survivors would be enough to fully repopulate the Earth
in a few thousand years and another technological civilization
would be a precedent. Maybe this will happen many times
A nuclear war would only kill hundreds of thousands of

people. It is definitely survivable and the impact is not
huge.
Brian Martin Formal training in physics, with a PhD from Sydney
University, 2002
(Activism after nuclear war,
http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/meet/2002/Martin_ActivismNuclearWar.html)
In the event of nuclear war, as well as death and destruction there will be serious political consequences. Social activists should be prepared.
The confrontation between Indian and Pakistani governments earlier this year showed that military use of nuclear weapons is quite possible.
There are other plausible scenarios. A US military attack against Iraq could lead Saddam Hussein to release chemical or biological weapons,
providing a trigger for a US nuclear strike. Israeli nuclear weapons might also be unleashed. Another possibility is accidental nuclear war. Paul
Rogers in his book Losing Control says that the risk of nuclear war has increased due to proliferation, increased emphasis on nuclear warfighting, reduced commitment to arms control (especially by the US government) and Russian reliance on nuclear arms as its conventional
A major nuclear war could kill hundreds of millions of people.

But less catastrophic outcomes are possible. A limited exchange might
kill "only" tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Use of nuclear
"bunker-busters" might lead to an immediate death toll in the
thousands or less.
forces disintegrate.
Humanity is resilient: extinction is highly unlikely.

Bruce Tonn, Futures Studies Department, Corvinus University of Budapest, 2005,
Human Extinction Scenarios, www.budapestfutures.org/ downloads/abstracts/Bruce
% 20Tonn%20-%20Abstract.pdf)
The human species faces numerous threats to its existence. These include
global climate change, collisions with near-earth objects, nuclear war, and
pandemics. While these threats are indeed serious, taken separately they fail to
describe exactly how humans could become extinct. For example, nuclear
war by itself would most likely fail to kill everyone on the planet, as strikes
would probably be concentrated in the northern hemisphere and the Middle East,
leaving populations in South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand some
hope of survival. It is highly unlikely that any uncontrollable nanotechnology
could ever be produced but even it if were, it is likely that humans could
develop effective, if costly, countermeasures, such as producing the technologies
in space or destroying sites of runaway nanotechnologies with nuclear
weapons. Viruses could indeed kill many people but effective quarantine of a
healthy people could be accomplished to save large numbers of
people. Humans appear to be resilient to extinction with respect to single
events
Nuclear terrorism is no big deal Nuclear weapons

acquired are small, most likely only nuclear material in dirty
bombs, and past tests prove most other bombs are
Hiroshima-sized or smaller. 1NC Mueller and Mueller
evidence says modern cities are more reinforced and fire resistant,
means damage would be limited such that even those 3
miles away would only have superficial wounds.
And, We would recover.
Patrick Buchanan, former Presidential candidate, former senior Ford
adviser, MSNBC political analyst, September 21, 2007, Is Terrorism a
Mortal Threat?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/is_terrorism_a_mortal_t
hreat.html
Terrorism, said Powell, is not a mortal threat to America. "What is the greatest threat
facing us now?" Powell asked. "People will say it's terrorism. But are there any
terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political
system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But
can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat
we are facing?" History and common sense teach that Powell speaks truth. Since 911, 100,000 Americans have been murdered -- as many as we lost in Vietnam, Korea
and Iraq combined. Yet, not one of these murders was the work of an Islamic terrorist,
and all of them, terrible as they are, did not imperil the survival of our republic.
Terrorists can blow up our buildings, assassinate our leaders, and bomb our malls
and stadiums. They cannot destroy us. Assume the worst. Terrorists smuggle an
atom bomb into New York harbor or into Washington, D.C., and detonate it. Horrible
and horrifying as that would be -- perhaps 100,000 dead and wounded -- it would not
mean the end of the United States. It would more likely mean the end of Iran, or
whatever nation at which the United States chose to direct its rage and retribution.
Consider. Between 1942 and 1945, Germany and Japan, nations not one-tenth the
size of the United States, saw their cities firebombed, and their soldiers and
civilians slaughtered in the millions. Japan lost an empire. Germany lost a third of its
territory. Both were put under military occupation. Yet, 15 years later, Germany and
Japan were the second and third most prosperous nations on Earth , the dynamos
of their respective continents, Europe and Asia. Powell's point is not that terrorism is
not a threat. It is that the terror threat must be seen in perspective, that we ought
not frighten ourselves to death with our own propaganda, that we cannot allow fear
of terror to monopolize our every waking hour or cause us to give up our freedom. For
all the blather of a restored caliphate, the "Islamofascists," as the neocons call
Wont cause extinction.

Ivan Eland, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace &
Liberty at The Independent Institute, Assistant Editor of The
Independent Review, Fall 2003, The Independent Review, The New
Nuclear Danger: George W. Bushs Military-Industrial Complex; Book

Review, Vol. 8, No. 2,
http://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/books/tir82_caldico
tt.html
Caldicott argues effectively that George W. Bush is using his proposal for unilateral
reductions in nuclear arms to divert attention from his expansive missile-defense
program. Although she does not mention that, appearances aside, Bushs armsreduction plan is no more ambitious than Clinton s framework, she senses correctly
that the Bush nuclear plans do not make the world much safer. She observes astutely
that despite the end of the Cold War, U.S. annual funding for nuclear weapons has
increased (from $3.8 billion per year to $56 billion per year) and the U.S. militarys
nuclear targeting list has expanded (from 2,500 targets to 3,000 targets) because
targets in China and the rogue states have been added to those in Russia. Caldicott
undermines the credibility of her arguments, however, by making the alarmist charge
that the world is more dangerous now than it was during Reagans Cold War
presidency. Even with the increased chances of an accidental launch of some nuclear
warheads because of the deterioration of the Russian early-warning system and with
the greater possibility of a terrorist groups buying or building a nuclear device (which
would be more difficult than she lets on), the end of the Cold War has reduced
greatly the possibility of much of the planet being destroyed by an all-out nuclear
war between superpowers launching thousands of warheads. As horrendous as
an accidental launch or a terrorist strike with a limited number of warheads would
be, such scenariosunlike an Armageddon between the superpowerswould not
threaten the survival of civilization.
Impact is very small.

Gary Milhollin, Director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, 2
(Commentary Magazine, 2/1, p. 45-9, Can Terrorists Get the Bomb?)
What options remain? Stymied in their plan to acquire a real nuclear weapon, could a
determined group of terrorists at least confirm Bob Woodward's fears by
manufacturing a "dirty" bomb? Such a device would be much easier to build than a
warhead. Instead of producing a nuclear explosion, it would only have to disperse
radioactive particles. This is a likelier bet. But there is a different problem with these
devices: they do not pack much radioactive punch. A bomb that carried enough
radiation to injure many people quickly would be too hot to handle. The shielding
would have to be many times heavier than the radioactive element-so massive, in
fact, that there would be no practical way to transport or deploy the weapon. That is
why the Pentagon does not consider such devices useful on the battlefield. Nor is it easy to bring a sufficient
amount of radioactivity into contact with a bomb's human targets. Lacing a high-explosive charge with nuclear
waste from a hospital or laboratory, for example, would kill some people immediately from the explosion, but the
Once the area around the

blast was decontaminated, it would be safer to walk through it than to be a serious
smoker. To inflict a dangerous dose over a broad area requires spewing around large amounts of nuclear
only radiological effect would be an increased risk of cancer decades later .
waste. The only place to get such waste would be from a reactor, and the problems with that scenario have
already been demonstrated. Even if a group of terrorists could somehow procure radioactive fuel rods or any other
form of highly radioactive waste, wrapping the rods around "readily available conventional high explosives," as
Woodward suggested in the Post, would kill the person doing the wrapping. So would transporting such a weapon
to its destination, unless the rods were heavily shielded during the entire operation (which would bring us back to
it would be a near
impossibility to create, in Woodward's words, a "zone of intense radiation that could
extend several city blocks."A research reactor would be a better source. Many countries use such small
the implausible scenario with the giant protective casks). The fact is that
reactors to irradiate material samples, and it might be possible to insert some material into one of these reactors
secretly, irradiate it, and then withdraw it and put it in a bomb. The difficulty would then lie in making the bomb
effective. Highly radioactive materials have short half-lives; thus, any bomb would have to be used right away,
and one would not be able to build up a stockpile. If enough radioactivity were packed into the bomb to injure a
substantial number of victims, the too-hot-to-handle problem would arise. If the radioactive charge were diluted,
the bomb would lose its effect. Saddam Hussein actually made and tested such a bomb in the 1980's, but when
UN inspectors toured the test site in the 1990's they could find no trace of radiation from it. What about putting
plutonium into a city's drinking water, or into the air? That, too, is a possibility-but according to a 1995 study by
plutonium dumped into a typical city reservoir

would almost entirely sink to the bottom. The little that dissolved would be greatly
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
diluted by the volume of the water, and the people drinking it would get a smaller
dose than from natural background radiation. As for plutonium in the air, if an entire
kilogram of the stuff were exploded in a city the size of Munich, Germany, and if 20
percent of it became airborne in respirable particles-as with anthrax, the particles
would have to be the right size to lodge in the lungs -the effect (according to the
same study) would be to produce fewer than ten deaths from cancer .
Terrorism will not cause extinction material acquisition,

dont want nukes, wont be supplied
Bailey, Journalist @ Reason, Ex-Forbes, 08 (Ronald, July 22, 2008, The
End of Humanity: Nukes, Nanotech, or God-Like Artificial Intelligences?
ReasonOnline, http://www.reason.com/news/show/127676.html
Terrorism expert Gary Ackerman from the University of Maryland and William Potter
from the Monterey Institute of International Studies evaluated the risks from two
types of nuclear terrorismthe theft of nuclear material and the construction of a crude
bomb and the theft of an intact nuclear weapon. They set aside two lower consequence attacks:
the dispersal of radiological material by means of a conventional explosion and sabotage of
nuclear facilities. Could non-state actors, a.k.a., a terrorist group, actually build a nuclear bomb?
Potter cited an article by Peter Zimmerman in which he estimated that a team of

19 terrorists (the same number that pulled off the September 11 atrocities) could
build such a bomb for around $6 million. Their most challenging task would be to
acquire 40 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU). There are 1700 tons of HEU
in the world, including 50 tons stored at civilian sites. Potter acknowledged that
intact weapons are probably more secure than fissile material. Ackerman noted
that only a small subset of terrorists has the motivation to use nuclear terrorism.
"So far as we know only Jihadists want these weapons," said Ackerman. Specifically,
Al Qaeda has made ten different efforts to get hold of fissile material. Ackerman told
me that Al Qaeda had been defrauded several times by would-be vendors of
nuclear materials. Just before the September 11 atrocities, two Pakistani nuclear experts visited
Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, apparently to advise Al Qaeda on nuclear matters. One
possibility is that if Pakistan becomes more unstable intact weapons could fall into terrorist hands.
Still, the good news is that intercepted fissile material smugglers have actually been carrying
Potter did note that prison sentences for

smugglers dealing in weapons grade nuclear material have been less than those
meted out for drunk driving. One cautionary case: Two groups invaded and seized
very small amounts. Less reassuringly,
the control room of the Pelindaba nuclear facility in South Africa in November, 2007.
They were briefly arrested and then released without further consequence. Both
Ackerman and Potter agreed that it is in no state's interest to supply terrorists with
nuclear bombs or fissile material. It could be easily traced back to them and they
would suffer the consequences. Ackerman cited one expert estimate that there is
a 50 percent chance of a nuclear terrorist attack in the next ten years. While
nuclear war and nuclear terrorism would be catastrophic, the presenters
acknowledged that neither constituted existential risks; that is, a risk that they
could cause the extinction of humanity. But the next two risks, self-improving artificial
intelligence and nanotechnology, would.
Bioterror
Bioterror risk is lowdispersal problems, tech barriers,
risk fo back spreadexperts agree
OVERBLOWN: HOW POLITICIANS AND THE TERRORISM INDUSTRY
INFLATE NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS, AND WHY WE BELIEVE THEM,
2009, p. 21-22.
For the most destructive results, biological weapons need to be dispersed in very
low-altitude aerosol clouds. Because aerosols do not appreciably settle,
pathogens like anthrax (which is not easy to spread or catch and is not contagious)
would probably have to be sprayed near nose level. Moreover, 90 percent of the
microorganisms are likely to die during the process of aerosolization, and their
effectiveness could be reduced still further by sunlight, smog, humidity, and
temperature changes. Explosive methods of dispersion may destroy the
organisms, and, except for anthrax spores, long-term storage of lethal organisms in
bombs or warheads is difficult: even if refrigerated, most of the organisms have a
limited lifetime. The effects of such weapons can take days or weeks to have full
effect, during which time they can be countered with medical and civil defense
measures. And their impact is very difficult to predict; in combat situations they
may spread back onto the attacker. In the judgment of two careful analysts,
delivering microbes and toxins over a wide area in the form most suitable for
inflicting mass casualtiesas an aerosol that can be inhaledrequires a delivery
system whose development "would outstrip the technical capabilities of all but the
most sophisticated terrorist" Even then effective dispersal could easily be
disrupted by unfavorable environmental and meteorological conditions ." After
assessing, and stressing, the difficulties a nonstate entity would find in obtaining,
handling, growing, storing, processing, and dispersing lethal pathogens effectively,
biological weapons expert Milton Leitenberg compares his conclusions with glib
pronouncements in the press about how biological attacks can be pulled off by
anyone with "a little training and a few glass jars," or how it would be "about as
difficult as producing beer." He sardonically concludes, "The less the commentator
seems to know about biological warfare the easier he seems to think the task is .""
Threat exaggeratedempirical record proves

Gregory D. Koblentz, Assistant Professor, Department of Public and
International Affairs and Deputy Director, Biodefense Program, George
Mason University, "Biosecurity Reconsidered," INTERNATIONAL
SECURITY, Spring 2010, p. 96+, ASP.
The threat of bioterrorism, however, may not be as severe as some have portrayed
it to be. Few terrorist groups have attempted to develop a biological weapons

capability, and even fewer have succeeded. Prior to the anthrax letter attacks in
2001, only one group, the disciples of guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in Oregon,
managed to cause any casualties with a biological agent. 86 The U.S. intelligence
community estimates that of the fifteen terrorist groups that have expressed an
interest in acquiring biological weapons, only three have demonstrated a

commitment to acquiring the capability to cause mass casualties with these
weapons. 87 Groups such as Japan's Aum Shinrikyo and al-Qaida have demonstrated
the desire to cause mass casualties and an interest in using disease as a weapon.
Despite concerted efforts by both groups to produce deadly pathogens and toxins,
however, neither has caused any casualties with such weapons, let alone
developed a weapon capable of causing mass casualties. The failures
experienced by these groups illustrate the significant hurdles that terrorists face in
progressing beyond crude weapons suitable for assassination and the
contamination of food supplies to biological weapons based on aerosol
dissemination technology that are capable of causing mass casualties. 88
No risk of weaponization risk is exaggerated

Johnson, at the Wall Street Journal, 8/11/10 (Keith, "Gaisn in
Bioscience Cause Terror Fears",
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870372280457536939
4068436132.htmFears of bioterror have been on the rise since the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, stoking tens of billions of dollars of
government spending on defenses, and the White House and Congress
continue to push for new measures. But the fear of a mass-casualty terrorist
attack using bioweapons has always been tempered by a single fact : Of the scores of plots
uncovered during the past decade, none have featured biological weapons.
Indeed, many experts doubt terrorists even have the technical capability to acquire and
weaponize deadly bugs. The new fear, though, is that scientific advances
that enable amateur scientists to carry out once-exotic experiments,
such as DNA cloning, could be put to criminal use. Many well-known
figures are sounding the alarm over the revolution in biological science,
which amounts to a proliferation of know-howif not the actual
pathogens. "Certain areas of biotechnology are getting more
accessible to people with malign intent," said Jonathan Tucker, an
expert on biological and chemical weapons at the James Martin Center
for Nonproliferation Studies. Geneticist Craig Venter said last month at
the first meeting of a presidential commission on bioethics, "If students
can order any [genetic sequences] online, somebody could try to make
the Ebola virus." Mr. Venter is a pioneer in the field whose creation of a
synthetic organism this spring helped push the debate about the risks
and rewards of bioscience from scientific journals to the corridors of
power in Washington. "We are limited more by our imagination now
than any technological limitations," Mr. Venter said. Scientists have
the ability to manipulate genetic material more quickly and more
cheaply all the time. Just as "Moore's Law" describes the accelerating
pace of advances in computer science, advances in biology are
becoming more potent and accessible every year, experts note. As
recently as a decade ago, the tools and techniques for such fiddling
were confined to a handful of laboratories like those at leading
research universities. Today, do-it-yourself biology clubs have sprung

up where part-timers share tips on how to build high-speed
centrifuges, isolate genetic material, and the like. The movement has been
aided by gear that can turn a backyard shed into a microbiology lab . That has prompted the
Federal Bureau of Investigation to reach out to amateur biologists , teaching them proper
security measures and asking them to be vigilant of unscrupulous scientists . "The risk
we're seeing now is that these procedures are becoming easier to do,"
said Edward You, who heads the outreach program at the FBI's
Directorate for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Biological weapons date back
millennia. Rotting and plague-stricken corpses once were catapulted over
besieged city walls. Wells were routinely poisoned. More recently, fears
that terrorist groups such as al Qaeda might deploy weapons of mass destruction have
kindled fears of bioterrorism. Those fears reached fever pitch in the months after the World
Trade Center was downed, when anthrax-filled mail killed five people and prompted
panic. That's when Washington started boosting spending on
biodefense, improving security at laboratories that work with

dangerous pathogens and stockpiling antidotes. Last fall, President
Barack Obama ordered the creation of a bioethics commission, and the
group spent much of its first meeting parsing the threat of biological
terrorism. He also issued an executive order earlier this month to beef up security for the
most dangerous pathogens, which include anthrax, ebola, tularensis,
smallpox and the reconstructed 1918 Spanish flu bug. Both houses of
Congress have legislation in the works to strengthen the country's ability to detect , prevent
and, if necessary, recover from large-scale attacks using bioweapons . All the
government attention comes despite the absence of known terrorist plots involving biological
weapons. According to U.S. counterterrorism officials, al Qaeda last actively
tried to work with bioweaponsspecifically anthraxbefore the 2001 invasion of
that uprooted its leadership from Afghanistan. While terrorists have on
occasion used chemical weaponssuch as chlorine and sarin gas none have yet
employed a biological agent, counterterrorism officials and bioweapons
researchers say. The U.S. anthrax attacks were ultimately blamed on a U.S. scientist with
access to military bioweapons programs. That's why many experts caution that, despite
scientific advances, it is still exceedingly tough for terrorists to isolate or create, mass produce
and deploy deadly bugs. Tens of thousands of Soviet scientists spent decades trying to
weaponize pathogens, with mixed results. Though science has advanced greatly
since the Cold War, many of the same challenges remain . "I don't think the
threat is growing, but quite the opposite," said Milton Leitenberg, a biological-weapons expert
at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of

Maryland. Advances in biological science and the proliferation of knowledge
are a given, he said, but there has been no indication they are being used by terrorists . "The
idea that four guys in a cave are going to create bioweapons from scratchthat will be never,
ever, ever," he said.
Risk of bioterrorism low: (1) tech hurdles; (2) risk own

deaths; (3) cultural taboos; (4) easy alternatives
John Paranchi, Analyst, RAND Corporation, Anthrax Attacks, Biological

Terrorism, and Preventive Responses, RAND TESTIMONY, November
2001, p. 11-12, www.rand.org/publications/CT/CT186/CT186.pdf
The use of disease and biological material as a weapon is not a new method of warfare.
What is surprising is how infrequently it is has been used. Biological agents may appeal to the new terrorist groups because they
affect people indiscriminately and unnoticed, thereby sowing panic. A pattern is emerging that terrorists who perpetrate mass and
indiscriminate attacks do not claim responsibility.5 In contrast to the turgid manifestos issued by terrorists in the 1960s, 1970s and
1980s, recent mass casualty terrorists have not claimed responsibility until they were imprisoned. Biological agents enable
terrorists to preserve their anonymity because of their delayed impact and can be confused with natural disease outbreaks.
Instead of the immediate gratification of seeing an explosion or the glory of claiming credit for disrupting society, the biological
weapons terrorist may derive satisfaction from seeing societys panicked response to their actions. If this is the case, this is a new
There are a number of countervailing disincentives for

states and terrorists to use biological weapons, which help explain why their use
is so infrequent. The technical and operational challenges biological weapons pose
are considerable. Acquiring the material, skills of production, knowledge of
weaponization, and successfully delivering the weapon, to the target is difficult. In
cases where the populations of the terrorist supporters and adversaries are
mixed, biological weapons risk inadvertently hitting the same people for whom
terrorists claim to fight. Terrorists may also hesitate in using biological weapons
specifically because breaking the taboo on their use may evoke considerable
retaliation. The use of disease as a weapon is widely recognized in most cultures
as a means of killing that is beyond the bounds of a civilized society. From a
psychological perspective, terrorists may be drawn to explosives as arsonists are
drawn to fire. The immediate gratification of explosives and the thrill of the blast
may meet a psychological need of terrorists that the delayed effects of biological
weapons do not. Causing slow death of others may not offer the same psychic thrill
achieved by killing with firearms or explosives. Perhaps the greatest alternative to
using biological weapons is that terrorists can inflict (and have inflicted) many more
fatalities and casualties with conventional explosives than with unconventional
weapons. Biological weapons present technical and operational challenges that
determined killers may not have the patience to overcome or they may simply
concentrate their efforts on more readily available alternatives .
motive for the mass casualty terrorist.
Bioweapons use is unlikelyvery difficult to deploy and

control
OVERBLOWN: HOW POLITICIANS AND THE TERRORISM INDUSTRY
INFLATE NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS, AND WHY WE BELIEVE THEM,
2009, p. 20-21.
Properly developed and deployed, biological weapons could indeed, if thus far only in
theory, kill hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of people. The discussion
remains theoretical because biological weapons have scarcely ever been used.
Belligerents have eschewed such weapons with good reason: they are extremely
difficult to deploy and to control. Terrorist groups or rogue states may be able to
solve such problems in the future with advances in technology and knowledge,
but, notes scientist Russell Seitz, while bioterrorism may look easy on paper, "the
learning curve is lethally steep in practice." The record so far is unlikely to be very
encouraging. For example, Japan reportedly infected wells in Manchuria and bombed
several Chinese cities with plague-infested fleas before and during World War II.
These ventures (by a state, not a terrorist group) may have killed thousands of
Chinese, but they apparendy also caused considerable unintended casualties among
Japanese troops and seem to have had little military impact.
Bioweapons are expensive, difficult to use, and ineffective

STRATFOR, "Nuclear Weapons: Terrorism and the Nonstate Actor," 71-08,
www.stratfor.com/analysis/nuclear_weapons_terrorism_and_nonstate_a
ctor, accessed 8-10-09.
STRATFOR has repeatedly pointed out that chemical and biological weapons are
expensive, are difficult to use and have proven to be largely ineffective in realworld applications. A comparison of the ineffectiveness of the Aum Shinrikyo
chemical and biological attacks in Tokyo with the effectiveness of the March 2004
jihadist attacks in Madrid clearly demonstrates that explosives, pound for pound,
are far cheaper, easier to use and ultimately more efficient at killing people. The
failure by jihadists in Iraq to use chlorine effectively in their attacks also underscores the problem of effectively using improvised
chemical weapons. These cases are also illustrative of why CBRN weapons are not necessarily weapons of mass destruction
(WMD). There is an important and stark distinction between these two terms, which are too often viewed as synonymous. The
former, CBRN, is a class of devices and weapons that are used to inflict harm. The latter, WMD, is a measure of potential lethality.
The anthrax attacks in the United States in the wake of 9/11 used a CBRN agent but could hardly have been classified as attacks
utilizing WMD.
heres more ev the Bioterror risk exaggerated its just

a conspiracy
Birch 06 (Douglas -- Sun foreign correspondent--
Baltimore Sun June 18th lexis)
Despite the concern of many scientists, some bioweapons experts say the fears
are overblown. In a book last year, Assessing the Biological Weapons and
Bioterrorism Threat, Milton Leitenberg, a biowarfare expert at the University of
Maryland, College Park, wrote that the threat of bioterror "has been systematically
and deliberately exaggerated" by an "edifice" of government-funded institutes and
experts who run programs and conferences. Germ weapons need to be carefully
cultured, transported, stored and effectively disseminated , said Raymond Zilinskas,
a policy expert and biologist at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Groups like
al-Qaida and Japan's Aum Shinrikyo attempted, and abandoned, efforts to make
germ weapons because the task was too difficult.
Bioterrorism unlikely: (1) difficult to weaponize; (2)

unpredictable
Jacqueline Simon, former member, SIPRI Chemcial and Biological

Warfare Project, Implications of the Terror Attacks for the BWC,
INESAP INFORMATION BULLETIN n. 19, March 2002, pp. 4-7.
The threat posed by chemical and biological weapons has often been
misrepresented. While manufacturing chemical agents or obtaining biological
agents is not particularly difficult, it is not easy, and using these agents to cause
mass casualty is extremely difficult. In order to cause mass casualty it is necessary
to take into account the lethality of an agent, its concentration, environmental
factors, and resistance of the population. Even more difficult is to combine all of
these factors with an effective method of dispersal . All of the elements of this
equation must be mastered in order to achieve significant results. That would require
extensive resources and scientific knowledge inaccessible to most terrorists. An oftcited example of the failure of a terrorist group to achieve success with its biological
warfare projects is the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, which, despite vast funds and
experienced scientists, was unable to wage a successful biological attack. This
example also illustrates the unpredictability of biological weapons which has made
them unattractive to many militaries and terrorist organizations
Turns
Nuclear catastrophe causes a mindset shift that solves
future weapons development.
Zimmerman, 87 (Michael E. Professor of Philosophy at Newcomb.
Anthropocentric Humanism and the Arms Race
Today we are faced with facts and evidence about the nuclear arms race that counsel despair. What can an
individual do in the face of such weapons in the hands of the superpowers? Each of us is called on to do at
least this: to be willing to experience the anxiety that is the gateway to vision and declaration. Only when
we have gone through that gateway can we make the declarations that open up the realm for an
we must
be willing for the worst to occur: all-out nuclear war. We must not be
governed by fear; as long as we resist and deny the possibility of nuclear war, that possibility will
persist and grow stronger. So long as we cling to whatever exists, including the order of
things that now prevails, we cannot be open for alternatives that do not yet
exist. When enough of us choose to be open for vision, the needed shift in
human awareness may occur. Perhaps we will be able to create a world beyond
the old dichotomy of war and peace. Perhaps we will then be able to create a new game for
alternative to the given. We need to let language speak through us in a new way. Further,
humanity, one in which we fulfill our highest possibility of bearing witness to the presence of all being. In
learning to dwell in harmony with all beings, human and nonhuman, we will become mature
daughters and sons of the Earth-co-creators of the cosmic order.
Future weapons cause planetary annihilation

Langford, 79 (David, Weapons physicist at Atomic Weapons research
establishment in Aldermaston, War in 2080: The Future of Military Technology,
pp. 201-202)
So far the most appalling destruction we have properly considered has been
conveniently measurable in terms of the explosive force of TNT , one megaton
approximating an energy release of 10^18 calories (4-2 x 10^18 joules). More energy than this is released
each second by human civilization our total power consumption approaches 10^18 watts (joules per
second). On a suggested scale for measuring the energy controlled by super-civilization, a Type I
civilization is one having power on this scale available for communication or destruction. Earth doesnt
quite make it as a Type I civilization, as much of our power use is tied up and cannot be diverted into the
torrent of raw power which we might theoretically produce. This refers to continuous power-output; for
20,000 megatons-worth of nuclear weapons might be exploded in

the worst versions of World War III now conceivable and if they were all detonated in a
example, some
single second the average power-output over that time would be close on 10^20 watts. But we couldnt
The next major step up on the scale of technologies is the Type II

civilization, one able to deploy a power-output equivalent to that of a typical
star around 10^26 watts. Our own Sun releases some four times this power, continuously. Such a
civilization, if it used its available energy destructively, could manage a continuous
destructive output of one million times the intensity of the
unthinkable nuclear spasm used as an example above the equivalent of 20,000
million one-megaton bombs falling in each successive second, for as long as
necessary. If such an attack were directed against a single planet, its hard
to think that the necessary time would be very long. In this example and in
keep this up.
others to follow, the how remains obscure; if the writer knew how to acquire and manipulate these gigantic
Our own
technological expansion could take us to Type II status if unchecked. The
energies, he might by now have won the Nobel Prize and/or conquered the world.
expansion from Type I to Type II capability means an increase in available power by a factor of 10^10; at
an annual growth rate of only 5% this could be achieved in 472 years, or 242 years at 10%, or 126 years at
Such a pyramiding of compound interest demands that the growth rate

be maintained civilization must not crash through war or poverty and that
20%.
no limits are encountered.
That destroys the entire universe

Rees 3, prof astronomy Cambridge, 03 (Martin, Our Final Hour, p. 1-2)
Experiments that crash atoms together with immense force could start a
chain reaction that erodes everything on Earth; the experiments could even
tear the fabric of space itself, an ultimate Doomsday catastrophe whose
fallout spreads at the speed of light to engulf the entire universe.
High chance of detection, logistic problems and just

unlikely
Mannes 11 [Aaron, former Director of Research @ Middle East Media
Research Institute, Schelling on nuclear terrorism,
http://terrorwonk.blogspot.com/2011/09/schelling-on-nuclear-terrorism.html,
AD: 10-16-11]JN
A Nobel on Nukes Those thoughts were in the back of my mind when I attended a lecture by Nobel
Laureate in Economics and University of Maryland Professor Thomas Schelling. Uppermost in my mind
in 1982 Schelling
wrote an article stating that sooner rather then later a non-state armed group
would acquire a nuclear weapon . This became conventional wisdom, gathering steam
however, was the topic of his talk - what happened to nuclear terrorism. Back
particularly after 9/11 when we had an all too frightening demonstration of how capable and creative
terrorist groups can be. Schelling, as a towering intellectual figure, has the presence of mind to admit that
Much of the focus on nuclear terrorism is in

stealing fissile material and then constructing a weapon. This is not as easy
as it seems. He compared it to stealing a Picasso - all respectable figures in
the art community would be on the lookout for it so, as valuable as it is in
theory, it is very difficult to sell it. Moving fissile material out of a country, say
an FSU state, to a terrorist haven in Pakistan or Yemen requires traveling long
distances across many borders and languages. These barriers present multiple
opportunities for the nuclear terrorists to be detected . It is an added factor that the
it hasn't happened and wonder why.
people one is likely to interact with are extremely nasty (criminals, murderers etc.) Schelling went on to
suppose they can get the stuff, a terrorist group would need a highly
skilled team to build the device including metallurgists and engineers. There are a
limited number of loyal terrorists with needed skills and hiring people would be difficult.
speculate,
People with the requisite skills usually can earn money legitimately, might turn them in after they are
approached, and probably wouldnt want to join the project since they might just be murdered after it was
complete. Schellings analysis, tracks with my own analysis that counter-terror is the application of
Murphys Law, which emphasizes the logistics of terrorism always good to be on the same page as a
Nobel Laureate! (Thedifficulties Aum Shinrikyo faced in developed chemical and biological weapons
trucking in nuclear
material across borders might bring the group under additional intelligence
Schelling then asks what would a group do with a nuclear weapon , simply blowing
provides a telling example of the logistics of WMD terror.) I would add, that
up a city would be a waste it makes more sense for the group to seek influence.
Presumably any organization sophisticated enough to build a weapon is also
capable of strategic thought. I am not as certain of this, some terrorist groups
are very strategic in their thinking but others are eschatological. For that matter,
for some strategy and eschatology are tightly linked! Further, humiliation and revenge are key motives for
many terrorists so that simply inflicting pain and destruction may be its own end. Schelling also discussed
the difficulties in proving the possession of a weapon. Detonating one is the best proof, but a terrorist
group might only possess one. Another option is showing to experts (perhaps kidnapping them.) This is
Schelling dismisses the possibility of an insider handing a

complete nuke to a group, since it would be impossible to be certain the device was a nuclear
possible but difficult.
bomb that would work without dismantling it which would render it inoperable. Finally, Schelling argued
that a group that did possess a bomb would be wise to secrete it in an American city tell the government
it was in one of several cities and threaten to detonate it. This would create an enormous panic. But
ultimately, such a terrorist group would, Schelling argues, seek to acquire influence
and a seat at the table. Schelling doesnt mention that transporting and secreting a
nuke also has logistical challenges. It would probably be easier then acquiring the materials,
but there would still be numerous opportunities for things to go wrong . For a
related comparison, see my analysis one why a Mumbai style attack in the US would be difficult to
undertake. This summary is pretty dry, Schelling is very funny and having been deeply engaged in these
issues for decades has some illuminating anecdotes about these issues. Finally, unaddressed was the
question of a nuclear state being taken over by terrorists or a state with nuclear weapons supporting
Schelling examines the nightmare scenario of an

unaccountable terrorist group acquiring nukes and finds it unlikely . There are
many potential nuclear dangers in the world, but this one in particular, while it cannot be dismissed,
does not need to be the focus of enormous government resources.
terrorism. These are different issues.
Non-existence is preferable to existence impact turns

case.
Benatar in 97 Benatar, David (Professor of Philosophy at the University of
Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa). Why It is Better Never to Come Into
Existence. American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 34, Number 3, July
1997.
There is a common assumption in the literature about future possible people that, all things being equal,
one does no wrong by bringing into existence people whose lives will be good on balance. This assumption
rests on another, namely that being brought into existence (with decent life prospects) is a benefit (even
though not being born is not a harm). All this is assumed without argument. I wish to argue that the
Being brought into existence is not a benefit

but always a harm. Many people will find this deeply unsettling claim to be counter-intuitive and
underlying assumption is erroneous.
will wish to dismiss it. For this reason, I propose not only to defend the claim, but also to suggest why
people might be resistant to it. As a matter of empirical fact, bad things happen to all of us. No life is
without hardship. It is easy to think of the millions who live a life of poverty or of those who live much of
their lives with some disability. Some of us are lucky enough to be spared these fates, but most of us who
do nonetheless suffer ill-health at some stage during our lives. Often the suffering is excruciating, even if it
We all face death. We

pain, disappointment, anxiety,
is only in our final days. Some are condemned by nature to years of frailty.
infrequently contemplate the harms that await any new-born child:
grief and death. For any given child we cannot predict what form these harms will take or how
severe they will be, but we can be sure that at least some of them will occur. (Only the prematurely
deceased are spared some but not the last.) None of this befalls the nonexistent. Only
existers suffer harm. Of course I have not told the whole story. Not only bad things but also good things
happen only to those who exist. Pleasures, joys, and satisfaction can be had only by existers. Thus,
the
cheerful will say, we must weigh up the pleasures of life against the evils. As long as the
[pleasures] former outweigh the [pain] latter, the life is worth living.
Coming into being with such a life is, on this view, a benefit. However, this conclusion does
not follow. This is because there is a crucial difference between harms and benefits which makes
the advantages of existence over non-existence hollow but the disadvantages real. Consider pains and
pleasures as exemplars of harms and benefits. It is uncontroversial to say that: 1) the presence of pain is
bad and that 2) the presence of pleasure is good. However, such a symmetrical evaluation does not apply
the absence of pain is good, even if that

good is not enjoyed by anyone, whereas 4) the absence of pleasure is
not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a
deprivation. My view about the asymmetry between 3) and 4) is widely shared. A number of reasons
can be advanced to support this. First, this view is the best [explains] explanation for the
commonly held view that while there is a duty to avoid bringing
suffering people into existence, there is no duty to bring happy
people into being. In other words, the reason why we think that there is a duty not to
bring suffering people into existence is that [because] the presence of
this suffering would be bad (for the sufferers) and the absence of
the suffering is good (even though there is nobody to enjoy the absence of suffering) . In
contrast to this, we think that there is no duty to bring happy people into
existence because, while their pleasure would be good, its absence [of pleasure]
would not be bad (given that there would be nobody who would be
deprived of it). It might be objected that there is an alternative explanation for the view about our
to the absence of pain and pleasure, for: 3)
procreational duties, one that does not appeal to my claim about the asymmetry between 3) and 4). It
might be suggested that the reason why we have a duty to avoid bringing suffering people into being, but
not a duty to bring happy people into existence, is that we have negative duties to avoid harm, but no
corresponding positive duties to bring about happiness. Judgments about our procreational duties are thus
like judgments about all other duties. Now for those who deny that we have any positive duties, this would
indeed be an alternative explanation to the one I have provided. However, even of those who do think that
we have positive duties only a few also think that amongst these is a duty to bring happy people into
existence. For this reason, my explanation is preferable to the alternative. A
second support for my
claim about the asymmetry between 3) and 4) is that, whereas it seems strange to give as a reason for
having a child that the child one has will thereby be benefited, sometimes we do avoid bringing a child into
existence because of the potential child's interests. If having children were done for the purpose of thereby
benefiting those children, then there would be greater moral reason for at least many people to have more
children. In contrast to this, our concern for the welfare of potential children who would suffer is taken to
be a sound basis for deciding not to have the child. If absent pleasures were bad irrespective of whether
they were bad for anybody, then having children for their own sakes would not seem odd. And if it were
not the case that absent pains are good even where they are not good for anybody, then we could not say
support for my claim

can be drawn from a related asymmetry, this time in our retrospective
judgments. Bringing people into existence as well as failing to bring people into existence can be
regretted. However, only bringing people into existence can be regretted
for the sake of the person whose existence was contingent on our
decision. One might grieve about not having had children, but not
that it would be good to avoid bringing suffering children into existence. Finally,
because the children which one could have had have been deprived of existence. Remorse about not
having children
[that] is remorse for ourselves, sorrow about having missed child-bearing
and child-rearing experiences. However, we do regret having brought into existence a child with an
we do
not lament our failure to bring somebody into existence is because
absent pleasures are not bad. [] We can ascertain the relative advantages and
unhappy life, and we regret it for the child's sake, even if also for our own sakes. The reason why
disadvantages of existence and non existence in another way, still in my original matrix, but by comparing
It is good that
existers enjoy their pleasures. It is also good that pains are avoided
through non existence. However, that is only part of the picture. Because there
is nothing bad about never coming into [non-]existence, but there is
something bad about coming into existence, all things considered non-existence is
preferable.
(2) with (3) and (4) with (1). There are benefits both to existing and non-existing.
DISADVANTAGES
AT: Circumvention
Circumvention contributes to the cycle of civic ignorancethat causes authoritarianism in the name of national
security
Glennon 14 (Michael J, professor of international law at Tufts Universitys
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Legal Counsel to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee (1977-1980), Fulbright Distinguished Professor of
International and Constitutional Law, Vytautus Magnus University School of
Law, Kaunas, Lithuania (1998); a Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars in Washington D.C. (2001-2002); Thomas Hawkins
Johnson Visiting Scholar at the United States Military Academy, West Point
(2005); Director of Studies at the Hague Academy of International Law
(2006); and professeur invit at the University of Paris II (Panthon-Assas)
from 2006 to 2012., consultant to congressional committees, the U.S. State
Department, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, member of the
American Law Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Board of
Editors of the American Journal of International Law, Michael J., Torturing the
Rule of Law, http://nationalinterest.org/files/digital-edition/%5Buser-lastlogin-raw%5D/134%20Digital%20Edition.pdf, EC)
That root cause is difficult to discuss in a democracy, for it lies in the
electorates own deficiencies. This is the second great obstacle the reform proposals confront;
on this point Bagehots and Madisons theories converge. Bagehot argued that when the
public becomes too sophisticated to be misled any longer about who holds
governmental power but not informed enough to play a genuine role in
governance, the whole structure will fall to the earth, in his phrase. Madison,
contrary to popular belief, did not suggest that the system that he and his colleagues
designed was self-correcting. The Framers did not believe that merely setting ambition against
ambition within the government would by itself save the people from autocracy. They believed that
this competition for power would not occur absent an informed and
engaged public what Robert Dahl has called the adequate citizen, the
citizen able and willing to undertake the responsibilities required to make democracy work. Thomas
Jefferson spoke for many of the Framers. He said: If
a nation expects to be ignorant and

free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Competition between institutions was thus written into the constitutional architecture not as a substitute
for civic virtuethere is none but as a backstop, as an additional safeguard to forestall the rise of
autocracy. But that backstop was not freestanding: it, too, depended upon an electorate possessed of civic
In the early days of the

Republic, public-policy issues were less intricate, and the franchise was de
jure or de facto more restricted. A smaller electorate was more capable of
mastering the more straightforward issues it faced. As Louis Henkin pointed out,
virtue. If anything, the essentiality of civic virtue has grown over the years.
however, the United States has since changed gradually from a republic to a democracyan ultrademocracy, Bagehot believed. The problems government has faced over the years have become more
a greater base of civic knowledge has thus become indispensable

for responsible participation in the process of governance. Yet a cursory
glance at consistent survey results confirms what former Supreme Court
justice David Souter has described today as the publics pervasive civic
complex, and
ignorance. The numbers are sobering. A 2011 Newsweek survey showed that 80 percent of
Americans did not know who was president during World War I; 40 percent did not know whom the United
States fought in World War II; and 29 percent could not identify the current vice president of the United
Far more Americans can name the Three Stooges than any member of
the Supreme Court. One poll has found that 71 percent of Americans believe that
Iran already has nuclear weapons. In 2006, at the height of U.S. military involvement in the
States.
region, 88 percent of Americans aged eighteen to twenty-four could not find Afghanistan on a map of Asia,
Ilya Somins fine

book Democracy and Political Ignorance analyzes the problem in depth. The
and 63 percent could not find Iraq or Saudi Arabia on a map of the Middle East.
great conundrum is that the publics ignorance does not derive from stupidityaverage raw iq scores
actually have increased in recent decadesso much as it derives from simple rationality :
Why spend
time and energy learning about national-security policies that cannot be
changed? That is the nub of the negative feedback loop in which the United
States is now locked. Resuscitating the Madisonian institutions requires an
informed, engaged electorate, but voters have little incentive to be informed
or engaged if they believe that their efforts would be for naught and as they
become more uninformed and unengaged, they have all the more reason to
continue on that path. The Madisonian institutions thus continue to atrophy,
the power of the Trumanite network continues to grow and the public
continues to disengage. Should this trend continue, and there is scant
reason to believe it will not, it takes no great prescience to see what lies
ahead: outward symbols and rituals of national security governance that appear
largely the same, concealing a Trumanite network that takes on the role of a silent directorate, and
like the British monarchy and House of Lords, quietly and

gradually are transformed into museum pieces.
Madisonian institutions that,
No UQ
Obama already taking huge steps to reform surveillanceNo trigger to Disad
Miller, 14 (Greg Miller, January 17, 2014, Obama calls for significant
changes in collection of phone records of U.S. citizens, Washington Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-speech-obama-to-call-forrestructuring-of-nsas-surveillance-program/2014/01/17/e9d5a8ba-7f6e-11e395c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html )
President Obama on Friday made a forceful call to narrow the governments access to
millions of Americans phone records as part of an overhaul of surveillance activities
that have raised concerns about official overreach . The president said he no longer wants
the National Security Agency to maintain a database of such records. But he left
the creation of a new system to subordinates and lawmakers, many of whom are divided on the need for
reform. In a speech at the Justice Department ,
Obama ordered several immediate steps

to limit the NSA program that collects domestic phone records, one of the
surveillance practices that was exposed last year by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.
Campaign 2016 Email Updates Get the best analysis of the presidential race. Sign up Obama directed
that from now on, the government must obtain a court order for each phone number it wants to query in
its database of records. Analysts will be able to review phone calls that are two steps removed from a
number associated with a terrorist organization instead of three. And he ordered a halt to eavesdropping
on dozens of foreign leaders and governments that are friends or allies. The
changes, White
House officials said, mark the first significant constraints imposed by the
Obama administration on surveillance programs that expanded dramatically
in the decade after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. But the most significant change he called
for, to remove the phone database from government hands, could take months if not longer to implement.
And already critics from diverse camps in Congress and outside it are warning that what he has called
for may be unworkable. Obama's NSA speech in 3 minutes Play Video3:03 President
Obama is
proposing major changes in U.S. policy on conducting surveillance both in the
country and abroad. Here are the highlights from his speech in three minutes. (Nicki DeMarco/The
Washington Post) Obama is retaining the vast majority of intelligence programs and capabilities that
came to light over the past six months in a deluge of reports based on leaked documents.
And, there is already Circumvention in the SQ, no impacts

triggered, and proves plan needed to stop circumvention
AND UNACCOUNTABLE


No Link
Both cards specifically reference NSA and Patriot act,
have nothing to do with FBI or Informant surveillance
Link Turn
There is already Circumvention in the SQ, no impacts
triggered, and proves plan needed to stop circumvention.
AND UNACCOUNTABLE

And, their own card proves Obama wants plans to be

passed through congress, (Also turn if they run XO)
Dilanian and Parsons 14 (Ken, intelligence reporter for The Associated
Press, and Christi, White House correspondent. Obama to seek only modest
reforms in government surveillance (1/15/14), The Los Angeles Times,
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/15/nation/la-na-nsa-obama-20140116)
WASHINGTON President Obama plans to announce new guidelines for government surveillance
operations but will not end or order strict limits on the most controversial domestic programs exposed by
former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, including the bulk collection of American
telephone records. White House aides said reforms proved far more difficult than they initially appeared,
Obama has struggled to find middle ground between those who warn that
government surveillance is excessive and could lead to abuses and national
security officials who contend that the programs are critical for counterterrorism and already have passed congressional and judicial review. In a widely
anticipated speech on Friday, Obama will seek to boost public confidence in the
government's ability to safeguard privacy even as he leaves most current
surveillance programs intact with only modest modifications. He thus is
and
expected to say that although the NSA's bulk collection of domestic telephone toll records can't continue in
its present form, he will not propose requiring telephone companies or another entity to maintain longterm storage of the so-called metadata numbers called but not the conversations to replace the NSA
database, as a presidential task force has recommended. PHOTOS: Politics in 2014 The president instead
He doesn't want to be "hasty" about

radically revising a program that top intelligence officials consider
valuable, said one advisor. Moreover, legislation almost certainly would be
will ask Congress to craft a solution, aides said.
required to revamp the current system, which Congress previously

approved. "He will say, 'The program has to change. Over to you,
Congress,'" said a senior intelligence official who has been briefed on the decisions and who insisted
on anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the president's deliberations.
Lawmakers are
divided on whether or how to change the NSA program , making any major
adjustments unlikely in the short term. But the provision in the law that authorizes the program, Section
215 of the Patriot Act, is up for renewal in 2015, and that could provide a platform for review. Obama's
posture is likely to deeply disappoint privacy activists and their allies in Congress who argue that the bulk
collection program violates civil liberties and contains too much private data on Americans. But Obama has
never felt that way, and supported the program both as a senator and as president. It's possible that
Obama may yet adjust his views. Some of his top staffers said Wednesday they were not sure exactly how
he wanted to proceed. He still hasn't nailed down some details of his speech and, though they know he will
"Metadata may be the most

challenging part," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Having all that information at your fingertips can be helpful.... But trying to
invent an alternative [to direct NSA control] is tricky." Durbin said Obama didn't
limit metadata collection in some way, they can't say how.
"tip his hand" when they discussed the program this week. Telephone companies don't want to become a
repository for the calling records because of potential legal liability and because they don't have an
obvious way to pay for the added work, according to aides working on the project. A third-party curator
appointed and paid by the government might struggle to prove it was independent. Intelligence officials
lobbied the White House vigorously not to make it more difficult for them to access the telephone records
when they need them. But if the government can examine the material too easily, it may not allay
concerns about who controls it. Obama has come under intense pressure to rein in government
surveillance and increase oversight since an independent panel that he appointed called last month for 46
changes to current practices. Officials say he already has decided not to support several of the key
recommendations. The president, for example, will not propose requiring a court order each time the FBI
issues a so-called national security letter, a form of administrative subpoena used to access otherwise
private customer records from telephone, banking, credit card and other companies. The FBI, which issues
more than 20,000 such subpoenas a year, has strongly opposed requiring a judge to review each one. On
Tuesday, a federal judge, John D. Bates, who was appointed to speak for the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, wrote members of Congress to warn of staunch opposition in the judiciary as well.
Obama also will not push for new restrictions on the use of data from U.S. citizens that is collected
inadvertently while the NSA is targeting foreign Internet traffic under Section 702 of surveillance law. The
task force had sought new rules to protect Americans' privacy, but intelligence agencies had opposed any
changes. The NSA vacuums up communications from servers owned by Google, Apple, Microsoft and other
U.S. technology companies, operating under a program code-named PRISM. Documents leaked by
Snowden showed the NSA could keep information inadvertently collected about Americans for up to five
years and share it with other agencies. "We feel like once this information is lawfully collected, there
should not be additional restrictions on how it is used," the senior intelligence official said. The president
will announce some changes that are likely to hearten NSA critics. He will say that senior administration
officials will play a larger role in reviewing foreign surveillance decisions, including eavesdropping on allied
foreign leaders. Snowden's disclosures that the NSA was monitoring the cellphones of leaders in Germany,
Obama also will speak in favor of creating a

way for an independent advocate to represent privacy interests in classified
hearings before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court , although he will not
specify how that should work, the senior official said. In his letter to Congress about the
views of the federal judiciary, Bates said that proposal was "unnecessary
and could prove counterproductive."
Mexico and Brazil caused an uproar abroad.
Plan will not be circumvented

Judicial Review protects against FBI circumvention as well as reduces
surveillance of Muslim communities
Stabile 2014
(Emily Stabile, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2013 Recruiting
Terrorism Informants: The Problems with Immigration Incentives and the S-6 Visa, 102 California Law
Review. 237 (2014), pages 235-276 Available at:
Greater use of the S-6 visa would ensure judicial review of government
practices by forcing the FBI to be more careful about following procedures in
recruiting and dealing with informants. Changes to the S-6 visa program that provides
material witness visas to informants with intelligence about terrorist activities could formalize the use of
immigration rewards for terrorism intelligence in ways that would benefit the FBI and potential
reduce the unnecessary and harmful surveillance of

Muslim and Middle Eastern communities. In order for the S-6 visa to become a useful tool
informants, and could help
for the FBI without compromising civil liberties, the S-6 visa must be more readily available, easier to
grant, and carefully tailored.
Extend Senate Hearing 07 from 1AC

If they are still not convinced.
1. Structural reform like the plan is able to reign in the
executive branch.
Quirk, University of British Columbia U.S. politics and
representation professor with the Phil Lind Chair, and
Bendix, Keene State College political science assistant
professor, 2015
[Paul and William, No. 68, March 2015, Secrecy and negligence: How
Congress lost control of domestic surveillance
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/02-secrecynegligence-congres-surveillance-bendix-quirk/ctibendixquirksecrecyv3.pdf,
p.1-2, accessed 7-15-15, TAP]
We describe and explain Congresss deliberative failure on phone and
Internet surveillance policy. We show that along with a lack of consistent
public concern for privacy, and the increasing tendency toward partisan
gridlock, Congresss institutional methods for dealing with secret surveillance
programs have undermined its capacity to deliberate and act effectively with
respect to those programs. Although the current political environment is
hardly conducive to addressing such problems, we discuss long-term goals for
institutional reform to enhance this capacity. We see no easy or decisive
institutional fix. But without some structural change, the prospects
look dim for maintaining significant limitations on investigatory
intrusion in an era of overwhelming concern for security.
2. Congress is willing to enforce theyve taken up the

issue of surveillance. Prefer the most recent evidence.
Yahoo News 15 Yahoo News, Byline Scott Bomboy, 2015 (USA
Freedom Act signed, so whats next for NSA spying?, Yahoo News, June 3 rd,
Available Online at http://news.yahoo.com/usa-freedom-act-signed-next-nsaspying-111450759.html, Accessed 06-08-2015)
Surveillance will certainly continue under other parts of the act and under
other government programs designed to combat terrorism. But the fight in
Congress may just be getting started.
The New York Times says that Senator Mike Lee and Senator Pat Leahy are
moving on to targeting the government program that allows e-mails older
than six months to be read by investigators. Congressional reformers may
also seek to limit the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
And there is debate in the House and Senate about other spying provisions.
Some of us dont think USA Freedom sufficiently ends bulk metadata
collection. In fact, [the government] will still contend after the act passes that
they can bulk collect all of the websites and emails and all that content, said
Representative Thomas Massie. Read it closely, its only about your phone
calls.
3. Congress is prepared to enforce surveillance legislation

debate over USA Freedom Act proves.
Buffalo News 15 Buffalo News Editorial Board, 2015 (Freedom Act
recognizes privacy rights without endangering national security, Buffalo
News, June 5th, Available Online at
http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/buffalo-news-editorials/freedom-actrecognizes-privacy-rights-without-endangering-national-security-20150605,
Accessed 06-08-2015)
The ensuing debate was appropriately loud and passionate. The main
problems with the program were determined to be its secrecy and lack of
sufficient oversight to ensure that the NSA was not overstepping its legal
bounds. The collection of metadata, itself, was also troubling, even though
the NSA wasnt listening to the content of calls. Rather the agency was
analyzing the data and attempting to match it with known or suspected
terrorist activities. In that, there may be value. The sifting of data can still
take place, as long as the NSA gets a court order to access records held by
the phone companies.
The continuing need for aggressive government action against terrorism
should, at this point, go without saying. The important point was to determine
how government surveillance should work, not whether it was needed. It was
also true, though, that the Patriot Act was passed during the post-9/11 fever
that gripped the country, including government. Nearly 14 years later, it was
time to consider the issue at least somewhat more dispassionately.
The change seems to be a plausible one, though the test of that is yet to
come. The United States has not suffered a single foreign-born terrorist attack
since 2001 and it is fair to conclude that the telephone surveillance program
may have played some role in that.
The Patriot Act escaped close scrutiny until the Snowden revelations. Thats
just one of the reasons that the USA Freedom Act needs to be closely
monitored. Congress needs to satisfy itself that the NSA and any other
agencies involved are complying with the new law, which President
Obama signed on Tuesday night, but it also needs to verify with those
agencies that the law is doing the job intended and in a way that serves the
legitimate interests of national security.
Still, its good to see that Congress was able to evaluate the Patriot Act in a
way that was inclusive of all interested parties and to produce what looks like
a workable compromise. Its what Congress is supposed to do and what
it hasnt done for far too long.
4. Congressional action on Section 215 demonstrates that

Congress has stepped up to the plate to enforce antisurveillance measures prefer the most recent evidence.
This is a sea change in behavior that will lead to
aggressive enforcement on other Executive surveillance
issues.
Buttar 15 Shahid Buttar, constitutional lawyer and executive director of
the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, 2015 (Senate Moves to Check
Executive Spying Power, The Progressive, May 27 th, Available Online at
http://progressive.org/news/2015/05/188151/senate-moves-check-executivespying-power, Accessed 06-07-2015)
A revolution came to Washington in the wee hours of Saturday morning, just
after the stroke of midnight. After 15 years of congressional deference to
mass surveillance, Congress finally took actionironically, by failing to
take actionand did its job to check and balance executive power.
On May 23, after a hard-fought congressional debate, the Senate effectively
allowed portions of the notorious Patriot Act to expire as previously
scheduled, appropriately rejecting a compromise branded as the Freedom
Act.
It is the first time Congress has meaningfully checked and balanced the
national security agencies since 2001. It will not be the last.
Where Did This Come From?
Congress approved the Patriot Act in 2001 with neither debate nor an
understanding of what it entailed. Since then, it has acceptedfrom both the
Bush and the Obama administrationssecret legal interpretations contorting
statutes into mass surveillance programs recently held illegal by a federal
appellate court, as well as lies under oath by senior officials aiming to hide
domestic spying programs from congressional and public oversight.
The American people have never gone along quietly.
During the Bush administration, years before the Edward Snowden
revelations amplified mass outrage in 2013, nearly 500 cities and eight states
issued official declarations decrying mass surveillance. Cities from Lexington,
Massachusetts to Bisbee, Arizona (including others in between like New York
City, Los Angeles and Dallas), and states as politically diverse as California
and Idaho raised their voices.
Since the Snowden revelations, Americans from coast to coast have taken
action to challenge domestic spying. We have taken action online, from online
petitions shaming the absent chair of a crucial congressional oversight
committee, to campaigns promoting mass encryption to force constitutional
compliance on the agencies technologically, despite their disdain for legal
limits. We have taken action in the streets, outside NSA headquarters, outside
the White House, at rallies on Capitol Hill and in our state legislatures. We
have fought back with music, sculpture, DJ mixes, poetry and comedy.
While the domestic phone metadata program's days may be numbered, this
drama is just beginning. Hawks may force another Senate vote on Section
215 on the eve of the phone dragnet's expiration. Beyond their desperate
effort to save the program, the Freedom Act's rejection paves the way for
further surveillance reform to address other legal authorities under which
unconstitutional and ineffective domestic spying will continue even after this
authority finally expires.
No Brink
FBI is circumventing now, Double bind: Either disad non
unique because impacts should have been triggered or no
brink and more circumvention will not lead to impacts
stated
MOSQUES EXCLUDED FROM SURVEILLANCE
John Careccia 13, Islamic Mosques: Excluded From Surveillance By
Feds, 6-17-2013, Western Journalism,
http://www.westernjournalism.com/islamic-mosques-excluded-fromsurveillance-by-feds/
Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents .
Surveillance or undercover sting operations are not allowed without
high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice
Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee
(SORC). Who makes up this body, and under what methodology do they review requests nobody
knows. The names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret. Why is it necessary to keep the
names and titles of the people who decide whether or not to protect the rest of the country from radical
Muslims, secret?
We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist

groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months
before the panels formation, the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR) teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for
allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by
hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques in
Americas second largest city. Another defeat for the politically correct imbeciles in our
government. Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration
has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown radicals inside
mosques, and disrupted dozens of plots against innocent American citizens across the United States.
Mosque surveillance going on right now- former informant

Craig Monteilhs story proves
devout facade
known as
Farouk al-Aziz,
"The FBI paid me to

The FBI
trained me
a Muslim male
," he said.

No Impacts
1. No impacts specifically given/no brink to meet impacts
2. Still whatever it is dehum outweighs, extend Montague
and Matson 83
3. Probability- There is little to no chance of impacts
happening while our impacts are 100% happening right
now
4. Magnitude- no magnitude of impacts outlined while we
have 15,000 informants and the Muslim communities
being dehumanized
Impact turn-Heg Good

(Go to Heg file for more Heg good impacts)
Nuclear weapons are actually threat multipliers in a world
without hegemony- laundry list of hotspot impacts
Varisco, PhD, Post-war Recovery Studies, 13
[Andrea Edoardo Varisco, Field Investigator at Conflict Armament Research,
PhD in Post-war Recovery Studies from the Post-war Reconstruction and
Development Unit (PRDU), University of York, Towards a Multi-Polar
International System: Which Prospects for Global Peace?, http://www.eir.info/2013/06/03/towards-a-multi-polar-international-system-whichprospects-for-global-peace/, accessed 7.2.15, AM]
The prospects
of a great power rivalry are particularly strong in East Asia, a region
characterized by weak regional alliances and institutions, in which the
economic rise of some actors could indeed represent a serious source of
instability in the near future. The decline of the US and the rise of China
could for example undermine the Asian balance of power and bring to
light the old rivalry between China and Japan (Shambaugh). A strong rising China
armed with middle range missiles could be perceived as threatening by
Japan, worried that its historical American ally could not defend it because of
US high involvement in other corners of the globe. The stability of the region
appears even more difficult to achieve considering that the concept of
balance of power requires shared common values and similar cultural
understanding, requisites that are not present between the two major
powers of the Asia Pacific region, China and Japan (Friedberg). India has
been portrayed as the third pole of the multi-polar world in 2050 (Virmani; Gupta).
Yet its constant rise could undermine Asian stability and, for example,
worsen Indian relations with its neighbor Pakistan. Moreover, the
scarcity of natural resources in a world that is consuming and demanding
a high quantity of them could have several implications on global security
and stability (Dannreuther; Kenny; Laverett and Bader). In this framework, the rise of Russia, a
country which exports large quantities of oil and gas, controls the European
provisions of energy and has had high increases in military expenditure in
the last decade could represent another potential source of instability for
the future world order. Russia has increased military spending by 16 per
cent in real terms since 2008, including a 9.3 per cent increase in 2011 (Background Paper on
Towards a Multi-Polar, Nuclear International System: Which Prospects for Global Peace?
Military Expenditures 5). Before 2008, it had increased its military expenditure by 160 per cent in a
decade, (SIPRI, SIPRI Yearbook 2008 199), accounting for 86 per cent of the total increase of 162 per cent
in military expenditure of Eastern Europe, the region of the world with the highest increment in military
the control of the gas

prices in Europe and the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization in Central and Western Europe have already been causes of
tension between Russia and the West. The possibility to exploit and
supply a large amount of natural resources, the growth of its military power
and divergences with the US in some foreign policy issues, such as the
expenditure from 1998 to 2007 (SIPRI, SIPRI Yearbook 2008 177). Moreover,
Iranian nuclear program or the status of Kosovo, indicate that the stability of
the future multi-polar world could be seriously undermined by a
resurgent Russia (Arbatov; Goldman; Trenin; Wallander). A return to multi-polarity will
therefore imply more instability among great powers. But great power
rivalry will not be the only source of possible instability for the future multipolar world. The current distribution of power allows not only great powers
but also middle, small powers and non-state actors to have military
capabilities that could threaten the global security. In particular, the presence
of nuclear weapons constitutes a further reason of concern and implies that
the future world could carry not only the potential instability of multi-polarity
and great powers rivalry, but also the dangers entailed in nuclear
proliferation. The future multi-polar world will thus be potentially more
unstable than all the other multi-polar periods history has experienced until
nowadays: for the first time in history, the world could become both multipolar and nuclear. While some scholars argue that nuclear deterrence
could reduce the war-proneness of the coming multi-polar system (Layne, 4445), the majority of them consider the presence of nuclear weapons as a
source of instability (McNamara; Rosen; Allison). In particular, regional powers and
states that are not great powers armed with nuclear capabilities could
represent a cause of concern for global security. A nuclear Iran could for
example attack or be attacked by Israel and easily involve in this war
the rest of the world (Sultan; Huntley). A war between Pakistan and India, both
nuclear states, could result in an Armageddon for the whole Asia. An
attack from the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Japan or
South Korea will trigger an immediate reaction from the US and a nuclear
proliferation domino effect in East Asia (Huntley, 725). Terrorists armed with
nuclear weapons could wreak havoc and target the heart of the most
powerful countries of the world (Bunn and Wier). Iran, Pakistan, DPRK, terrorist groups
will rarely be great powers or poles in a future multi-polar world. Nevertheless, the effects
of their actions could easily reverberate all over the globe and represent
another cause of potential instability. For the first time in history, the stability
of the future world will therefore depend not only on the unpredictable effects
of the rivalry among great powers, but also on the dangerous potential
of middle and small powers and non-state actors armed with nuclear
weapons.
AT: TPP
SEARCH TPP answers Full File
Also Normal politics answers
Pharma Turn
Low protectionism now means TPA wont change tariffs
enough to impact trade- passage guts the US economy
and locks in big pharma, killing generic sales
Reich 1/6/15 (Robert-, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of public
policy at the University of California at Berkeley) Why the Trans-Pacific
partnership agreement is a pending disaster
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2015/0106/Why-the-TransPacific-partnership-agreement-is-a-pending-disaster
Republicans who now run Congress say they want to cooperate with President Obama, and point to the
TPP would
be a disaster. If you havent heard much about the TPP, thats part of the problem right there. It
would be the largest trade deal in history involving countries stretching from Chile to
Japan, representing 792 million people and accounting for 40 percent of the world
economy yet its been devised in secret. Lobbyists from Americas biggest corporations and Wall
administrations Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, as the model. The only problem is the
Streets biggest banks have been involved but not the American public. Thats a recipe for fatter profits
and bigger paychecks at the top, but not a good deal for most of us, or even for most of the rest of the
world. First some background. We used to think about trade policy as a choice between free trade and
protectionism. Free trade meant opening our borders to products made elsewhere. Protectionism meant
putting up tariffs and quotas to keep them out. In the decades after World War II, America chose free trade.
The idea was that each country would specialize in goods it produced best and at least cost. That way,
living standards would rise here and abroad. New jobs would be created to take the place of jobs that were
lost. And communism would be contained. For three decades, free trade worked. It was a win-win-win. But
in more recent decades the choice has become far more complicated and the
payoff from trade agreements more skewed to those at the top. Tariffs are
already low. Negotiations now involve such things as intellectual property,
financial regulations, labor laws, and rules for health, safety, and the
environment. Its no longer free trade versus protectionism. Big
corporations and Wall Street want some of both. They want more international
protection when it comes to their intellectual property and other assets. So theyve been
seeking trade rules that secure and extend their patents, trademarks, and
copyrights abroad, and protect their global franchise agreements, securities,
and loans. But they want less protection of consumers, workers, small
investors, and the environment, because these interfere with their profits . So
theyve been seeking trade rules that allow them to override these protections. Not surprisingly for a deal
TPP provides exactly

this mix. Whats been leaked about it so far reveals, for example, that the pharmaceutical
industry gets stronger patent protections, delaying cheaper generic versions of
drugs. That will be a good deal for Big Pharma but not necessarily for the inhabitants of
developing nations who wont get certain life-saving drugs at a cost they can afford. The TPP
also gives global corporations an international tribunal of private attorneys ,
outside any nations legal system, who can order compensation for any unjust
expropriation of foreign assets. Even better for global companies, the tribunal can order
thats been drafted mostly by corporate and Wall Street lobbyists, the
compensation for any lost profits found to result from a nations regulations. Philip Morris is using a similar
provision against Uruguay (the provision appears in a bilateral trade treaty between Uruguay and
Switzerland), claiming that Uruguays strong anti-smoking regulations unfairly diminish the companys
profits. Anyone believing the TPP is good for Americans take note: The foreign subsidiaries of U.S.-based
corporations could just as easily challenge any U.S. government regulation they claim unfairly diminishes
their profits say, a regulation protecting American consumers from unsafe products or unhealthy foods,
investors from fraudulent securities or predatory lending, workers from unsafe working conditions,
The
administration says the trade deal will boost U.S. exports in the fast-growing Pacific
taxpayers from another bailout of Wall Street, or the environment from toxic emissions.
basin where the United States faces growing economic competition from China. The TPP is part of Obamas
But the deal will also allow

American corporations to outsource even more jobs abroad. In other words, the
TPP is a Trojan horse in a global race to the bottom, giving big
corporations and Wall Street banks a way to eliminate any and all laws and
regulations that get in the way of their profits. At a time when corporate profits are at
strategy to contain Chinas economic and strategic prowess. Fine.
record highs and the real median wage is lower than its been in four decades, most Americans need
protection not from international trade but from the political power of large corporations and Wall Street.
The Trans Pacific Partnership is the wrong remedy to the wrong problem. Any way you look at it, its just
plain wrong.
Collapsing patent revenue incentivizes new business

models encourages outreach to emerging markets,
crucial to solve infectious disease
Bennett 14 (Shannon, member of the Thomson Reuters API Intelligence
team, http://lsconnect.thomsonreuters.com/author/shannonbennett/#sthash.9kuO5xdy.dpuf, Current Trends in the Pharmaceutical
Industry: Emerging Markets, 10-28-14)
One of the largest pharmaceutical trade shows, CPhI Worldwide, recently concluded in Paris. The
event brought together companies from an expanse of geographical regions and played host to countless
meetings where industry professionals worked to identify potential suppliers, partners and opportunities
for growth. Much of the discussion and presentations during the event focused on the increasingly
globalized industry, and new markets presenting interesting opportunities. As the industry evolves in the
wake of the patent cliff, and small molecule opportunities in mature markets wane, more companies are
Business models for both innovators and

generics are changing; strategic partnering and outsourcing for specific capabilities
are becoming integral decisions as firms strive to gain or maintain a
competitive edge. There has been an increase in the presence of
scouting emerging markets for prospects.
companies exhibiting from
Latin America, Africa, Russia, Middle
East and South East Asia. These regions with large, thriving populations
and increasing personal wealth are at the forefront of strategic planning for
many companies. The potential for novel research and development programs as well as large
populations of treatment-naive candidates for clinical trials command the attention of innovators.
These
regions, excluding Russia, are comprised of a number of countries with
separate governments, laws and regulations; navigating the requirements of
each country can be cumbersome. Many of these emerging regions are heavily
dependent on the importation of medicines, and while various governments are enacting
legislation encouraging and even requiring local manufacturing, the challenges in many areas
continue to dissuade many companies from fully investing. Pharmaceutical
Meanwhile, expanded sales and marketing opportunities appeal to the industry as a whole.
companies assessing the potential and challenges of these markets may find partnering with local
manufacturers a successful option. Partnering for marketing, manufacturing or product licensing is a
strategy a number of foreign companies have used to enter emerging markets allowing entrance without a
tremendous amount of financial gambling. Partnering with local companies can offer value through
familiarity with regulatory requirements, and governmental policies; as well as aid in market access
through distribution to an existing customer network and knowledge of cultural aspects of the customer
base. These partnerships can also offer insight into the deeper challenges of succeeding in that particular
Companies entering emerging markets must evaluate not only their

potential return on investment but also the populations they will be serving .
market.
Companies may find their pricing structure incompatible with these markets as middle class income,
affordability of medicines and healthcare have different definitions in developing economies than in more
While many emerging markets are looking to strengthen access

to essential medicines and fight infectious disease, the mature markets
are seeing business models changing. Western medical treatments are becoming
increasingly specialized, personalized, and targeted to specific therapies. The shift in drug
portfolios has impacted not only the innovation landscape, but also the
generic drug and the active ingredient landscape . Understanding how these shifts will
mature markets.
impact business strategies, partnerships, and potential competition is critical for any companys long term
growth and success.
Disease spread causes extinction.

Keating, Foreign Policy Web Editor, 2009
(Joshua, The End of the World, 11-13,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/13/the_end_of_the_world?
page=full)
Throughout history, plagues have brought civilizations to their

knees. The Black Death killed more off more than half of Europe's population
in the Middle Ages. In 1918, a flu pandemic killed an estimated 50 million people, nearly 3 percent of the
world's population, a far greater impact than the just-concluded World War I. Because of globalization,
diseases today spread even faster - witness the rapid worldwide spread of H1N1 currently
unfolding. A global outbreak of a disease such as ebola virus -- which has had a 90
percent fatality rate during its flare-ups in rural Africa -- or a mutated drugresistant form of the flu virus on a global scale could have a devastating,
even civilization-ending impact .How likely is it? Treatment of deadly diseases has
improved since 1918, but so have the diseases. Modern industrial farming techniques have been
blamed for the outbreak of diseases, such as swine flu, and as the worlds population grows and
humans move into previously unoccupied areas, the risk of exposure to
previously unknown pathogens increases . More than 40 new viruses have emerged since the
How it could happen:
1970s, including ebola and HIV. Biological weapons experimentation has added a new and just as troubling complication.
Offshoring
TPP devastates trade and growth ensures rapid
offshoring
Hiltzik 2-7-15 (Michael, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, author of five
books, 'Free trade' isn't what Trans-Pacific Partnership would deliver,
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20150206column.html#page=1, CMR)
In principle, almost everyone's in favor of free trade. It promotes international harmony, raises wages,
helps economies grow. It's an article of historical faith that the enactment of harsh protective U.S. tariffs in
1930 contributed to the Great Depression. And who wants that? But " free
with
trade" has little to do
the trade deal that President Obama hopes will be a high-water mark for his administration's
foreign policy: the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks, which now involve the U.S. and 11 Pacific Rim
countries Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and
Vietnam. The pact which has been under negotiation virtually since the turn of the century is in
trouble on Capitol Hill, where its enemies include conservatives and liberals. The overall problem may be
TPP, as it's known in shorthand, has become a symbol of everything that's

wrong with free trade agreements today. The pact is being negotiated in
secret, although U.S. trade negotiators have given big industries nice long
looks behind the curtain. The White House is demanding "fast-track" approval from Congress,
which limits the say lawmakers will have and requires them to ratify in haste .
that the
And public interest advocates say it could undermine rules and regulations governing the environment,
health, intellectual property and financial markets (to name only a few topics). " Most
of these
provisions have nothing to do with trade or jobs ," says liberal economist Joseph
Stiglitz, a leading critic of the deal and the secrecy of the talks . On the other side
of the argument is the trade pact's potential to foster economic growth and job creation " 650,000
jobs in the U.S. alone," as Secretary of State John F. Kerry asserted last month. But that
widely challenged figure is extrapolated from a 2012 report by the
Peterson Institute of International Economics, which didn't offer a jobs estimate. In
fact, the report said the TPP might dislocate workers and drive older people
out of the workforce and that any benefits might be canceled out by the
resulting costs to workers and society. Evidence from earlier trade pacts ,
including the North American Free Trade Agreement, suggests that the benefits for
developing countries among the treaty signatories are similarly oversold. "Trade
liberalization on average has not brought economic growth for emerging
economies," Stiglitz said. "The idea that it's necessarily mutually beneficial is just
wrong." Doubts about the TPP fall into three main categories. Overreach. Domestic policies and
regulations shouldn't be treated as trade barriers subject to international
negotiation, such as patent and copyright terms, wage and working
conditions, even environmental regulations. But provisions in the TPP would protect brand-name
pharmaceuticals from competition from generics in developing countries, forcing up the cost of healthcare,
and would impose the overly strict copyright terms of the U.S., where copyright lasts 70 years after the
trade
pact will encourage a race to the bottom, favoring the most business-friendly
death of a copyright holder, on signatory countries. Critics fear that bringing such issues into a
regulations. "Some of these provisions roll back important public interest policies on issues like food safety,
product safety and access to drugs," says Lori Wallach, the global trade watchdog at the public interest
organization Public Citizen. "This
is diplomatic legislating on things that affect our
day-to-day lives that have nothing to do with trade ." Especially worrisome is a
procedure allowing corporations to file claims in arbitration courts against sovereign countries over
changes in their laws and regulations. As is the case in some previous trade agreements, commercial
interests will be able to seek compensation for "injuries" from anything from minimum-wage increases to
environmental and health regulations. Mexican truckers filed a $30-billion case objecting to safety and
environmental rules on U.S. roads; Eli Lilly & Co. is seeking $481 million from Canada for its invalidation of
Lilly patents on several drugs; and Philip Morris has sued Australia because its rule requiring plain
packaging for cigarettes deprives the company of its property rights in trademarks and logos. Even
conservatives who otherwise favor the TPP detest this provision. The Cato Institute has urged that it be
By giving special privileges to corporations operating

abroad, Cato said, the provision allows them to undermine domestic sovereignty
and "effectively encourages outsourcing." Secrecy. U.S. Trade Representative
Michael Froman, who is conducting the talks, has been stingy with the text, critics say, out
of fear of public nitpicking. Most of what the public knows of the TPP's drafts and
the U.S. negotiating position has come via Wikileaks . Froman told the House Ways and
"purged" from the pact.
Means Committee last month that he has taken "unprecedented steps to increase transparency" by
disclosure has been

nowhere near adequate. In 2012, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) was so frustrated at being stonewalled
keeping Congress and the public in the loop, but most observers say
by the USTR that he introduced a bill requiring that all lawmakers with oversight on trade policy be given
access to key documents. "Fast-tracking." Fast-tracking allows the administration to present Congress
with a completed trade pact, which lawmakers must vote up or down within 90 days, without amendments
and with limited debate and no filibustering in the Senate. The
White House argues that fast-
tracking allows negotiators to reassure trade partners that "the administration and Congress are on the
same page," as Froman told the House Ways and Means Committee. The system " puts Congress in
the driver's seat," he said, because the lawmakers can "define U.S. negotiating objectives and
priorities." But the opposite is true: The congressional directives aren't binding ,
and the result can be jammed through the House and Senate . GOP leaders such as
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul D.
Ryan (R-Wis.) favor fast-tracking, but opposition is growing from conservative Republicans and progressive
fast-tracking encourages the overreach that

makes the TPP so much more than a trade pact, and so dangerous. If fast-tracking is
turned down, the TPP will have to be widely published and openly debated,
says Public Citizen's Wallach. "That will bring out all the skunks that have been invited
to the secret picnic," she says. "Some of these things that should never have
been in that agreement in the first place aren't going to fare very well when they're
exposed to sunshine. And that's good."
Democrats alike. Combined with secrecy,
That guts US military power and causes terrorism

*offshorings the key internal link
Hira 8 PhD [Ron, recognized expert on outsourcing, Anil Hira, specialist in
international econ development and innovation issues, Outsourcing
America, page number below]
The stakes are enormous, not just for our economic future
Without good, high-paying jobs there are
no tax revenues to fund our education, health, infrastructure, and social
security systems. Economists want to claim dogmatically that workers will simply retrain for other
jobs, but where are those jobs going to come from? Retraining has never proven itself
reliable. More important, can an outsourced IT worker or engineer, who has been forced to train her
The Potential Impacts Are Far-Reaching
but also for ail other aspects of our quality of life.
overseas replacement, find comparable work with comparable salary to support her family and pay for her
kids' education? The answer is clearly not, as the growing multitude of devastated, overqualified workers
Its potential impact is not only on our

quality of life but also on our national competitiveness and national security .
Our competitive edgethe reason, until now, America has been the beacon for immigrants to
come and achieve the American Dreamhas been our ability to create new high-wage
jobs. And a good part of that job creation has been in technology, with government and private support
for developing the most highly skilled workforce and the most innovative products. The IT, the
aerospace, and the biotechnology industries, to name a few, depend on a careful
partnership among publicly funded research, our leading-edge universities,
the private sector, and the most productive workers in the world. Outsourcing
is taking away the workforce that has been a key part of our winning
formula. Once we lose the high-tech jobs, then why would our most capable
minds study engineering, computer science, biotech nology, or any of the other
promising fields that will create national competitiveness in the future?
has been crying out. Outsourcing is not just about jobs.
Already we are seeing record unemployment rates in these occupations and a major drop in enrollments in
our national security is based in

large part on this technological edge. Our soldiers depend upon a solid core
of engineers, computer technicians, and research and development scientists
to provide the equipment and logistical support that protect our country.
Now that terrorist forces are using technology , including the Internet and high-tech
communications equipment, we need to maintain the national capability to stay
ahead of their technological knowledge. If we allow outsourcing to wipe out
our base of technical workers, we will leave the nation vulnerable to
foreign powers, much as unhappy consumers have found their personal, medical, and tax
these fields, in good part owing to outsourcingMoreover,
information in the hands of overseas computer technicians.<8-9>
Nuclear war
Khalilzad 11 Zalmay Khalilzad was the United States ambassador to
Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W.
Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department from
1990 to 1992, The Economy and National Security, 2-8-11,
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/259024, CMR
the longest period of peace among the great
powers has been the era of U.S. leadership . By contrast, multi-polar systems
have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises
and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international
systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating
consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could
rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats . Under this scenario,
there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises
spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the
stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from
the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make
aggressive moves in their regions.
The stakes are high. In modern history,
Internet Freedom
TPP crushes internet freedom (Sneak In so they miss it)
Frankel 6/18 (Judy, Founder and CEO, Writeindependent.org, What Is the
Trans Pacific Partnership?, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judyfrankel/what-is-the-trans-pacific_b_7594950.html, CMR)
8. Internet Freedom - The TPP imposes similar restrictions to SOPA (The Stop
Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act). Currently, if you download a
recipe from a website and print it, it's free. But if the TPP passes, then you
may be assessed a fine of up to ten thousand dollars for violating copyright
laws. The folks who are crafting the TPP say they won't do this, but they've
already lifted language from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) that
lays the groundwork for collecting data from individuals sufficient to bill and
prosecute Internet users later for use of material. The Electronic Frontier
Foundation states that the TPP legislation "is likely to further entrench
controversial aspects of U.S. copyright law [such as the DCMA] and restrict
the ability of Congress to engage in domestic law reform to meet the evolving
IP needs of American citizens and the innovative technology sector." The TPP
opens the door to set up policies that:
a. Ban you from Internet use if you violate copyright, which will be set at 120
years by the TPP.
b. Require you to have your blogs or content filtered by an Internet
intermediary for possible copyright infringement.
c. Block websites if they might be infringing on copyright.
d. Force Internet Service Providers to hand over your identity should you
infringe on someone's copyright.
2AC Human Rights

TPP overlooks human rights- and the public doesnt know
it.
Masnick, July 13, 2015 (Mike, American editor and entrepreneur. He is the
CEO and founder of Techdirt, a weblog that focuses on technology news and
tech-related issues. Masnick is also the founder and CEO of the company
Floor64 and a contributor at BusinessWeek's Business Exchange. Before
founding Floor64, Masnick worked in business development and marketing at
Release Software, an e-commerce startup, and in marketing at Intel. He has a
bachelor's degree in Industrial and Labor Relations and an MBA, both
from Cornell University. White House So Desperate To Get TPP Approved, It
Agrees To Whitewash Mass Graves & Human Trafficking In Malaysia, 7/14,
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150713/07085031625/white-house-sodesperate-to-get-tpp-approved-it-agrees-to-whitewash-mass-graves-humantrafficking-malaysia.shtml)
At the end of last month,
Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), better known as

"fast track" for various trade agreements, was approved after a series of back
and forth procedural moves by Congress. This means that Congress no longer has the
(Constitutionally-provided) power to have a say in the trade deals the
administration is creating, other than a single up-or-down vote when
everything is set in stone. There was, however, one tiny poison pill that Senator Bob
Menendez supposedly hid in the TPA concerning the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)
agreement. And that was that it could not be used if the trade agreement
included countries that were listed as a "tier 3 nation" by the State
Department when it comes to human rights violations. Malaysia, one of
the countries that is a part of the TPP, has been designated a "tier 3
nation" by the State Department for a while now, due to serious human trafficking problems. Some
trade deal supporters in Congress tried to quietly remove this provision, but failed. And that left a big
Malaysia-shaped problem in front of the TPP. But, the Obama administration is nothing if not
resourceful in trying to make sure the TPP gets approved and big corporations get their expanded power
just decided to upgrade Malaysia from

a tier 3 country to a tier 2 country. Because it could. Not because of
anything done by Malaysia to improve its record on human trafficking.
over national governments around the globe. It
But because it was politically necessary. The details are simply nauseating: There is essentially zero
Just two months

ago, police found 139 mass graves along the Malaysian border that
contained migrant workers that had been trafficked or held for ransom.
evidence Malaysia has done anything to earn this reclassification.
Since the 2014 TIP report, Malaysia has actually convicted fewer smugglers. As recently as mid-April, the
US ambassador to Malaysia publicly criticized the government there for not doing more to combat
trafficking. Also sketchy: the State Department's report was actually due out last month, but was
mysteriously delayed until after the whole mess with fast track was concluded. It's almost like the State
Department chose to wait until it saw whether or not this provision was included to determine what
Malaysia's status would be. And if you want further evidence that this late decision to magically upgrade
Malaysia to tier 2 wasn't in the cards originally, how about this: Menendezs office said Friday that an
interim report was delivered to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March on Tier 2 countries only,
and Malaysia was not included. In short, the State Department does not really think that Malaysia has
improved its terrible record on human trafficking. It did not think so in March when it released an interim
report. And then it made the political decision to hold off on releasing its June report until the middle of July
to see how the fast track path proceeded. Finally, rather than take this tool and use it force Malaysia to
actually improve things, it gave the country a total free pass, just for the sake of finalizing TPP. I don't care
where you stand on the various other provisions of the TPP, but this sort of cynical move -- where
real
lives are at stake -- is horrifying. And it shows the "who gives a fuck, get it done" attitude of our
government right now. This isn't a theoretical issue. This is one where it's clear
that people right now are being harmed, and rather than do anything
about it, the government has deliberately chosen to turn a blind eye to
the problem just so it can get this questionable trade deal passed. This,
of course, also is likely to confirm the fears of many who were opposed to the TPP all along. The Obama
administration and US Trade Rep Michael Froman keep insisting that the TPP has a number of features to
help raise labor standards in various countries. Yet, if they're happily willing to not just look the other way
over Malaysia's human trafficking, but to actively whitewash it, what does that say for the seriousness with
which it will enforce any labor practice rules?
Democracy
TPP bad for workers and democracy
Gautney, April 5, 2015 (Heather, an associate professor of sociology at Fordham University. She is
author of Protest and Organization in the Alternative Globalization Era (Palgrave Macmillan) and a former
legislative fellow in the Office of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership is Bad
for Workers, and for Democracy 7/14, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-gautney/why-thetranspacific-part_1_b_6598604.html)
Over the past few months, protests have erupted in the halls of the U.S. Capital, and in the streets outside,
to thwart the passing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)--a boon to corporate interests, the protesters
argue, and an anathema to U.S workers.
The TPP is a pending trade agreement that brings together

12 countries along the Pacific Rim, in what would be the world's largest free trade
area, accounting for 40 percent of the global economy. After five years
of negotiations, intense lobbying, and heated debate, the agreement is nearing the finish line, with
finalization possible by the end of 2015. President Obama has positioned the TPP as a signature
achievement of his administration. During the 2015 State of the Union, he stressed the importance being
economically out front in the Asia Pacific, and promised that the TPP would create more and better jobs,
and benefit small business. He also asked for increased executive authority: "I'm asking both parties to
give me trade promotion authority to protect American workers," he said, "with strong new trade deals
from Asia to Europe that aren't just free, but fair." This means that the President would negotiate and sign
the TPP without formal congressional input until after the fact, and even then, members could not offer
amendments. The TPP aims to increase commerce and investment through reducing trade barriers among
participating countries. Such barriers typically include import tariffs, but also environmental and labor
regulations, known as "nontariff barriers to trade," or NBTs. Economists vary widely in their assessments of
the TPP, but there's general agreement across ideological stripes that tariffs are already low. In fact, some
reports claim that only five of the 29 draft chapters in the agreement actually relate to lowering tariffs.
The protest-worthy part of the deal regards the NBTs--the reduction of

regulatory measures, and "freeing" of market activity, in the
name of standardizing rules and lowering costs. Free market
trade liberalization efforts like the TPP are not new. In the 1970s and
80s, catchphrases like "trickle-down economics" and the
"Washington Consensus" named the series of policy prescriptions
pushed by supranationals like the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund (IMF) that combined trade liberalization with
privatization and deregulation schemes, and fiscal austerity,
under the rubric of structural adjustment. As economic crisis left
much of the developing world in dire straights, IMF and World
Bank debt programs helped pry open their markets for foreign
investment, undermining indigenous industries and placing them
in a sisyphean struggle against default. In some cases, like Chile, it was not the
IMF that brought free markets, but the iron fist of dictators like Augusto Pinochet, in collusion with U.S.
corporate and political leadership, and laissez faire economists like Milton Friedman. Critics of the
reference the failures of NAFTA,
TPP
which was first conceived during this period by the
original champion of trickle-down, Ronald Reagan. Leading up to the 1994 elections, NAFTA garnered
bipartisan support, but lone wolf, Independent candidate Ross Perot warned of the "giant sucking sound"
that America would hear if NAFTA passed and American jobs were drawn south. Global Trade Watch's
assessment of NAFTA's "20 year legacy" demonstrates just how right Perot was .
one million jobs have been lost to NAFTA.
An estimated
It's put downward pressure on wages,
and exacerbated America's income gap. And while pre-NAFTA, the U.S carried a trade surplus with Mexico,
and was just $26 billion in the hole with Canada--as of 2014, we had a combined trade deficit with both
The TPP repeats many of NAFTA's mistakes, as

well as those of other bilateral trade treaties, like the Permanent
Normal Trade Relations with China, which cost some 2.7 million
U.S. jobs, and the Korea Free Trade Agreement, which failed to deliver the 70,000 jobs its brokers
promised. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that under the TPP
we stand to lose more than 130,000 jobs to Vietnam and Japan
alone, with American workers having to compete with their
counterparts in Vietnam, where the minimum wage is just 56
cents an hour. It's not just jobs and trade deficits, however. The TPP also threatens
Internet freedoms and civil liberties, collective bargaining rights,
public and environmental health, food safety, financial stability-and American democracy. The closed-door nature of the
negotiation process has positioned Congress and the American
people as passive recipients of public policy, rather than agents
of it - and left us out of decision-making processes that will have broad and deep implications in our
everyday lives. Meanwhile, 500-plus corporations have been seated at the
TPP negotiation table from the start. The good news is that some lawmakers, union
countries of $177 billon.
leaders, and grassroots activists are voicing their opposition. Because of WikiLeaks, public advocates and
journalists have been able to assess contradictions between what Executive leadership has disclosed about
the TPP and what's actually in the agreement. Progressive Senators like Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.) have written letters to the U.S. Trade Representative in protest against the secret
negotiation process, and the TPP's adverse effects on financial regulation. Sanders has also said that he
would introduce legislation to require disclosure of all future trade agreement negotiations. Street protests
are also gearing up, echoing the large-scale demonstrations in Seattle against the World Trade
Organization in the late 90s. These spurred a global movement against corporate-driven globalization, and
for "fair" as opposed to "free" trade, spanning many of the environmental, health, and labor concerns that
the TPP is now raising. In Latin America, particularly hard hit by structural adjustment, a regional trade
alliance emerged among leftwing countries in opposition to Bill Clinton's Free Trade Area of the Americas.
The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, or "ALBA," now accounts for over 10 percent of
Latin America and the Caribbean's GDP and has produced a broad range of social and economic programs,
from literacy and hunger relief to health and medical interventions and oil-trading, as well as telecom
initiatives like TeleSur. In a radical departure from U.S.-brokered trade agreements, ALBA emphasizes
public, rather than private ownership, domestic development over exports, and cooperation over
competition. Progressive regional partnerships like ALBA may not provide an immediate answer to our TPP
troubles, especially given Venezuela's current instability. But they do suggest more people-centered values
for shaping the global economy over the long haul. In the meantime, the vote to fast-track the TPP is
Let's learn our lessons from NAFTA, and avoid the "giant
sucking sound" of fleeting jobs, and basic human freedoms, that's
looming over the Pacific.
coming soon.
Econ/Manufacturing
TPP is a corporate sell-out collapse the economy and
manufacturing
Beachy 14 (Ben Beachy is Research Director with Public Citizen's Global
Trade Watch, former research fellow with Tufts University's Global
Development and Environment Institute, investment analyst for the Tellus
Institute in Boston, agriculture researcher for ActionAid in India and labor
rights investigator for the Worker Rights Consortium in Central America, B.A.
from Goshen College and a Master in Public Policy from Harvard's Kennedy
School of Government, The Rising Use of the Trade Pact Sales Pitch of Last
Resort: TPP Foreign Policy Arguments Mimic False Claims Made for Past
Deals, April, http://www.citizen.org/documents/TPP-foreign-policy.pdf, CMR)
TPP rules
would undermine U.S. national interests by increasing income inequality here ;
raising medicine , natural gas and electricity prices ; jeopardizing financial stability and
further gutting the U.S. manufacturing base that is essential for our national
security and domestic infrastructure. T he TPP is not some pre - ordained extension of the
Missing in this distorted us versus them narrative is the reality that many of the draft
U.S. Constitution that inherently reflects American values, as Biden suggests . T he current terms of the
TPP are just one version of possible rules for Pacific Rim countries one written largely at the behest of
TPP text was crafted in a closed

- door process that granted privileged access to more than 600 official U.S. trade
advisors, most of them explicitly representing corporations. 26 It is little surprise then that
U.S. corporate interests, not broader national interests. The draft
leaked TPP terms include new monopoly patent rig hts for pharmaceutical companies that would increase
healthcare costs, limits on efforts to reregulate Wall Street, a deregulation of U.S. gas expor ts that could
maximalist copyright terms that

could thwart innovation and restrict Internet freedom , new investor protections that
incentivize offshoring and more. T he draft TPP rules not only jeopardize U.S. domestic priorities ,
but threaten to undermine U.S. interests abroad by weakening U.S. allies . The
pact , for example, would bar TPP countries from enacting capital controls,
endorsed by the International Monetary Fund as legitimate policy tools for
preventing or mitigating financial crises. 27 It does not serve U.S. economic
interest s to forbid TPP countries from using common - sense macroprudential
measures . Financial crises in TPP countries with strong U.S. economic ties (e.g.
Mexico) or financial linkages (e.g. Canada and Japan ) could have a boomerang
effect at home. And it does not serve U.S. political interests to insist on rules that would
expose our Pacific Rim allies to greater potential for financial instability . A wave of
increase domestic energy prices for industry and consumers ,
anti - American sentiment accompanied the 1997 Asian financial crisis even absent the United States
directly imposing such limits on financial stability measures. It is because the
TPP would lock into
place many harmful non - trade policies
that many congressional Democrats and much of the

Obama administrations political base oppose the pact. 28 Th e opposition includes organizations that have
never engaged in a trade debate before, but see their non - trade policy goals as being undermined by
economists that have supported past agreements that actually

Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have recently raised warnings
about the significant threats that the TPPs non - trade rules would pose to U.S.
interests. In a February 2014 op - ed in The New York Times , Krugman writes : I am in general a free
the TPPs sweeping rules. Similarly ,
focused on trade l ike Joseph
trader , but Ill be undismayed and e ven a bit relieved if the TPP just fades away... What the TPP would
do ... is increase the ability of certain corporations to assert control over intellectual property. Again, think
drug patents and movie rights. Is this a good thing from a global point of view? Doubtful. The kind of
property rights were talking about here can alternatively be described as legal monopolies...Now, the
corporations benefiting from enhanced control over intellectual property would often be American. But t
his doesnt mean that the TPP is in our national interest. Whats good for Big Pharma is by no means
always good for America. 29 Stiglitz offers an even more scathing critique of the pact in a March 2014 op ed in the Times : When agreements like the TPP govern international trade when every country has
agreed to similarly minimal regulations multinational corporations can return to the practices that were
common before the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts became law (in 1970 and 1972, respectively) and
before the latest financial crisis hit. Corporations everywhere may well agree that getting rid of regulations
would be good for corporate profits. Trade negotiators might be persuaded that these trade agreements
would be good for trade and corporate profits. But there would be some big losers namely, the rest of us.
the choice over the TPP is not a choice between

the United States setting the rules or China setting the rules. It is a choice over whether
to allow multinational corporations to set rules that serve their own narrow
interests at the expense of the interests of the U.S. majority . To borrow from Third
30 As Krugman and Stiglitz make clear,
Way, policymakers have a simple choice to make do we want to define our national interests, or do we
leave it to the corporations?
Manufacturing checks all global war

--manufacturing capabilities key to technology necessary for U.S. deterrence
OHanlon 12 (Mackenzie Eaglen, American Enterprise Institute Rebecca

Grant, IRIS Research Robert P. Haffa, Haffa Defense Consulting Michael
O'Hanlon, The Brookings Institution Peter W. Singer, The Brookings Institution
Martin Sullivan, Commonwealth Consulting Barry Watts, Center for Strategic
and Budgetary Assessments The Arsenal of Democracy and How to Preserve
It: Key Issues in Defense Industrial Policy January 2012, pg online @
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/1/26%20defen
se%20industrial%20base/0126_defense_industrial_base_ohanlon)
the
U.S. d efense i ndustrial b ase is in a much different place than it was in the past . D efense
industrial issues are too often viewed through the lens of jobs and pet projects to protect in
congressional districts. But the overall health of the firms that supply the techn ologies
our armed forces utilize does have national security resonance . Qualitative superiority in
weaponry and other key military technology has become an essential element of American
military power in the modern era not only for winning wars but for deterring them . That
requires world-class scientific and manufacturing capabilities which in turn can also
generate civilian and military export opportunities for the U nited States in a globalized
marketplace.
The current wave of defense cuts is also different than past defense budget reductions in their likely industrial impact, as
No Protectionism
No chance of rising protectionism
GTN, 2014 (Global Tax News, Global Trade: Protectionism on the rise?
April 8, http://www.taxnews.com/features/Global_Trade_Protectionism_On_The_Rise__571705.html)
It remains to be seen if the scale of the ambition to build regional free trade
agreements like the TPP, the TTIP and the RCEP is matched by political will in
all of the participating nations. Certainly, these are extremely complex and
delicate negotiations covering some sensitive economic areas and it is no
surprise that numerous lobby groups have emerged to fight their corner,
often backed by politicians. The TTIP negotiations have already entered
choppy waters over non-tariff issues such as regulation, while the Democrats
reluctance to give President Obama the authority to fast-track free trade
agreements through Congress could make it virtually impossible for the US to
ratify new deals as complicated as the TTIP and the TPP. Whats more, the
inclusion of Japan, with its tightly protected agricultural and automotive
sectors, could prove a step too far for the expanded TPP negotiations. Overall
however, fears that the world would descend into a downward spiral of
beggar thy neighbour trade protectionism as the financial crisis began to
bite have been largely unfounded. The use of trade barriers as an economic
management tool by emerging economies remains a problem, but when
weighed against the total volume of global trade these infractions are
relatively minor. Generally speaking however, there seems to be an
acceptance in most countries that international trade is better free than
unfree, even if is often politically-problematic for leaders and government
ministers to say so.
Trade wars are out of style

DePillis, 2014 (Lydia, Has the developed world stopped waging trade
wars? June 26, Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/26/has-thedeveloped-world-stopped-waging-trade-wars/)
This most recent downturn, however, seems to have come and (sort of) gone
without countries entirely walling themselves in. At least, that's what it looks
like to the World Bank, which has been tracking temporary trade barriers
since 2004 and finds today that the percentage of goods covered by import
restrictions decreased in 2013 after a small recessionary bump. Now, there is
a line in there that increased more than others: developing economies, most
notably India and Turkey. There's a reason for that increase. Not long ago,
emerging nations more often had permanent high tariffs, so they didn't need
to layer on additional restrictions, such as anti-dumping duties (which the
World Trade Organization allows, as long as it can be proven the target of the
measure has been selling goods at below the market price in its own
country). Over the past few decades, though, international pressure toward
liberalization has prompted them to open up dramatically, which means

there's more room to clamp back down when they feel their native industries
are threatened. Developed nations, though, have pretty much kicked the
protectionist habit. Though the number of trade investigations did rise
through the recession -- they're usually initiated in response to complaints
from businesses and labor groups -- they didn't get nearly as high as in
previous recessions. Here's just the United States, over the past 30 years: So,
why did the United States appear to be less aggressive about protecting itself
in the face of the latest economic meltdown? It's learned from experience.
"We designed the current system in response to what happened in the
1930s," says Chad Bown, a World Bank economist who maintains the
database of temporary trade barriers. For one thing, the United States is able
to target products more specifically rather than entire sectors. "That helps
blow off some political steam and not have overall increases in protection,"
Bown says.
Environment
TPP CRUSHES the environment and results in overfishing
*uniquely worse than previous trade pacts
Howard 14 (Brian Clark, 4 Ways Green Groups Say Trans-Pacific

Partnership Will Hurt Environment, Jan 17,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140117-trans-pacificpartnership-free-trade-environment-obama/)
A leaked draft of a major free trade agreement among the United States, Canada, Mexico,
and nations on the Pacific Rim raises alarming questions about environmental
protections, several leading green groups say. "If the environment chapter is finalized as
written in this leaked document, President Obama's environmental trade record would be
worse than George W. Bush's," Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club,
said in a statement after a draft of the agreement was published Wednesday on WikiLeaks. "This draft
chapter falls flat on every single one of our issuesoceans, fish, wildlife, and
forest protectionsand in fact, rolls back on the progress made in past free
trade pacts," he said. The proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership is a huge pact that would govern about
40 percent of the world's gross domestic product and one-third of world trade, said Jake Schmidt,
international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The agreement
involves a sprawling cast of countries: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru,
Singapore, Vietnam, Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. The NRDC joined with the Sierra Club and WWF in
criticizing the leaked draft of the environment chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which WikiLeaks
publisher Julian Assange said proved the chapter was "a toothless public relations exercise with no
enforcement mechanism." The White House has pushed back against such criticisms. In a blog post
responding to the leak this week, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) wrote that
"stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment
chapter in the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) or we will not come to agreement." Here are four grievances
voiced by environmental groups over the leaked chapter: 1. They say the pact lacks basic environmental
provisions. This is all about what's not in the proposed pact. The NRDC's Schmidt says that
environmental groups are asking for "some pretty basic environmental

provisions. "We're saying don't subsidize unsustainable fisheries and don't do illegal things," he said.
Environmentalists say that the Obama White House has hinted that it will not support an agreement
without enforceable environmental provisions, in recent remarks by some of the administration's key
the "overarching" problem with the leaked draft , Schmidt

is that "there's no enforcement." The leaked document mentions that trade partners should
take steps to protect the environment, but Schmidt says that " there are many caveats that
effectively allow countries to not make these enforceable . "References to the word
environmental players. But
says,
'shall' are very rarely used," he says, "and are often paired with 'seek to' or 'attempt,' which are not legally
nations
considering the Trans-Pacific Partnership have a "responsibility" to provide
adequate protection against overfishing, but the draft agreement fails to
provide that, said Carter Roberts, president and CEO of WWF. The countries negotiating the
agreement account for about a third of global fisheries production, Roberts notes, so
the stakes are high. Those countries have a range of direct and indirect subsidies for their fishing
enforceable." 2. Green groups say the draft agreement does not discourage overfishing. The
fleets, including payments, discounted loans, reduced prices on fuel, and so on. "What we have been
pushing for is for countries to phase out harmful subsidies ... that lead to greater harvest of fishing stocks
you
need to make sure that any support is targeted at programs that don't lead to
than can be sustained," said Schmidt. "We're not saying end all fishing programs and support, but
overconsumption of fish stocks." For its part, the U.S. Trade Representative's office responded
that the U.S. is "proposing that the TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] include, for the first time in any trade or
environment agreement, groundbreaking prohibitions on fish subsidies that set a new and higher baseline
The pact does not take a strong enough stance against

illegal wildlife products, activists say. Green groups would like to see stronger
enforcement of international laws on products made from endangered
species, such as elephant ivory or tiger pelts, as part of a new trade agreement. "The lack of fullyfor fisheries protections." 3.
enforceable environmental safeguards means negotiators are allowing a unique opportunity to protect
wildlife and support legal sustainable trade of renewable resources to slip through their fingers," WWF's
Roberts said in a statement.
Biodiversity solves extinction food crises and genetic

irreplaceability
Mittermeier 11
(et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological
Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has conducted fieldwork for over 30
years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations. He is the President of Conservation International and he is
considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book
Biodiversity Hotspots F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg 2011. This evidence also internally references Norman Myers, a very famous British environmentalist specialising in biodiversity.
available at: http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)
Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis , since it is

irreversible. Human activities have elevated the rate of species extinctions to a
thousand or more times the natural background rate (Pimm et al. 1995). What are the
consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity for future resource use. Scientists have discovered a mere
As
species vanish, so too does the health security of every human. Earths
species are a vast genetic storehouse that may harbor a cure for cancer, malaria, or the next new
pathogen cures waiting to be discovered. Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of all
fraction of Earths species (perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the biology of even fewer (Novotny et al. 2002).
commercial medicines even more in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein 2008). Natural forms, processes, and ecosystems provide
blueprints and inspiration for a growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi-tech devices, and other innovations (Benyus 2009). The
current loss of species has been compared to burning down the worlds libraries without knowing the content of 90% or more of the books.
With loss of species, we lose the ultimate source of our crops and the genes we use
to improve agricultural resilience , the inspiration for manufactured products, and the basis of the structure
and function of the ecosystems that support humans and all life on Earth (McNeely et al.
2009). Above and beyond material welfare and livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency, and freedom of choices and
actions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural, spiritual, and moral costs inflicted
by species extinctions. All societies value species for their own sake, and wild plants and animals are integral to the fabric of all the worlds
cultures (Wilson 1984). The road to extinction is made even more perilous to people by the loss of the broader ecosystems that underpin our
livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNeely et al.2009). The loss of coastal wetlands and mangrove forests, for example, greatly
exacerbates both human mortality and economic damage from tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and Vincent2009), while disease
outbreaks such as the 2003 emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in East Asia have been directly connected to trade in wildlife for
human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of biodiversity loss, more subtle but equally damaging, include the deterioration of
Earths natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in the past decade alone is estimated to be costing the global economy $500 billion
annually (TEEB2009). Reduced diversity may also reduce resilience of ecosystems and the human communities that depend on them. For
example, more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer less from the diseases that plague degraded reefs elsewhere
(Raymundo et al.2009). As Earths climate changes, the roles of species and ecosystems will only increase in their importance to humanity
(Turner et al.2009). In many respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about the biodiversity in the place in which they live.
They also depend upon these ecosystems the most and, broadly speaking, it is these areas over which they have the most control.
Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important and that every nation, every region, and every community should do everything
Extinction is a global
phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders . More
possible to conserve their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global priorities?
practically, biodiversity, the threats to it, and the ability of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast majority of the
global conservation budget perhaps 90% originates in and is spent in economically wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical
that those globally flexible funds available in the hundreds of millions annually be guided by systematic priorities if we are to move
deliberately toward a global goal of reducing biodiversity loss. The establishment of priorities for biodiversity conservation is complex, but
where should action toward reducing the loss of

biodiversity be implemented first? The field of conservation planning addresses this question and
revolves around a framework of vulnerability and irreplaceability (Margules and Pressey2000).
can be framed as a single question. Given the choice,
Vulnerability measures the risk to the species present in a region if the species and ecosystems that are highly threatened are not protected
now, we will not get another chance in the future. Irreplaceability measures the extent to which spatial substitutes exist for securing
biodiversity. The number of species alone is an inadequate indication of conserva-tion priority because several areas can share the same
species. In contrast, areas with high levels of endemism are irreplaceable. We must conserve these places because the unique species they
contain cannot be saved elsewhere. Put another way, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on our planet. It is heavily concentrated in certain
areas, these areas have exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species found nowhere else, and many (but not all) of these areas are
the areas at greatest risk of disappearing because of heavy human impact. Myers seminal paper (Myers1988) was the first application of the
Myers described ten tropical

forest hotspots on the basis of extraordinary plant endemism and high levels of habitat
loss, albeit without quantitative criteria for the designation of hotspot status. A subsequent analysis added eight additional hotspots,
principles of irreplaceability and vulnerability to guide conservation planning on a global scale.
including four from Mediterranean-type ecosystems (Myers 1990).After adopting hotspots as an institutional blueprint in 1989, Conservation
Interna-tional worked with Myers in a first systematic update of the hotspots. It introduced two strict quantitative criteria: to qualify as a
hotspot, a region had to contain at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics ( > 0.5% of the worlds total), and it had to have 30% or less of
an extensive global
review (Mittermeier et al.1999) and scientific publication (Myers et al.2000) that introduced seven new
hotspots on the basis of both the better-defined criteria and new data. A second systematic update (Mittermeier et
its original vegetation (extent of historical habitat cover)remaining. These efforts culminated in
al.2004) did not change the criteria, but revisited the set of hotspots based on new data on the distribution of species and threats, as well as
genuine changes in the threat status of these regions. That update redefined several hotspots, such as the Eastern Afromontane region, and
added several others that were suspected hotspots but for which sufficient data either did not exist or were not accessible to conservation
scientists outside of those regions. Sadly, it uncovered another region the East Melanesian Islands which rapid habitat destruction had in a
short period of time transformed from a biodiverse region that failed to meet the less than 30% of original vegetation remaining criterion to
a genuine hotspot.
Food Safety
TPP mandates international tribunals causes mass deregulation of food safety and the environment
Reich 15 (Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of
public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, Why the Trans-Pacific
Partnership is a pending disaster, 1-6,
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-why-the-transpacificpartnership-is-a-pending-disaster-20150106-story.html)
The TPP also gives global corporations an international tribunal of private

attorneys, outside any nation's legal system, who can order compensation for
any "unjust expropriation" of foreign assets. Even better for global companies, the
tribunal can order compensation for any lost profits found to result from a
nation's regulations. Philip Morris is using a similar provision against Uruguay (the provision
appears in a bilateral trade treaty between Uruguayand Switzerland), claiming that Uruguay's strong antismoking regulations unfairly diminish the company's profits. Anyone believing the TPP is good for
The foreign subsidiaries of U.S.-based corporations could just

as easily challenge any U.S. government regulation they claim unfairly
diminishes their profits -- say, a regulation protecting American consumers
from unsafe products or unhealthy foods, investors from fraudulent securities
or predatory lending, workers from unsafe working conditions , taxpayers from another
bailout of Wall Street, or the environment from toxic emissions.
Americans, take note:
Crushes global supply chains

Agiwal 8 (Swati, Department of Applied Economics, University of
Minnesota, Risk mitigating strategies in the food supply chain, April,
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/6248/2/469380.pdf, CMR)
Food safety is a credence 2 characterisitc and hence the credibility of the food product needs to be
established by some forms of food safety po licies, if the market fails to provide su ffi cient information
about this attribute (Cho and Hooker, 2002). While there are some mandated safety and security practices
for the fi rms in the food supply chain the issue of economic incentives for the fi rms to actively address
food safety throughout the supp ly chain is unclear. These practices often require signi fi cant investments
in capital 3 and labor 4 too, but do not have tangible returns. It is di ffi cult to estimate the value of
a risk that is realized can potentially bankrupt the

firm 5 . Some high-pro fi le cases of food safety outbreaks have had substantial economic
preventing a safety inciden t. However,
consequences such as, lost sales, recall and compe nsation costs, damaged goo dwill and hence impact on
incidents can lead the fi rms out of business, the impact is not
contained just at the fi rm level but also felt throughout the food supply chain.
future business. Although such
Supply chains are often faced with various risks of supply disruptions and uncertain demand conditions,
food safety events and security events arising from eithe r intentional or unintentional events
pose risks that are above and beyond the common operational and market risks, bringing the overall
level of risk to unprecedented new levels. There is a greater emph asis in highlighting the
these
role of product safety, especially in the food industry, given the recent spate of several high pro fi le food
safety incidents (such as recalls for ground beef, pet food, green onions and spinach scare, etc.) and
decreasing consumer con fi dence in food supply (Degene ff e et al., 2007).As a result, a supply chain
managers "best practice" model today is to strive to achieve not only a fully integrated and e ffi cient
supply chain, capable of creating and sustaining competitive advantage (Christopher and Towill, 2002), but
also one with su ffi cient fl exibility and redundancy to enable the fi rm to respond to extreme events (She
ffi 2005). Natural calamities, port lock-outs, labor disputes, terrorist events, major recalls, outbreaks and
epidemics are examples of such intentional and unintentional events that lie
beyond market
uncertainties and could cripple not just firms but entire supply chains. There is a strong
argument for building robust and fl exible systems that e ff ectively handle contamination incidents and
increase the buoyance of the fi rm in the wake of an event (She ffi , 2005).
Nuclear war
Future Directions International 12 (International Conflict Triggers and Potential Conflict Points
Resulting from Food and Water Insecurity Global Food and Water Crises Research Programme, May 25,
http://www.futuredirections.org.au/files/Workshop_Report_-_Intl_Conflict_Triggers_-_May_25.pdf, CMR)
This view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that
if
large regions
the world run short of food, land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then wholesale,
bloody wars are liable to follow. He continues: An increasingly credible scenario
for World War 3 is not so much a confrontation of super powers and their allies, as
a festering, self-perpetuating chain of resource conflicts . He also says: The wars
of the 21st Century are less likely to be global conflicts with sharply defined
sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions, civil strife,
insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by bloody competition over
dwindling resources. As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to
kill; they go to war over resources, either to protect or to gain the resources for
themselves. Another observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources,
of
not because people are going hungry. A study by the International Peace Research Institute indicates that
where food security is an issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict.
Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars. Governments, especially in developed
The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA,

the US Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Oslo Peace Research
Institute, all identify famine as a potential trigger for conflicts and possibly even
nuclear war.
countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon.
AT: Politics
NO UQ Alt Triggers
There so many other unpopular plans in front of Congress that could be
divisive. Gun control, abortion, and industry regulations could all be incredibly
divisive.
Amount of Bills brought to congress every year

Gov track.us 2015 (Bills by Final Status
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics )
Congress: Enacted Laws, Passed Resolutions, Got A Vote, Failed Legislation,
Vetoed Bills (w/o Override) ,Other Legislation TOTAL 114th Jan 6, 2015
-present 93, 1% ,350 ,5% ,302 4% ,13 0% 3 0% 6,869 90%
7,630
10 Leading causes of death in the World (No Malaria)

Wold Health organization
The 10 leading causes of death in the world, 2000 and 2012 Ischaemic heart
disease, stroke, lower respiratory infections and chronic obstructive lung
disease have remained the top major killers during the past decade. HIV
deaths decreased slightly from 1.7 million (3.2%) deaths in 2000 to 1.5
million (2.7%) deaths in 2012. Diarrhoea is no longer among the 5 leading
causes of death, but is still among the top 10, killing 1.5 million people in
2012. Chronic diseases cause increasing numbers of deaths worldwide. Lung
cancers (along with trachea and bronchus cancers) caused 1.6 million (2.9%)
deaths in 2012, up from 1.2 million (2.2%) deaths in 2000. Similarly, diabetes
caused 1.5 million (2.7%) deaths in 2012, up from 1.0 million (2.0%) deaths
in 2000. Ischaemicheart disease Stroke COPD Lowerrespiratory in...
Tracheabronchus, lun... HIV/AIDS Diarrhaldiseases Diabetesmellitus Road
injury Hypertensive... 0million 2million 4million 6million 8million 10million 7.4million 6.7million 3.1million
3.1million 1.6million 1.5million 1.5million 1.5million 1.3million 1.1million The 10 leading causes of death in the world 2012 2 2.2
2.7 2.7 2.7 2.9 5.5 5.6 11.9 13.2 48.6 Hypertensiveheart disease Road injury Diarrhal diseases Diabetes mellitus HIV/AIDS
Trachea bronchus,lung cancers Lower respiratoryinfections COPD Stroke Ischaemic heartdisease Other causes The 10 leading causes of
death in the world by percentage Ischaemic he... Stroke COPD Lower respir... Trachea, bro... HIV/AIDS Diarrhoeal di... Diabetes
mell... Road injury Hypertensive... Preterm birth... Tuberculosis 0million 2million 4million 6million 8million 10million 2012 2000
Comparison of leading causes of death overthe past decade, 2000 and 2012
No UQ
Obamas new gun control action angers republicans and
sparks bipartisanship
Reuters, 16 (January 4, 2016, Obamas gun control measures to spark
political and legal fights Raw Story. Com,
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/obamas-gun-control-measures-to-sparkpolitical-and-legal-fights/ )
President Barack Obama is igniting a political firestorm this week by

bypassing Congress with new measures to tighten U.S. gun rules that are likely to redefine what it means to be a gun dealer
and possibly spark legal challenges during his final year in office. Shares in gun makers Smith & Wesson Holding Corp and Sturm Ruger & Co
Inc rose against a falling stock market on Monday in anticipation of increased gun sales, as has happened before when the White House
mulled weapon sales reform. Obama was due to meet Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Monday afternoon to discuss his options. Stymied
by Congress inaction on gun control, the president asked his advisers in recent months to examine new ways he could use his executive
authority to tighten gun rules unilaterally without needing congressional approval after multiple mass shootings generated outrage
nationwide. One option was a regulatory change to require more dealers to get a license to sell guns, a move that would trigger more
background checks on buyers. The White House had drafted a proposal on that issue previously but was concerned it could be challenged in
court and would be hard to enforce. Guns are a potent issue in U.S. politics. The right to bear arms is protected by the U.S. Constitution, and
the National Rifle Association, the top U.S. gun rights group, is feared and respected in Washington for its ability to mobilize gun owners.
Congress has not approved major gun-control legislation since the 1990s. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Monday that the
administration was prepared for legal challenges and had confidence that Obamas new proposals were legally sound. A lot of the work that
has gone on has been to ensure that we would have confidence in the legal basis of these actions, he said, adding that the proposals would
The presidents planned use of

executive action launches his final year with a move that Republicans say
exemplifies misuse of his powers. Congress, which is controlled by Republicans, rejected Obamas proposals for
be within the legal ability of the president of the United States to carry out.
legislation to tighten gun rules in 2013. While we dont yet know the details of the plan, the president is at minimum subverting the
legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will, Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan said in a statement.
This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not
stand for it. U.S. states have taken their own approaches to addressing gun violence. Texas legalized openly carrying handguns,
while New York and Connecticut have banned high-capacity magazines. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of individual Americans to keep and bear arms. But the court also recognized that laws imposing
conditions on commercial guns sale can be consistent with the Second Amendment. (Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton, Julia Edwards
and Robert Iafolla; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Cynthia Osterman)
http://theweek.com/articles/597541/obamas-new-gun-control-action-isnt-just-bad-policy-symptomatic-incurable-weakness
Obamas recent executive order further limits his

executive power in relation to working with Congress
Morrissey, 16 (January 5th, 2016, Edward Morrissey COLUMNIST Edward Morrissey has been writing
about politics since 2003 in his blog, Captain's Quarters, and now writes for HotAir.com. His columns have
appeared in the Washington Post, the New York Post, The New York Sun, the Washington Times, and other
newspapers. Morrissey has a daily Internet talk show on politics and culture at Hot Air. Since 2004,
Morrissey has had a weekend talk radio show in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area and often fills in as a guest
on Salem Radio Network's nationally-syndicated shows. He lives in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota with
his wife, son and daughter-in-law, and his two granddaughters. Morrissey's new book, GOING RED, will be
published by Crown Forum on April 5, 2016.
President Barack Obama
Lots of people make New Years Day resolutions they don't keep, despite their best intentions.
,
however, has apparently made a resolution he does intend to follow through on: exercising his executive power. But Monday's announcement
would expand gun control and take other unilateral action is actually a
cautionary tale of incurable weakness , not a show of strength. The president intends to roll out an expansion
that he
of federal rulemaking beginning as soon as next week, and has plans to add nearly 4,000 regulations through executive power alone, Politico's
Timothy Noah reported on Monday. The cost of the regulations could go as high as $100 million or perhaps into the billions, depending on the
interpretation given these new marching orders for federal agencies. One change a potential declaration by the Food and Drug
Administration of jurisdiction over the exploding e-cigarette market alone could cost as much as $810 million over the next 20 years. The
change "might well put e-cigarettes out of business," Noah writes, which clearly seems to be the intent, given the Obama administration's
focus on teenage use of the product. Another rule governing the advice from brokers on retirement investors might cost the industry as much
as $5.7 billion over the next decade. But by far the most politically significant of these changes comes as part of Barack Obama's desire to
advance gun control before he leaves office. Obama and the White House have talked up gun control options such as using the no-fly list to
block gun sales, and even mentioned Australia's policy of massive firearm confiscation after a mass shooting incident in October. "We know
that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings," Obama told the
White House press corps after the mass murder at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon. "Friends of ours, allies of ours Great Britain,
Australia, countries like ours." It's not the first time Obama has mentioned this option, either. In June 2014, the president made the same
argument, only in that instance acknowledged the "very severe" nature of the gun laws passed by the Australian government. The White
House made it clear that they saw this fight as a defining struggle for Obama's legacy and that the actions would have a dramatic impact on
gun violence. Gun-rights advocates girded themselves for a battle over executive power and constitutional rights. The first indications of the
actions in question make it appear that both sides are in for an anti-climax. Noah and CBS News' Rebecca Kaplan both report that Obama's
executive orders will mainly be limited to expanding the definition of what constitutes a firearm dealer. This change would have impacted none
of the shooting incidents cited by the administration, nor would another proposal to require better reporting of firearms stolen en route to a
buyer. They add red tape without addressing the issues repeatedly raised by Obama himself. After the build-up over the holidays, the biggest
Obama runs is wildly overpromising and underdelivering . That is not limited to just the guncontrol items on Obama's 2016 resolution list, either. It applies to his whole executive-power
strategy. MORE PERSPECTIVES PAUL WALDMAN How the NRA and gun manufacturers work together to scam gun owners RYAN
risk
COOPER How Michigan literally poisoned an entire city to save a few bucks At the heart of the problem is Obama's refusal to acknowledge
the verdict of voters in two midterm landslide losses. When Obama took office seven years ago, his Democratic Party controlled both
chambers of Congress and a fair number of state legislatures. Obama now has a Congress controlled by the GOP and a record number of state
legislatures in Republican control. The country, while giving Obama a second term, made it clear that they want the GOP to curb his agenda.
When Bill Clinton found himself in a similar position, he famously "triangulated" on key issues to pre-empt Republican efforts. He found ways
to work with his opposition on issues that mattered to both welfare reform comes immediately to mind and effectively outboxed them on
Obama, on the
other hand, has become even more determined to take his political ball and
stomp off to the White House alone. That necessarily limits his range of
action, while giving Obama an excuse for failure. "It is my strong belief that for us to get our
budgetary issues while still getting important agenda items accomplished through the normal political process.
complete arms around the problem Congress needs to act," Obama insisted on Monday. But that goal requires a president who understands
how to work with Congress. Pushing rhetoric about Australia's solution and then demanding that Republicans budge on gun regulation is a
. If Obama wants to build a lasting

and positive impact in his final year in office, he'll need to climb
down from his high horse and work with the Congress that people
elected in 2014. Legacies are built on legislation, which gives permanence and legitimacy. Temper tantrums have almost no
symptom of weakness and failure, not power and accomplishment
impact at all in the long run. That will become even more obvious in 2017 if a Republican succeeds Obama as president. As easily as Obama
changed regulatory definitions and processes, a GOP president can erase his work and eliminate Obama's legacy and almost certainly will
do so.
NO LINK Plan Popular

4. Muslim surveillance unpopular
Muslim Advocates, 4-15-2014, Timeline of Advocacy Against NYPD
Muslim Spying Program," Muslim Advocates,
http://www.muslimadvocates.org/timeline-of-muslim-advocates-advocacyagainst-nypd-muslim-spying-program/, Accessed: 7-1-2015, /Bingham-MB
The New York City Police Department had been spying on American Muslims
without any suspicion of wrongdoing for almost ten years when the program
was exposed by a group of investigative journalists. Unwarranted attention
by law enforcement is not new to Muslim communities throughout the
country, but the details revealed of the NYPDs massive surveillance program
were truly unprecedented. Civil rights, interfaith, and Muslim community
groups, as well as members of Congress, immediately began criticizing the
NYPDs practices and called for them to end. As soon as the program
became public, Muslim Advocates launched a legal and public advocacy
campaign that has included two public records requests, which turned into
litigation, letters calling for an investigation to three State Attorneys General
and the U.S. Attorney General, and the first lawsuit challenging the program
as unconstitutional. As NYPD Commissioner William Bratton announced the
dismantling of the unit that carried out the spying program, Muslim
Advocates will be holding him accountable to that promise by continuing its
legal and public advocacy campaign and seeking verification that the
Department discontinues its practice of monitoring law-abiding Muslims.
Muslim cooperation with law enforcement more popular

than infiltration.
Harris 10.
(David, May 6, Professor of Law at University of Pittsburgh School of Law,
Law Enforcement and Intelligence Gathering in Muslim and Immigrant
Communities After 9/11,
https://socialchangenyu.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/law-enforcement-andintelligence-gathering-in-muslim-and-immigrant-communities-after-911harris.pdf)
Using informants in Muslim religious and cultural contexts too frequently and casually damages the
FBIs critical and generally successful efforts to build partnerships with
Muslim and Arab American communities. It will cause lasting damage to efforts to bring Muslim
communities and law enforcement together to build a common cause against extremism, and it will harm efforts to
obtain intelligence from these communities through carefully-built
cooperative relationships established in the last five years. The reaction of Muslim
communities to news of the involvement of informants in terrorism cases has, in fact, seemed especially sharp precisely because it comes
against a background of police and community efforts to engage in purposeful cooperation
. When Muslims learn
that the government has used informants, members of these

communities feel used and betrayednot partners of law enforcement, but suspects, each and every
one.23 We can ill afford to damage the possibility that these partnerships can serve as sources of information ; they remain
our bestperhaps our onlyhope for obtaining the intelligence we
need to head off the damage of actual terrorist attacks in the future.
Constructing these law enforcement/community partnerships requires great efforts to build trust;24 as a result, when the use of informants
has come to light, the community perceives this as a betrayal of that trust. As it now stands, the law provides virtually no legal protection
against the use of government informants. The Fourth Amendment imposes no standards for, and does not require any judicial oversight of,
police use of informants.25 Neither substantive criminal law defenses26 nor civil actions27 hold any promise of restraining this type of
government activity. Therefore, we find ourselves at a sensitive crossroads. On the one hand, we cannot wholly discount the possibility that
very small groups of terrorists in our country may attempt to do catastrophic damage. And it remains at least possible that infiltration of these
groups by informants could prevent a disaster. On the other hand, the unregulated use of informants in mosques and other religious and
cultural settings can also do great damage because it poses the risk of cutting off our best possible source of intelligence: the voluntary,
cooperative relationships that have developed between law enforcement and Muslim communities.
5. Congressional oversight and curtailment of FBI

surveillance popular
Julia A. Shearson (executive director of the Cleveland Chapter of the
Council on American-Islamic Relations) Tracked by Spies and Informers
March 24, 2009
http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2009/03/tracked_by_spies_and_informer
s.html
Most Americans likely want to be free of prowling informants and

provocateurs such as Monteilh. In fact, the average American, born with
liberty in his gut, has never much liked a government that snoops.
Although we want our government to investigate crime and to prevent
terrorism, we expect those investigations to stay within narrow
Constitutional limits. As Patrick Henry said, "The Constitution is not an
instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for
the people to restrain the government--lest it come to dominate our lives and
interests" and as George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is
not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful
master." It is not certain whether Washington or Henry would approve of the
FBI's renewed domestic intelligence powers, but it is certain they would
want the Congress and the new attorney general to monitor the FBI
through strict oversight.
Impacts:
Extinction or climate change do NOT outweigh dehumanization.
OBAMA
Obama is not afraid to spend any of his remaining political
capital in his last year in the white house
No Author, 16 (January 11, 2016, Seminole Sentinel, Obama Proposals Do
Little To Slow Local, National Gun Sales Tide,
http://seminolesentinel.com/area-news/obama-proposals-do-little-to-slowlocal-national-gun-sales-tide/ )
To some degree, both sides are right. To political pundits, what stands out
most about these measures is the sheer amount of political capital that
Obama is willing to expend in his last year in office, on actions that do little to curb
gun violence, and would not have prevented a single one of the most recent highly publicized
shootings. His efforts at beefing up background checks and the licensing of and a vague
redefining of gun dealers by closing an imaginary gun show loophole, amounts to little
more than creating new layers of regulations that simply increase the cost of doing business.
Constitionalists, however, see any watering down of the Second Amendment as an affront in
the form of regulatory creep, and every time that the gun control issues makes it to the front
page, the fear of government overreach inevitably leads to an increase in gun sales across the
country. When Obama took office in 2008, gun sales spiked, and new background checks rose
by 50% over the previous year. Since then, according to figures released by the National
Shooting Sports Foundation, the guns and ammunition industry had raked in at least $9 billion
in additional sales over projected figures since Obama took office.
Turn: Executive action is impermanent, does not solve as

well as congressional legislation, and is actually a sign of
weakness (triggers Presidential Powers DA by itself)
Bernstien, 16 (By Jonathan Bernstein, Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg View columnist
covering U.S. politics. A political scientist, he previously wrote "A Plain Blog About Politics." He is co-editor
of "The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2012." Bernstein has also written for the Washington Post,
Salon, the American Prospect, Washington Monthly and the New Republic. After receiving his doctorate at
the University of California at Berkeley, he taught at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw
University before he began blogging. He lives in San Antonio, Texas ,
Obama's Action on Guns Is

a Sign of Weakness JAN 6, 2016, Bloomberg view,
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-06/obama-s-action-on-gunsis-a-sign-of-weakness
No sooner did Barack Obama roll out a new set of executive actions on guns on Tuesday than we had some useful and thoughtful explanations
resorting to executive
action, rather than legislation, is a sign of the weakness of the presidency. Ill
summarize that argument: In most cases, presidents dont have the authority to do by
of the changes he will carry out. But political scientist Matthew Dickinson protests that
themselves what laws can do.
Thats why, as Greg Sargent of the Washington Post points out, Obamas effort
Executive actions are less

permanent than laws. Dickinson reports that only half of the most
important executive orders from 1947 through 2003 remain intact. Future
presidents can reverse them (as all the Republican candidates are pledging to do in this case); Congress can override
is rather modest compared with what he wanted from Congress.
them. It may not even need a veto-proof majority. Congress always has the option of packaging a repeal of an executive action with something
Members of Congress from

both parties tend (all else being equal) to resent presidents who try
to go it alone. Taking action without congressional support may not only make opponents on this policy more stubborn. The
hostility can also spill over to other issues as well. And not just in Congress: If a
president gains a reputation for running roughshod over the constitutional prerogatives of others, it can make everyone in
the system more resistant to anything he does. All that said, however, using executive action is
the president wants to sign, and that might be enough to get the job done.
neither rare nor usually controversial. While Dickinson is right about the costs of acting alone (see also Richard Neustadt), inaction has costs
too. Many Democrats in Congress have wanted action on guns, climate, immigration and other issues, and they would have been upset if the
president didnt act. Republicans, meanwhile, have reduced the drawbacks of executive action by ruling out normal legislative dealmaking
so often. The more Republicans refuse to consider compromise, or punish their leadership when it does, the less incentive Obama has to be
cautious about acting unilaterally.
Executive action is a less effective way to make

meaningful policy change as well as weakening Obama
Dickinson, 16 (Matthew Dickinson, January 6, 2016, Why acting alone is a
sign of weakness The Christian Science Monitor,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2016/0106/Obama-sgun-control-Why-acting-alone-is-a-sign-of-weakness-video )
Obamas decision to use executive action to expand background checks on some gun purchases has been
described by media outlets as a way of sidestepping a Congress that has opposed enacting more stringent gun
control legislation. Predictably, the presidents decision to act unilaterally has provoked the ire of Republicans, particularly
those running for president, who are unanimous in condemning Obamas decision as an
excessive exercise of presidential power. In a not uncharacteristic assessment, New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie complained on Fox News Sunday that Obama is a petulant child because quite frankly, the American people have rejected his
agenda by turning both the House and the Senate over to the Republicans, and going from 21 governors when he came into office, to 31
executive
actions like these are an indication of presidential weakness not dictatorial power. The fact
is that one of the great frustrations of Obamas presidency a frustration he has expressed on more than one
occasion has been his inability to get Congress to pass more stringent gun
control legislation. In response, Obama has decided to move ahead on his own, in this instance by taking executive action to
Republican governors now. Now this president wants to act as if he is a king, as if he is a dictator. But the reality is that
broaden the definition of what it means to be a gun seller. Under existing law, those purchasing guns from licensed gun dealers must undergo
a background check. Those acquiring guns privately, in contrast, do not. By broadening the definition of who is a gun dealer," then, Obamas
executive action will in theory expand the number of background checks. However, while it is true that Obama is, in effect, making law
unilaterally, the substantive impact of his actions on gun violence is likely to be small, something he concedes. Indeed, in the runup to his
that taking
executive action, as opposed to legislating, is not a very effective
way to make substantive, lasting policy change. This is a point that political pundits, and
even some political scientists, frequently overlook. There are several reasons for this. To begin, executive actions have
much more limited scope than legislation presidents cant use them to overturn existing law. Nor
can they be used on actions that require spending money without
appropriations by Congress. In the case of background checks, Obama can order executive agencies to redouble their
announcement, gun sales have soared to levels not seen in two decades. The broader point, however, is
efforts to expand background checks, but he cant unilaterally appropriate more money to implement his order. Recommended:How much do
you know about the Second Amendment? A quiz. The bigger problem when it when it comes to making law via executive action, however, is
that the outcome is often short-lived, a point Donald Trump drove home in his interview with John Dickerson on CBS's "Face the Nation" on
Sunday. When asked about Obamas proposed action, Trump replied, Well, I will say this. Theres lot of precedent, based on what hes doing.
Now, some have been his executive order on the border, amazingly, the courts actually took that back a step and did something that was
very surprising, which is, they did the right thing, so that maybe that one but I would be rescinding a lot of executive orders that hes done
[emphasis added]. Trumps threat to rescind Obamas executive action is not to be taken lightly. In forthcoming research Jesse Gubb and I
have conducted, we have found that of the roughly 300 most substantively important executive orders (EOs) issued during the period 19472003, only about half are still on the books today. About 30% have been revoked by a subsequent president and another 2% overturned by
congressional legislation. Because of the censored nature of the data, this probably understates how many EOs have been actually revoked.
csmarchives/2012/07/guns.jpg TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGEHow much do you know about the Second Amendment? A quiz. PHOTOS OF THE
executive orders illustrate a more

general weakness of relying on what presidential scholar Richard Neustadt describes as a presidents
command authority: It indicates a failure to bargain effectively with
Congress. Trump drove this point home in his interview, noting that, Its supposed to be you get along with Congress, and you
DAY Photos of the weekend Beyond the lack of durability, however,
cajole, and you go back and forth, and everybody gets in a room and we end up with deals. And theres compromise on lots of other things,
but you end up with deals. Heres a guy just goes hes given up on the process and he just goes and signs executive orders on everything.
Without trying to apportion blame, or even to accept Trumps characterization that Obama has given up on the legislative process, the plain
fact is that the president and Congress have not engaged successfully in the process of bargaining that is at the heart of the legislative
process. There is a more fundamental risk in Obamas approach, however, beyond the failure to secure a desired legislative outcome. It is
efforts to achieve goals unilaterally are likely to stiffen congressional

resistance to future presidential efforts to secure preferred legislation in other
areas. In his famous study of the presidency, Neustadt noted that when it comes to evaluating presidents, Strategically, the question is
that
not how he masters Congress in a peculiar instance, but what he does to boost his mastery in any instance, looking forward tomorrow from
today. We have seen other instances, most notably in his efforts to expand legal protection to children who came to this country illegally,
where Obamas efforts to act unilaterally have embroiled him in legal controversy and perhaps stiffen congressional opposition to his
objectives. For all these reasons, unilateral executive action is a poor substitute for bargaining with Congress and is best understood not as a
as evidence of a
presidents inability to bargain successfully with the legislative
branch. Speaking more generally about presidents efforts to achieve goals via command authority, Neustadt concludes that, Not
only are these last resorts less than conclusive, but they are also costly. Even though order is assured of execution,
sign of an imperial presidency who can make law with the stroke of a pen but rather
drastic action rarely comes at bargain rates. It can be costly to the aims in whose defense it is employed. It can be costly, also, to objectives
far afield. One can understand Obamas frustration with Congresss unwillingness to enact more stringent gun control via universal
background checks. It may be that in issuing this latest
executive action,
Obama will make the issue of gun control more salient
will harden
opposition in Congress to further gun control legislation and that any real progress
on this front will have to wait until a new president and Congress take office. If
to the public, thus increasing pressure on Congress to act legislatively. But I suspect it is more likely that this latest action
so, Obama will not be the first president to confront the difficulty of trying to make policy unilaterally in a constitutional system of shared
powers. Unfortunately, he is also not likely to be the last.
Obama is not afraid to spend his remaining political

capital
Phillips, 16 (January 7, 2016, Amber Phillips, Reporter Washington D.C.
How Obama can still win on gun control Washingtion Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/07/how-obamacan-still-win-on-gun-control/ )
So why is the president spending so much political capital to move the ball on
guns so little? Well, for one, Obama doesn't need to save any political
capital; he's out of Washington in a year. "Im not on the ballot again.
Im not looking to score some points, he said in his emotional speech
announcing the measures Tuesday.
President Obama visibly emotional as he announces executive action on gun control Play Video1:31 While
announcing executive action on gun control from the White House Jan. 5, President Obama was visibly emotional. (AP) But you could also argue that Obama's end game isn't to change things at the federal level,
where gun control is dead on arrival in a Republican-controlled Congress; it's to motivate governors and state lawmakers to do something at the state level, where most of the action on guns is anyway. And so far,
that strategy appears to be working. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed an executive order the day after Obama's speech to start a new public health program on suicide prevention and to help government
agencies share data on guns. (Washington state already expanded background checks in 2014 via a ballot measure.) The Associated Press reports Inslee appears to be the first governor since Obama announced his
executive actions to move on gun control. But more could soon follow. Click here for more information! Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) recently called for legislation in the new state legislative session to
address gun violence. Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) has made gun control a top priority. Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D) said he'd try to go it alone and block people in his state on the no-fly list from being able
to get guns. [Why Democrats are going small on gun control] That Obama is taking action, no matter how small, to try to curb gun violence at the national level no doubt encourages governors to do it, too. If
Obama's willing to stick his neck out, it makes it easier for others to follow suit. Guns will be a major issue in statehouses around the country this year, too, with lawmakers expecting to vote to both limit and
expand access to them. And in Nevada, there will be a hotly contested ballot initiative to expand background checks in the state. Obama undoubtedly knew all of this when he decided to take a political beating for
policies that, by his own admission, won't save everyone from gun violence. But changing things at the federal level might not really be Obama's goal here. And so far, what's happening in the states including
some swing states suggests he's making some progress. Amber Phillips writes about politics for The Fix. She was previously the one-woman D.C. bureau for the Las Vegas Sun and has reported from Boston and
Taiwan. Get the 5-Minute Fix newsletter Keeping up with politics is easy now, three days a week.
AT: Pres Powers
No UQ
Obamas new gun control action angers republicans and
sparks bipartisanship
Reuters, 16 (January 4, 2016, Obamas gun control measures to spark
political and legal fights Raw Story. Com,
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/obamas-gun-control-measures-to-sparkpolitical-and-legal-fights/ )
President Barack Obama is igniting a political firestorm this week by

bypassing Congress with new measures to tighten U.S. gun rules that are likely to redefine what it means to be a gun dealer
and possibly spark legal challenges during his final year in office. Shares in gun makers Smith & Wesson Holding Corp and Sturm Ruger & Co
Inc rose against a falling stock market on Monday in anticipation of increased gun sales, as has happened before when the White House
mulled weapon sales reform. Obama was due to meet Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Monday afternoon to discuss his options. Stymied
by Congress inaction on gun control, the president asked his advisers in recent months to examine new ways he could use his executive
authority to tighten gun rules unilaterally without needing congressional approval after multiple mass shootings generated outrage
nationwide. One option was a regulatory change to require more dealers to get a license to sell guns, a move that would trigger more
background checks on buyers. The White House had drafted a proposal on that issue previously but was concerned it could be challenged in
court and would be hard to enforce. Guns are a potent issue in U.S. politics. The right to bear arms is protected by the U.S. Constitution, and
the National Rifle Association, the top U.S. gun rights group, is feared and respected in Washington for its ability to mobilize gun owners.
Congress has not approved major gun-control legislation since the 1990s. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Monday that the
administration was prepared for legal challenges and had confidence that Obamas new proposals were legally sound. A lot of the work that
has gone on has been to ensure that we would have confidence in the legal basis of these actions, he said, adding that the proposals would
The presidents planned use of

executive action launches his final year with a move that Republicans say
exemplifies misuse of his powers. Congress, which is controlled by Republicans, rejected Obamas proposals for
be within the legal ability of the president of the United States to carry out.
legislation to tighten gun rules in 2013. While we dont yet know the details of the plan, the president is at minimum subverting the
legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will, Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan said in a statement.
This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not
stand for it. U.S. states have taken their own approaches to addressing gun violence. Texas legalized openly carrying handguns,
while New York and Connecticut have banned high-capacity magazines. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of individual Americans to keep and bear arms. But the court also recognized that laws imposing
conditions on commercial guns sale can be consistent with the Second Amendment. (Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton, Julia Edwards
and Robert Iafolla; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Cynthia Osterman)
http://theweek.com/articles/597541/obamas-new-gun-control-action-isnt-just-bad-policy-symptomatic-incurable-weakness
Obamas recent executive order further limits his

executive power in relation to working with Congress
Morrissey, 16 (January 5th, 2016, Edward Morrissey COLUMNIST Edward Morrissey has been writing
about politics since 2003 in his blog, Captain's Quarters, and now writes for HotAir.com. His columns have
appeared in the Washington Post, the New York Post, The New York Sun, the Washington Times, and other
newspapers. Morrissey has a daily Internet talk show on politics and culture at Hot Air. Since 2004,
Morrissey has had a weekend talk radio show in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area and often fills in as a guest
on Salem Radio Network's nationally-syndicated shows. He lives in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota with
his wife, son and daughter-in-law, and his two granddaughters. Morrissey's new book, GOING RED, will be
published by Crown Forum on April 5, 2016.
President Barack Obama
Lots of people make New Years Day resolutions they don't keep, despite their best intentions.
,
however, has apparently made a resolution he does intend to follow through on: exercising his executive power. But Monday's announcement
that he
would expand gun control and take other unilateral action is actually a
cautionary tale of incurable weakness , not a show of strength. The president intends to roll out an expansion
of federal rulemaking beginning as soon as next week, and has plans to add nearly 4,000 regulations through executive power alone, Politico's
Timothy Noah reported on Monday. The cost of the regulations could go as high as $100 million or perhaps into the billions, depending on the
interpretation given these new marching orders for federal agencies. One change a potential declaration by the Food and Drug
Administration of jurisdiction over the exploding e-cigarette market alone could cost as much as $810 million over the next 20 years. The
change "might well put e-cigarettes out of business," Noah writes, which clearly seems to be the intent, given the Obama administration's
focus on teenage use of the product. Another rule governing the advice from brokers on retirement investors might cost the industry as much
as $5.7 billion over the next decade. But by far the most politically significant of these changes comes as part of Barack Obama's desire to
advance gun control before he leaves office. Obama and the White House have talked up gun control options such as using the no-fly list to
block gun sales, and even mentioned Australia's policy of massive firearm confiscation after a mass shooting incident in October. "We know
that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings," Obama told the
White House press corps after the mass murder at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon. "Friends of ours, allies of ours Great Britain,
Australia, countries like ours." It's not the first time Obama has mentioned this option, either. In June 2014, the president made the same
argument, only in that instance acknowledged the "very severe" nature of the gun laws passed by the Australian government. The White
House made it clear that they saw this fight as a defining struggle for Obama's legacy and that the actions would have a dramatic impact on
gun violence. Gun-rights advocates girded themselves for a battle over executive power and constitutional rights. The first indications of the
actions in question make it appear that both sides are in for an anti-climax. Noah and CBS News' Rebecca Kaplan both report that Obama's
executive orders will mainly be limited to expanding the definition of what constitutes a firearm dealer. This change would have impacted none
of the shooting incidents cited by the administration, nor would another proposal to require better reporting of firearms stolen en route to a
buyer. They add red tape without addressing the issues repeatedly raised by Obama himself. After the build-up over the holidays, the biggest
Obama runs is wildly overpromising and underdelivering . That is not limited to just the guncontrol items on Obama's 2016 resolution list, either. It applies to his whole executive-power
strategy. MORE PERSPECTIVES PAUL WALDMAN How the NRA and gun manufacturers work together to scam gun owners RYAN
risk
COOPER How Michigan literally poisoned an entire city to save a few bucks At the heart of the problem is Obama's refusal to acknowledge
the verdict of voters in two midterm landslide losses. When Obama took office seven years ago, his Democratic Party controlled both
chambers of Congress and a fair number of state legislatures. Obama now has a Congress controlled by the GOP and a record number of state
legislatures in Republican control. The country, while giving Obama a second term, made it clear that they want the GOP to curb his agenda.
When Bill Clinton found himself in a similar position, he famously "triangulated" on key issues to pre-empt Republican efforts. He found ways
to work with his opposition on issues that mattered to both welfare reform comes immediately to mind and effectively outboxed them on
Obama, on the
other hand, has become even more determined to take his political ball and
stomp off to the White House alone. That necessarily limits his range of
action, while giving Obama an excuse for failure. "It is my strong belief that for us to get our
budgetary issues while still getting important agenda items accomplished through the normal political process.
complete arms around the problem Congress needs to act," Obama insisted on Monday. But that goal requires a president who understands
how to work with Congress. Pushing rhetoric about Australia's solution and then demanding that Republicans budge on gun regulation is a
. If Obama wants to build a lasting

and positive impact in his final year in office, he'll need to climb
down from his high horse and work with the Congress that people
elected in 2014. Legacies are built on legislation, which gives permanence and legitimacy. Temper tantrums have almost no
symptom of weakness and failure, not power and accomplishment
impact at all in the long run. That will become even more obvious in 2017 if a Republican succeeds Obama as president. As easily as Obama
changed regulatory definitions and processes, a GOP president can erase his work and eliminate Obama's legacy and almost certainly will
do so.
Obama has zero power even if he had some, he cant

wield it effectively
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, 9-30-2013,
The Obama Conundrum, Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-engelhardt/obamapresidency_b_4016791.html
Among the curious spectacles of our moment, the strangeness of the Obama
presidency hasn't gotten its full due. After decades in which "the imperial
presidency" was increasingly in the spotlight, after two terms of George
W. Bush in which a literal cult of executive power -- or to use the term of that
moment, "the unitary executive" -- took hold in the White House, and without
any obvious diminution in the literal powers of the presidency, Barack
Obama has managed to look like a bystander at his own funeral. If I
had to summarize these years, I would say that he entered the phone
booth dressed as Superman and came out as Clark Kent. Today, in "The
Mystery of Washington's Waning Global Power," Dilip Hiro points out that, as
far as Obama's foreign (and war) policy, it's almost as if, when the
American president speaks, no one in the Greater Middle East -- not
even our closest allies or client states -- is listening. And true as it may
be for that region, it seems, bizarrely enough, no less true in Washington
where the president's recent attempts to intervene in the Syrian civil
war were rejected both by Congress (though without a final vote on the
subject) and by the American people via opinion polls. It should be puzzling
just how little power the present executive is actually capable of
wielding. He can go to the U.N. or Kansas City and make speeches (that
themselves often enough implicitly cast him as a kind of interested observer
of his own presidency), but nothing much that he says in Washington seems
any longer to be seriously attended to. In the foreign policy arena, he is
surrounded by a secretary of defense who ducks for cover, a secretary of
state who wanders the world blowing off steam, and a national security
advisor and U.N. ambassador who seem like blundering neophytes and whose
basic ideological stance (in favor of American -- aka "humanitarian" -interventions globally) has been rejected in this country by almost any
constituency imaginable. Unlike previous presidents, he evidently has no
one -- no Brent Scowcroft, Jim Baker, or even Henry Kissinger -- capable of
working the corridors of power skillfully or bringing a policy home.
Domestically, who ever heard of a presidency already into its second term
that, according to just about all observers, has only one significant
achievement -- Obamacare (whatever you think of it) -- and clearly hasn't a
hope in hell of getting a second one? Just as he's done in Syria, Obama
will now be watching relatively helplessly as Republicans in Congress
threaten to shut the government down and not raise the debt ceiling -and whatever happens, who expects him to be the key player in that
onrushing spectacle? America's waning power in the Greater Middle East
is more than matched by Obama's waned power in this country. In our
lifetime, we've never seen a president -- not even the impeached Clinton
-- so drained of power or influence. It's a puzzle wrapped in an enigma
swaddled by a pretzel. Go figure.
Link
Link Turn + No Spillover Congress

The plan locks in presidential power prevents Congress
or the courts from undermining the president
Robert Chesney et al, Professor at the University of Texas School of Law,
nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, distinguished scholar at
the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law, and
cofounder of Lawfare, (Other authors Jack Goldsmith, Henry L. Shattuck
Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, member of the Hoover Institutions
Jean Perkins Task Force on National Security and Law, former assistant
attorney general of the Office of Legal Counsel, Matthew C. Waxman,
Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, adjunct senior fellow at the Council
on Foreign Relations, member of the Hoover Institutions Jean Perkins Task
Force on National Security and Law, and formerly served in senior positions at
the State Department, Defense Department, and National Security Council,
and Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings
Institution, member of the Hoover Institutions Jean Perkins Task Force on
National Security and Law, and editor-in-chief of Lawfare), 2013, A
Statutory Framework for Next-Generation Terrorist Threats,
http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/Statutory-Frameworkfor-Next-Generation-Terrorist-Threats.pdf
Second, presidential action based on statutory authority has more political
and legal legitimacy than action based on Article II alone. Article II actions
leave the president without overt political support of Congress, which can
later snipe at his decisions, or take actions to undermine them. We saw this
happen, for example, in response to many of the Bush administrations
unilateral assertions of authority, and also to some degree in response to
President Obamas unilateral assertion of authority in Libya. This is a problem
that grows with reliance on Article II over time. Also, of course, any
subsequent judicial review of the presidents use of force is more likely to be
upheld if supported by Congress .
No spillover plan reinforces pres power and prevents

future reductions
Robert Chesney et al, Professor at the University of Texas School of Law,
nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, distinguished scholar at
the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law, and
cofounder of Lawfare, (Other authors Jack Goldsmith, Henry L. Shattuck
Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, member of the Hoover Institutions
Jean Perkins Task Force on National Security and Law, former assistant
attorney general of the Office of Legal Counsel, Matthew C. Waxman,
Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, adjunct senior fellow at the Council
on Foreign Relations, member of the Hoover Institutions Jean Perkins Task

Force on National Security and Law, and formerly served in senior positions at
the State Department, Defense Department, and National Security Council,
and Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings
Institution, member of the Hoover Institutions Jean Perkins Task Force on
National Security and Law, and editor-in-chief of Lawfare), 2013, A
Statutory Framework for Next-Generation Terrorist Threats,
http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/Statutory-Frameworkfor-Next-Generation-Terrorist-Threats.pdf
While we believe there will be a need for a new AUMF, and while we discuss
options for such a new statute in Parts II and III, we first pause to note the
general downsides of a new AUMF. As the discussion of inherent presidential
power implies, a new statutory framework for presidential uses of force
against newly developing terrorist threats might diminish presidential
flexibility and discretion at the margins. At the same time, of course, it
enhances the legitimacy of presidential action in domestic courts and with
domestic public opinion. This constraint-legitimacy tradeoff is commonplace.
And to the extent that the constraint achieves legitimacy it promotes
sustainable counterterrorism policy, politically and legally, over the long
term. A strong statutory basis makes it less likely that Congress or courts will
intervene later with constraints that dangerously hamper the presidents
agility to respond to threats.
Impacts
No impact to heg
Christopher J. Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University,
9-26-2011, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining European Grand Strategy,
Comparative Strategy, 30:316332, EBSCO
there is no evidence to support a direct relationship
between the relative level of U.S. activism and international stability. In fact, the limited data
we do have suggest the opposite may be true. During the 1990s, the United States cut back on
It is perhaps worth noting that
its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less on
defense in real terms than it had in 1990.51 To internationalists, defense hawks and believers in
hegemonic stability, this irresponsible peace dividend endangered both national and global security. No
serious analyst of American military capabilities, argued Kristol and Kagan, doubts that the defense
budget has been cut much too far to meet Americas responsibilities to itself and to world peace.52 On
the other hand, if the pacific trends were not based upon U.S. hegemony but a strengthening norm against
The verdict
from the past two decades is fairly plain: The world grew more peaceful while the
interstate war, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence.
United States cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was
endangered by a less-capable United States military, or at least none took
any action that would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to
address power vacuums, no security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races, and
no regional balancing occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S.
military was diminished. The rest of the world acted as if the threat of
international war was not a pressing concern, despite the reduction in U.S.
capabilities. Most of all, the United States and its allies were no less safe . The
incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined while the U nited States
cut its military spending under President Clinton, and kept declining as the
Bush Administration ramped the spending back up. No complex statistical
analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion that the two are
unrelated. Military spending figures by themselves are insufficient to disprove a connection between
overall U.S. actions and international stability. Once again, one could presumably argue that spending is
not the only or even the best indication of hegemony, and that it is instead U.S. foreign political and
security commitments that maintain stability. Since neither was significantly altered during this period,
instability should not have been expected. Alternately, advocates of hegemonic stability could believe that
relative rather than absolute spending is decisive in bringing peace. Although the United States cut back
on its spending during the 1990s, its relative advantage never wavered. However, even if it is true that
either U.S. commitments or relative spending account for global pacific trends, then at the very least
stability can evidently be maintained at drastically lower levels of both. In other words, even if one can be
allowed to argue in the alternative for a moment and suppose that there is in fact a level of engagement
below which the United States cannot drop without increasing international disorder, a rational grand
strategist would still recommend cutting back on engagement and spending until that level is determined.
Grand strategic decisions are never final; continual adjustments can and must be made as time goes on.
Basic logic suggests that the United States ought to spend the minimum amount of its blood and treasure
while seeking the maximum return on its investment. And if the current era of stability is as stable as
many believe it to be, no increase in conflict would ever occur irrespective of U.S. spending, which would
save untold trillions for an increasingly debt-ridden nation. It is also perhaps worth noting that if opposite
trends had unfolded, if other states had reacted to news of cuts in U.S. defense spending with more
aggressive or insecure behavior, then internationalists would surely argue that their expectations had been
fulfilled. If increases in conflict would have been interpreted as proof of the wisdom of internationalist
strategies, then logical consistency demands that the lack thereof should at least pose a problem. As it
stands,
the only evidence
we have regarding the likely systemic reaction to a more restrained
suggests that the current peaceful trends are unrelated to U.S.

military spending. Evidently the rest of the world can operate quite effectively without the presence of
United States
a global policeman.
alone.
Those who think otherwise base their view on faith
AT: Terrorism Disadvantage

1.Building up the threat of terrorism exploits and categorizes
all Muslims and creates fear mongering that makes counterterror efforts less effective
German 15 (Michael, Mike German is a fellow with the Brennan Center for Justices
Liberty and National Security Program. Previously he was policy counsel for national
security and privacy for the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative
Office. A sixteen-year veteran of federal law enforcement, German served as a
special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, where he specialized in
domestic terrorism and covert operations, Our Overreaction to Terrorist Attacks Like
Paris Is Only Making Things Worse, Defense One,
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/01/our-over-reaction-terrorist-attacks-parisonly-making-things-worse/103857/)
I am troubled by what the Paris terror attacks say about our countrys
continuing failure to properly understand terrorist methodologies and
formulate more effective counterterrorism responses. Im particularly troubled by the
sensationalistic U.S. media coverage of them. If we continue to aggrandize the violent acts of a handful of
marginalized individuals into existential threats to western civilization, our over-reactions will to continue
sapping our resources while empowering extremists of all sorts. Anyone following the events in Europe as
terrorism in
the West is primarily, if not exclusively, a Muslim problem. Many
commentators viewed the three Paris terrorists as representative of an
alienated European Muslim population vulnerable to the call of terrorism. But
the selfless courage displayed by the Muslim police officer they killed and the
Muslim deli employee who helped save Jewish customers were more
authentic examples of a larger, law-abiding and peaceful French Muslim
community. No one pondered what their actions said about the nature of
Islam. In fact, Muslims account for only a small percentage of the terrorism
in Europe over the last several years. Most politically-motivated violence
there is carried out by nationalist and sectarian groups, yet the government
they unfolded would have seen familiar tropes playing out in the media. The first is that
and the media dont treat these threats the same. Anders Breivik killed 77 people in separate gun and
bomb attacks in 2011, including many children.
Many people in Europe share Breiviks

xenophobic, ultra-nationalist, anti-Muslim ideology, but we dont hold them collectively
responsible for his decision to employ violence to further those views. We dont call for a war on his beliefs;
we demand his criminal prosecution. A similar phenomenon occurs here in the United States, where most
media outlets covered the distant Paris attacks far more closely than domestic shooting sprees by white
supremacist Fraizer Glenn Miller, or anti-government extremists like Curtis Wade Holley, Eric Frein, and
Jerad Miller, who assassinated four police officers in separate instances last year. The Combatting
Terrorism Center at West Point documented 3,053 injuries and 670 fatalities in the United States from far
right violence from 1990 to 2012. A 2014 University of Maryland survey indicates U.S. law enforcement
the federal
government effectively treats these acts of politically-motivated
violence as hate crimes or lone attacks rather than terrorism. This may
now view Sovereign Citizens as the greatest terror threat they face. Yet
explain why an attempted firebombing at a Colorado NAACP office building the day before the Paris attacks
received little media attention. I spoke with New York University adjunct professor Arun Kundnani, author
of The Muslims are Coming!: Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror, about the
disparity between the way we treat different forms of political violence (we spoke before the Paris
attacks): The point of noting this disparity in reaction isnt to say one ideology presents more or less of a
threat.
All terrorism is reprehensible. But thankfully, its also rare.
Deaths attributable to terrorism here in the U.S. are a tiny fraction

of the roughly 14,000 homicides committed each year, one-third of
which go unsolved. Yet we devote far more resources to uncovering
potential terrorists than to finding actual killers. The purpose of putting
terrorist acts in context is to better understand how we might respond in a
more effective manner. The second prevalent theme in the early coverage of
the Paris attacks was the tendency to exaggerate the capabilities of Muslim
extremists. With very little information available save a brief video showing the execution of a
wounded police officer many counterterrorism officials and policy makers didnt hesitate to call it a
sophisticated attack that represented a new and more complex threat. The FBI and DHS backed this
description in a law enforcement bulletin, claiming the Paris attacks demonstrated a greater degree of
sophistication and advanced weapons handling than seen in previous coordinated small-arms attacks, such
as the 2013 Westgate Mall attack in Nairobi, Kenya. The Somali militant group al-Shabaab claimed credit
for the armed assault on Westgate Mall, which killed sixty-seven people. Details regarding the attack and
whether some perpetrators escaped are still mired in controversy. The facts dont support the hasty
conclusion that the Paris attack was as sophisticated as originally claimed. While one or both of the
Kouachi brothers may have travelled to Yemen and received some training from al-Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula, their attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices was almost derailed because they went to the wrong
address. They had to ask a maintenance man for directions. They caught a lucky break by finding an
employee outside the office who they forced to punch the code necessary to enter the building. After the
shooting, they crashed their escape vehicle and left identification papers behind when they abandoned it.
Co-conspirator Amedy Coulibalys spree appeared even less organized, shooting a police officer, a street
sweeper and a jogger before storming the kosher supermarket. The weapons Coulibaly and the Kouachis
used werent financed or provided by organized terrorist groups, but purchased from a known criminal for
less than 5,000 euros, which Coulibaly obtained through a fraudulent bank loan. They did succeed at
killing 17 people, which is tragic. But spree shooters here in the United States racked up similar death tolls,
in some cases before graduating high school, or saddled with serious mental illnesses. It doesnt take
sophisticated training to pick up a gun and kill lots of unarmed people. Presenting Muslim terrorists as
lurking super-villains generates unwarranted public fear, which benefits governments and security officials
who exploit it for their own benefit. I talked with Ben Friedman of the Cato Institute about Americans
security demands, the politics of fear, and the difference between risk and vulnerability: As Friedman has
argued,
accurate information about the nature and probability of threats,

and the cost-effectiveness of various solutions could help correct the
impulse toward the overwrought fear of remote threats like terrorism. In a
perfect world, the intelligence community would provide that reliable threat information to the public, so
overreaction could be avoided. We dont live in that perfect world, as Friedman suggests, because the
intelligence agencies are also incentivized to inflate threat assessments: Threat inflation benefits
intelligence officials by making it easier for them to obtain new resources and authorities. A perfect
example is Director of National Intelligence James Clappers 2014 threat assessment, in which he claimed
the United States is beset by more crises and threats than any time in his 50-year career. He makes the
same claim every year, but the idea that current threats compare to the possible global nuclear
annihilation faced during the height of the Cold War is almost laughable. In fact the world is measurably
safer. Driving up public fear also dissuades demands for accountability for intelligence or operational
failures. Indeed, as was the case in several recent terrorist events, the perpetrators of the Paris attack
were well known to law enforcement and intelligence officials long before they acted. Two had only
recently been released from prison after serving time for terrorism-related offenses. All three were under
government surveillance, and were on the U.S. no-fly list. Yet instead of being called to the carpet to
explain why the expanded intelligence authorities and aggressive counterterrorism measures adopted
since 9/11 didnt work, Americas European intelligence partners are demanding even greater powers.
Treating terrorism committed by Muslims as categorically different from other

terrorism forfeits the ability to learn what responses are effective in other
contexts. When a far right extremist like Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolf or Frazier Glenn Miller commits mass
murder, government officials and media commenters rarely suggest they were extremely sophisticated,
even though these three Army veterans had far better military training than anything offered in Yemen. We
treat these terrorists as the common criminals they are. We dont fear their ideologies, which earn every
bit of their unpopularity. We wrap up their co-conspirators using traditional law enforcement tools and we
try them openly in criminal courts, where their weakness, cruelty and bankrupt ideas can be exposed for
public opprobrium. When current and former government officials go on television or through the halls of
Congress to exaggerate the impact and meaning of terrorist attacks, whether here or abroad, they only
encourage more violence. Telling every anti-social misfit and petty criminal that they can achieve notoriety
and influence government policy by acting out violently with whatever tools are at hand isnt an effective
counterterrorism strategy. The terrorists goal is to spread irrational fear and cause costly overreactions
that divide society along the lines they choose. Our intelligence officials shouldnt be helping them. There
will always be those that use violence to make political points. Recognizing this is a sign of weakness
rather than strength will help us build a stronger and more resilient society that fear could never defeat.
2.Education is necessary to combat Terrorism and

Islamophobia
Hanley, 15 (Delinda C. Hanley, April 2015, American Muslims Examine
Causes and Suggest Ways to Halt Radicalization, Washington Report on
Middle East Affairs, http://www.wrmea.org/2015-march-april/americanmuslims-examine-causes-and-suggest-ways-to-halt-radicalization.html )
Talib M. Shareef, imam of Masjid Muhammad, the Nation of Islams mosque in Washington, DC, agreed with Mogahed.
This is all
about education, stated Shareef, who served 30 years in the U.S. Air Force. The literacy rate in the Muslim world is
shocking, he acknowledged, but Americans also are uninformed about Islam and the
Middle East. After 9/11 Muslims in the armed forces heard disparaging
comments about ragheads and were made to feel uncomfortable in the military environment. Imam Shareef
was tasked with educating personnel about the rich history of Islam. He also urged Americans to give proper attention to people who are
suffering in the world. The French attack has opened up hurtful wounds from 9/11, he added, and put patriotic Muslim Americans on the
defensive. Its not OK to disrespect others, the imam said, and its not OKto separate society. On Jan. 23, the day after the Muslim
leaders important press conference (which, incidentally, was not reported by U.S. media), Secretary of State Kerry told leaders at the World
Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland that it would be a mistake to link Islam to criminal conduct rooted in alienation, poverty, thrill-seeking
The biggest error we could make would

be to blame Muslims for crimes that their faith utterly rejects. Kerry described terror groups as a form of
criminal anarchy, a nihilism, which illegitimately claims an ideological and religious foundation. This fight will not be
decided on the battlefield, he told Davos attendees, but in the classrooms, workplaces,
and other factors. We have to keep our heads, Kerry said.
places of worship of the world. It will also be decided when nations come together and make progress on multiple international and
domestic fronts. The desire for freedom, civil rights and justice is universal. Its simply easier to describe radical ideology as Islamic. It gets
leaders off the hook in dealing with injustice.
Non-Unique
Terrorism is already happening.
ISIS focusing on US terror attacks now
Boot, 6/28/15
Max Boot, 6-28-2015, leading military historian and foreign-policy analyst.
The Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the
Council on Foreign Relations , An ISIS Terror Attack on US Is Coming,"
Commentary Magazine,
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/06/28/isis-terror-attack-on-theus/, Accessed: 6-29-2015, /Bingham-MB
The exact connections between ISIS and the foreign attacks remains to be
determined but the fact that ISIS claimed credit for the Kuwait and Tunisia
attacks suggests that it is expanding its attention, from Syria and Iraq toward
a more international wave of terror designed to better compete with Al
Qaeda, which has long been focused on the far enemy (i.e., the U.S. and
its allies). Already ISIS sympathizers have been linked to attacks in the U.S.
such as the thwarted attempt to shoot up an exhibition of Mohammad
cartoons in Texas. Its a safe bet that the U.S. will not be exempt from
ISIS growing foreign focus, and that some future attacks will
succeed.
Homegrown terrorism threat real and growing

Risa A. Brooks 2011 [Risa A. Brooks is Assistant Professor of Political Science at
Marquette University.] In the United States Muslim Homegrown Terrorism in
the United States: How Serious Is the Threat? MIT Press

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ISEC_a_00055
Thus, in the decade since the September 11 attacks, homegrown terrorism
has evolved from a peripheral issue to a major theme in contemporary
debates about the terrorist threats facing the United States. Public ofcials
such as Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Federal Bureau of
Investigation Director Robert Mueller, and Attorney General Eric Holder
regularly counsel that the number of Americans engaging in terrorist activity
has risen.6 As Napolitano cautions, One of the most striking elements of
todays threat picture is that plots to attack America increasingly involve
American residents and citizens.7 According to Holder, The American
People would be surprised at the depth of the [homegrown terrorist] threat.8
Concerns about homegrown terrorism, in turn, have generated a variety of
think tank reports and associated warnings by many of the countrys most
accomplished terrorism researchers.9 Analysts such as Peter Bergen, Paul
Cruickshank, Bruce Hoffman, and Marc Sageman have all expressed concern
about a potential rise in terrorism initiated by Muslim Americans.10 Indeed,
Bergen and Hoffman call the year 2009 a watershed in terrorist attacks and
plots in the United States.
New Bill decreases surveillance non-unique-havent seen

impacts of DisAd
Diamond-15
(Jeremy Diamond, reporter for CNN Politics, tracking everything from the 2016 election to breaking news out of Washington to foreign policy and international affairs. He's reported on everything from the ins and
outs of the Iran nuclear deal to the Republican presidential field and the rise of Donald Trump. Diamond joined CNN Politics as a reporter in September 2014 after two previous internships with the network. His work
in both the Washington, DC and New York bureaus includes reporting for CNN Digital and assisting with the production on Anderson Cooper 360. Before joining CNN, Diamond earned his journalism chops as a
reporter and news editor at the GW Hatchet, the independent student newspaper of the George Washington University where he broke a national news story after uncovering that university officials
misrepresentedthe school's financial aid policy. For that story, he won the Institute on Political Journalism's Collegiate Journalism Award and a Pinnacle Award from the College Media Association. He graduated Cum
Laude from The George Washington University with a degree in international affairs. He also spent a semester at Tel Aviv University and is fluent in French and conversational in Hebrew and Spanish, 9-7-2015, NSA
surveillance bill passes after weeks-long showdown, http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/senate-usa-freedom-act-vote-patriot-act-nsa/, CNN politics)
National Security Agency lost its authority to collect the phone

records of millions of Americans, thanks to a new reform measure Congress
passed on Tuesday. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on
Tuesday evening. It is the first piece of legislation to reform post 9/11 surveillance measures. "It's historical," said Sen.
Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, one of the leading architects of the reform efforts.
"It's the first major overhaul of government surveillance in decades." The weeks-long
buildup to the final vote was full of drama. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul assailed the NSA in a 10hour speech that roused civil libertarians around the country. He opposed
both renewing the post 9/11-Patriot Act and the compromise measure -- that
eventually passed -- known as the USA Freedom Act. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch
Washington (CNN)The
McConnell, and defense hawks such as Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, had hoped to extend the more expansive Patriot Act, arguing
NSA spying: Has the government lost important tool?
it was essential for national security.

02:40
RELATED: Are post 9/11 politics shifting? The Republican infighting broke out during two weeks of debate on Capitol Hill and on the presidential
campaign trail. And in part thanks to Paul's objections, certain counterterrorism provisions of the Patriot Act expired late Sunday amid
warnings of national security consequences. Obama welcomed the bill's final passage on Tuesday, but took a shot at those who held it up.
"After a needless delay and inexcusable lapse in important national security authorities, my administration will work expeditiously to ensure
our national security professionals again have the full set of vital tools they need to continue protecting the country," he said in a statement.
Now that Obama has signed the bill, his administration will get to work getting the bulk metadata collection program back up and running
during a six-month transition period to the new data collection system. Senior administration officials described a two-step process: The first is
the technical process -- essentially flipping the switches back and coordinating the databases of information stored by the government -- which
takes a full day. White House slams Senate over lapse in spy measures 03:28 RELATED: McConnell refuses to blast Rand Paul The second is a
government needs to make a filing with the special

secretive court -- which has authorized the bulk metadata collection program
since 2006 -- to verify that the metadata programs are legal under the new
law. It's unclear how long the process would take, but one official estimated
the process could take three or four days. Final passage of the compromise bill was in question until
Tuesday, until the Senate successfully rebuffed with three amendments which could have thrown a wrench into the works. The bill's
passage is the culmination of efforts to reform the NSA that blossomed out of
NSA leaker Edward Snowden's 2013 revelations. "This is the most important
surveillance reform bill since 1978, and its passage is an indication that
Americans are no longer willing to give the intelligence agencies a blank
check," said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties
Union. Congress had failed last year to pass a similar reform effort. The legislation will require the government obtain a targeted warrant
legal process that could take longer. The
to collect phone metadata from telecommunications companies, makes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (known as the FISA court)
which reviews those warrant requests more transparent and reauthorizes Patriot Act provisions that lapsed early Monday. The bill, though,
passed over the strong and impassioned objections of security hawks in the Republican Party and from some former members of the
intelligence community. But as the June 1 deadline to renew expiring provisions of the Patriot Act closed in, and as NSA reform advocates
refused to budge in the face of charges of damaging national security, top Senate Republicans led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
eventually relented, giving way to pressure from House Republicans, the Obama administration and reform advocates in their own body.
McConnell and others realized that the USA Freedom Act, which passed the House three weeks earlier, was their only ticket to keeping
counterterrorism provisions like data collection and roving wiretaps alive. But while McConnell kept up his protest into the final moments
leading up to the vote, his fellow Kentucky senator who antagonized his every move to reauthorize provisions of the Patriot Act noticeably
avoided the spotlight on Tuesday. Paul's weeks of staunch and unflinching opposition to reauthorizing the Patriot Act, and to the USA Freedom
Act for not going far enough, ended Thursday with a simple "No" vote on that bill. He even relented in his plan to offer his own amendments to
that piece of legislation and didn't make a prominent speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday. Paul chalked up his efforts as a win, though,
succeeding in leading the bulk metadata collection program to its

expiration on Sunday night.
Risk of nuclear terrorism is real and high now

Bunn, et al, 10/2/13
[
Bunn, Matthew, Valentin Kuznetsov, Martin B. Malin, Yuri Morozov, Simon Saradzhyan, William H. Tobey, Viktor I. Yesin, and Pavel S. Zolotarev. "Steps to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism." Paper, Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, October 2, 2013, Matthew Bunn. Professor of the Practice of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School andCo-Principal Investigator of Project on Managing the Atom
at Harvard Universitys Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Vice Admiral Valentin Kuznetsov (retired Russian Navy). Senior research fellow at the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies of the
Russian Academy of Sciences, Senior Military Representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense to NATO from 2002 to 2008. Martin Malin. Executive Director of the Project on Managing the Atom at the Belfer
Center for Science and International Affairs. Colonel Yuri Morozov (retired Russian Armed Forces). Professor of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences and senior research fellow at the Institute for U.S. and
Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, chief of department at the Center for Military-Strategic Studies at the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces from 1995 to 2000. Simon Saradzhyan.
Fellow at Harvard Universitys Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Moscow-based defense and security expert and writer from 1993 to 2008. William Tobey. Senior fellow at Harvard Universitys
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and director of the U.S.-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism, deputy administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation at the U.S. National Nuclear
Security Administration from 2006 to 2009. Colonel General Viktor Yesin (retired Russian Armed Forces). Leading research fellow at the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences
and advisor to commander of the Strategic Missile Forces of Russia, chief of staff of the Strategic Missile Forces from 1994 to 1996. Major General Pavel Zolotarev (retired Russian Armed Forces). Deputy director of
the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, head of the Information and Analysis Center of the Russian Ministry of Defense from1993 to 1997, section head - deputy chief of staff
of the Defense Council of Russia from 1997 to
.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23430/steps_to_prevent_nu
clear_terrorism.html]
1998
In 2011, Harvards Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the
Russian Academy of Sciences Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies published The U.S.
Russia Joint Threat Assessment on Nuclear Terrorism. The assessment analyzed the
means, motives, and access of would-be nuclear terrorists, and concluded
that the threat of nuclear terrorism is urgent and real. The Washington and
Seoul Nuclear Security Summits in 2010 and 2012 established and
demonstrated a consensus among political leaders from around the world
that nuclear terrorism poses a serious threat to the peace, security, and prosperity of
our planet. For any country, a terrorist attack with a nuclear device would be
an immediate and catastrophic disaster, and the negative effects would reverberate
around the world far beyond the location and moment of the detonation.
Preventing a nuclear terrorist attack requires international cooperation to secure
Introduction
nuclear materials, especially among those states producing nuclear materials and weapons. As the worlds two greatest
nuclear powers, the United States and Russia have the greatest experience and capabilities in securing nuclear materials
and plants and, therefore, share a special responsibility to lead international efforts to prevent terrorists from seizing such
materials and plants. The depth of convergence between U.S. and Russian vital national interests on the issue of nuclear
security is best illustrated by the fact that bilateral cooperation on this issue has continued uninterrupted for more than
two decades, even when relations between the two countries occasionally became frosty, as in the aftermath of the
August 2008 war in Georgia. Russia and the United States have strong incentives to forge a close and trusting partnership
to prevent nuclear terrorism and have made enormous progress in securing fissile material both at home and in
partnership with other countries. However, to meet the evolving threat posed by those individuals intent upon using
nuclear weapons for terrorist purposes, the United States and Russia need to deepen and broaden their cooperation. The
2011 U.S. - Russia Joint Threat Assessment offered both specific conclusions about the nature of the threat and general
observations about how it might be addressed. This report builds on that foundation and analyzes the existing framework
for action, cites gaps and deficiencies, and makes specific recommendations for improvement. The U.S. Russia Joint
Nuclear terrorism is a
real and urgent threat. Urgent actions are required to reduce the risk. The risk is driven by
the rise of terrorists who seek to inflict unlimited damage, many of whom
have sought justification for their plans in radical interpretations of Islam ; by
the spread of information about the decades-old tech nology of nuclear
weapons; by the increased availability of weapons-usable nuclear materials;
and by globalization, which makes it easier to move people, technologies,
and materials across the world. Making a crude nuclear bomb would not be easy, but
is potentially within the capabilities of a technically sophisticated terrorist
group, as numerous government studies have confirmed. Detonating a stolen
Threat Assessment on Nuclear Terrorism (The 2011 report executive summary):
nuclear weapon would likely be difficult for terrorists to accomplish, if the weapon was equipped with modern technical
Terrorists could, however,

cut open a stolen nuclear weapon and make use of its nuclear material for a
bomb of their own. The nuclear material for a bomb is small and difficult to
detect, making it a major challenge to stop nuclear smuggling or to recover
nuclear material after it has been stolen. Hence, a primary focus in reducing the risk must be to
safeguards (such as the electronic locks known as Permissive Action Links, or PALs).
keep nuclear material and nuclear weapons from being stolen by continually improving their security, as agreed at the
Al-Qaeda has sought nuclear weapons for

almost two decades. The group has repeatedly attempted to purchase stolen
nuclear material or nuclear weapons, and has repeatedly attempted to
recruit nuclear expertise. Al-Qaeda reportedly conducted tests of
conventional explosives for its nuclear program in the desert in Afghanistan .
Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in April 2010.
The groups nuclear ambitions continued after its dispersal following the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Recent writings from top al-Qaeda leadership are focused on justifying the
mass slaughter of civilians, including the use of weapons of mass destruction,
and are in all likelihood intended to provide a formal religious justification
for nuclear use. While there are significant gaps in coverage of the groups activities, al-Qaeda appears to
have been frustrated thus far in acquiring a nuclear capability; it is unclear whether the the group has acquired weaponsusable nuclear material or the expertise needed to make such material into a bomb. Furthermore, pressure from a broad
range of counter-terrorist actions probably has reduced the groups ability to manage large, complex projects, but has not
there is no sign the group has abandoned its

nuclear ambitions. On the contrary, leadership statements as recently as 2008
indicate that the intention to acquire and use nuclear weapons is as
strong as ever.
eliminated the danger. However,
Threat of Terror does not scare US Citizens

Bosman et al, 15 (By JULIE BOSMAN, RICHARD PREZ-PEA, EMMA G.
FITZSIMMONS and JAD MOUAWAD, Travel Alert or No, Many in U.S. Are
Determined to Go Places for Thanksgiving
NOVEMBER 24, 2015, New York Times,
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/us/thanksgiving-travel-securityterrorism.html?em_pos=large&emc=edit_nn_20151125&nl=morningbriefing&nlid=73146567&referer= )
CHICAGO
The State Department has issued a chilling worldwide travel alert, warning
that the threat of terrorism looms large. Cable news and Twitter carry round-the-clock breaking
travelers
news of bombings and attacks around the world. Police officers patrol major airports with bomb-sniffing dogs and carry intimidating weapons
little of it seemed to matter to the millions of

Americans who were determined to fly during Thanksgiving week, arriving at airports
with blas attitudes and shrugs about the possibility of terrorism at home. I didnt
think about it, said John Barragan, a 41-year-old real estate executive from Chicago, as he prepared to board his
like shotguns and AR-15s. Yet on Tuesday,
flight at OHare International Airport. Im just like, man, whats going to happen is going to happen. In interviews at airports around the
country,
travelers said they were well aware of the attacks,
and some even admitted to a degree of
they had calculated that the risk was remote, and they were
determined not to let it alter their lives
fear. But they said
. Travelers unloaded their luggage and checked in at the Southwest Terminal at Los Angeles International
Airport. JENNA SCHOENEFELD FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES At Kennedy International Airport in New York, Campbell McDougal, 55, said he had avoided large crowds on his 10-day trip with his girlfriend to New York.
They had touched down from Berlin just hours after the Paris attacks, and it brought caution to their travels, especially with more tourist-centric sites. Flights have always been an issue, he said. But theyre
always stringent with security. Paris was on my mind last week, but not in terms of my flight. At La Guardia Airport, Jonathan Zwerling, who had flown in from Atlanta with his 2-year-old daughter, said he had seen
the warnings to be more aware of his surroundings than usual, and noted the airports version of seasonal trimmings: a police officer with an AR-15 assault rifle, and another with a shotgun. My wife was real
worried, said Mr. Zwerling, 45, an aircraft maintenance worker for Delta Air Lines. I just kind of do my thing. An Amtrak police officer watched passengers board a train on Tuesday at Pennsylvania Station in New
York. TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE GETTY IMAGES Throughout the holiday week, the nations railroads and highways will have heightened security. New Yorks police commissioner, William J.
Bratton, said that with mild weather expected, there could be record crowds for the Thanksgiving parade and record security to go with it, including, for the first time, about 200 newly trained officers from the
Police Departments Critical Response Command, a new counterterrorism squad. Amtrak said it would also have a heightened police presence in the coming days. AAA predicted that 42 million people in this
country would drive 50 miles or more over the long holiday weekend, a small increase from last year. But vigilance will be most apparent at airports. Travelers have plenty to be jittery about: the attacks in Paris
that killed 130, the downing of a Russian airliner in Egypt that killed 224, the bombing in Beirut that killed 43 all claimed by the Islamic State and warnings of a planned attack in Belgium. Well over two million
passengers are expected to board a flight each day during the Thanksgiving holiday period, which began Friday and runs through next Tuesday, the highest figure since 2007 and 3 percent more than last year,
according to a forecast by Airlines for America, the industry trade group. United Airlines said it was adding more than 2,200 flights over that period, especially early in the morning and late at night, when many
aircraft would usually be idle. Changes will be obvious at airports in the United States, including longer waits, travel experts say. Travelers with the Transportation Security Administrations PreCheck program, which
allows frequent travelers to speed up the security screening, have been advised that they may be asked submit to procedures they can usually skip, like taking off their shoes, said Henry Harteveldt, the founder of
the Atmosphere Research Group. At Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, one of the worlds busiest, were in a hyper-state of vigilance, said Reese McCranie, an airport spokesman. He said that the
increased police presence would be noticeable and that passengers should arrive earlier than usual to contend with long security lines. Arnold Barnett, an aviation safety expert and a professor at M.I.T., said
security lines at airports could be slower than usual this week. Since the Islamic State claimed that it had used a soda can for the bomb that brought down the plane in Egypt, agents might be more focused on
monitoring liquids, Mr. Barnett said.
Few travelers appear to be unsettled enough to cancel their
flights. Allianz Global Assistance, an insurer, said it had seen an increase in calls from travelers who were interested in buying insurance
to protect international trips, in particular, and some cancellations after the Paris attacks. Yet even for travel to cities that have been targeted,
there is only scattered evidence of a travel decline. I think
people are refusing to be terrorized,
said George
Hobica, the founder of airfarewatchdog.com, a travel website. There have been no panic or fire sales. Airfares have not gone down to Paris or even to Brussels. Youd think no one wants to go anymore. But it still
costs about $1,200 to fly there from Chicago or San Francisco. But some travelers, as they made their way through airports on Tuesday, admitted that they were a little worried. At Los Angeles International
Airport, Cynthia Diaz, 45, an accounts receivable supervisor, was headed to Boise, Idaho, to visit her partners family. I was little bit nervous this morning when I thought about it, she said. Christian Miller, a 29year-old flight attendant for Shuttle America, said the Paris attacks made her change the ritual prayer she says before every takeoff. Usually she prays for God to send six angels to her plane two to carry the
front and back, two for the big wings, and a pair for the top and bottom. Then she asks God to ease the troubles on the minds of any of her passengers. For more than a week now, since she received pleading text
messages and phone calls from family members scared for her safety, she has added extra emphasis to that last part. I pray, If someone is feeling like they need to be violent, let my smile maybe change
something in their heart, said Ms. Miller, who lives in Atlanta. Its tough; were at a tender place now not only for America, but for the universe. On Tuesday morning at OHare, travelers were greeted with a
surprisingly cheerful tableau: moderate crowds, short security lines, strings of sparkling holiday lights and, in one terminal, a table where airline employees handed out free cups of steaming apple cider and coffee.
In the international terminal, as passengers arrived to board flights to Seoul, South Korea; Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; New Delhi; and Hong Kong, one traveler said he had few worries about flying so soon
Security is a
must, as it should be. But I have confidence that everything will be fine . Maurice
after the attacks in Paris. Everything is O.K., said Michiel Wehbeh, a 55-year-old engineer from Syria, who splits his time between Chicago and the United Arab Emirates .
Nguiffo, a 41-year-old taxi driver, said he was worried about flying in light of terrorism fears around the globe. But he felt he had to keep his
plans to go to Montreal, where he would reunite with family, who would then fly with him to Cameroon. We are not comfortable flying, he
said. But sometimes you dont have a choice. I want to see my family.
Terrorism Attacks are to happen soon

Carter, 15
(Carter, Sara, Former CIA and DIV Operatives Warn of Another 9/11
Attack, U.S News, Written September 11, 2015)
The United States could be facing another 9/11 attack
as factions grow deeper among the

Taliban, al-Qaida and the Islamic State group, especially with the recently confirmed death of the Taliban's one-eyed leader Mullah Omar,
according to a senior U.S. lawmaker, federal law enforcement and intelligence officials. The tensions between Islamic State group, also known
as ISIS or ISIL, and the Taliban is as dangerous a national security threat to the United States as it was before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, said
Right now, al-Qaida,

under Zawahiri, needs the Khorasan group or some affiliated group to attack the U.S. again like 9/11 in
order to lift up his stature and that of the organization," Fairchild said. "He doesn't want something small but something
big a big-scale attack like 9/11 to make him relevant again. This is an extremely dangerous time as
Islamic State, al-Qaida and the Taliban fight and compete for dominance." A 32-page Islamic State recruiting
Brian Fairchild, who spent two decades with the CIA and has testified before Congress on terrorism. "
document obtained in Pakistan by American Media Institute detailed the growing division between the Islamic State group and al-Qaida. The
document -- authenticated by retired Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and two other senior U.S. intelligence
called for the Islamic State group to launch a
officers -war with India that would draw the United States
into battle and end the world. A photo posted on internet on April 7, 2015 shows ISIS or Daesh (Daech) or "Islamic State" group militants
posing in Yarmouk (Yarmuk) Palestinian camp, located in a suburb of Damascus, Syria, that is partially now under their control. Photo by Balkis
Press/Sipa USA RELATED Not All Islamic State Recruits Want to Be Martyrs Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) also issued two
threatening communications in August calling on believers to take action in the U.S. through more lone-wolf attacks, according to SITE
Intelligence Group and Middle-East Research Institute, both of which track terror activity. "Despite many years since 9/11, our enemies in the
now Islamic State still see anniversaries as important times to stage attacks," Flynn said. "And regardless of how far away we get from the
our need to remain vigilant on this coming anniversary

is as high as it has ever been. We have had more than sufficient warnings from our FBI in the past few weeks and
original attack against America in 2001,
months. Our nation must never back down from these vicious murderers." Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas,
told AMI on Sept. 3, the
2001. "
threat emanating from terrorist organizations has evolved since
Since the 9/11 attacks we've seen the spread of jihadi ideology and the vacuum created under failed states," McCaul said. "ISIS in Syria and Iraq is an example of that and the growth of the
jihad movement has increased exponentially." The threat, however, has changed, McCaul said. "Islamic State has enormous reach through the Internet and its dark space that allows the group to conduct and plan
operations," he said. "It is an area that leaves most of law enforcement and the intelligence community in the dark and its difficult, if not impossible, to combatWe call it terrorism gone viral. Bin Laden had cadres
and couriers but with the Internet, they can radicalize thousands of fighters in a matter of minutes." Fighters from a coalition of Islamist forces arrive to the town of Ariha on May 28, 2015 in the Syrian city of Idlib,
the second provincial capital to fall from government control. The issue of "foreign fighters returning and hitting the homeland, which is a similar concern our European allies are facing at the moment, is something
we are deeply concerned about as well," he added. Flynn explains that the failure to target the radical religious ideas behind the Islamic State group has given the terrorist group room to spread not only in the
Middle East, but throughout the world. The threat of a "major war in South Asia goes beyond the scale that we have been dealing with in the wars we've fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. The likelihood of far more
deadly weapons of mass destruction being applied certainly goes up," Flynn said. Fairchild said that since 2001, U.S. policy to dismantle safe-havens for terrorist organizations has failed. "If you look at the world
. The very
premise of our counterterrorism policy has failed and our domestic security is
being directly threatened,"
today there are sanctuaries all across the world. ISIS and al-Qaida affiliates are all over the world, in Yemen, Sinai, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Africa to name a few
he said. An Iraqi Assyrian woman who fled from Mosul to Lebanon holds a placard depicting the map of Iraq and Syria, during a sit-in for
abducted Christians in Syria and Iraq, at a church in Sabtiyesh area east Beirut, Lebanon, Thursday, Feb. 26, 2015. RELATED ISIS Ability to Recruit Women Baffles West, Strengthens Cause Department of
Homeland Security spokeswoman Marsha Catron declined to comment on the current threats or the steps being taken by DHS to mitigate the threats. Although the Islamic State group's recruiting document details
the deep divisions within the jihadi terror groups, it also states its reverence for Mullah Omar, who had escaped on a motorcycle following a United States mission to capture him in Afghanistan in 2001 and refused
to turn Osama bin Laden over to authorities. Known as the Emir of the Afghan Taliban, Omar rose to power in 1995 and aided and harbored members of al-Qaida before and after Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. He
reportedly died in 2013, but his death remained a secret until July 29, when the Afghanistan government acknowledged his death just two days before peace talks between the terrorist groups were scheduled to
begin. "In the past, well before the attack on the World Trade Center, the Americans tried to bribe the Emir of the Muslims of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan Mullah Muhammad Omar with wealth, power, and
better relations with the anti-messianic global brotherhood in exchange for Sheikh Osama bin Laden," the document states. "After 9/11, when the U.S threatened to attack, the pious Emir of the Muslims of the
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan said, 'A momin's (one who believes in God) honor cannot allow him to hand over his momin brother to infidels, even at the cost of power; a momin's insurance is his faith which cannot
be bargained.'" Despite the apparent reverence for Omar, the Islamic State group wants to usurp the power in the region by encouraging al-Qaida's fighters to defect and join their movement, the document said.
A Taliban official told the American Media Institute that Islamic State group leadership in the region is struggling to build recruitment and that the Taliban is engaged in continued fighting with its members. When
asked how the Afghan Taliban views the Islamic State group compared to the U.S. and NATO, the official said, "yes, [Islamic State] is much worse than [U.S. and NATO] they are like a cancerous cell within the jihadi
groups." In this undated image released by the FBI, Mullah Omar is seen in a wanted poster. RELATED Mullah Omar's Death Risks Upsetting Peace Talks "Mainly we have our alliances with al-Qaida and we host
their core leadership in Afghanistan we have support of Al Nusrah, AQAP and al-Shabab," the official says. "But only the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria is our sworn enemy. Taliban and al-Qaida has a single
enemy among the Jihadi groups worldwide and that is the so-called Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, which is not according to Islam -- they are deviants." U.S. Intelligence officials, who have direct knowledge
of the region, said it is this competition between the various extremist groups has increased the threat to U.S. security both at home and abroad. "Mullah Omar's death could present opportunities for other terrorist
organizations to recruit disenchanted Taliban members; create splinter groups who may seek peace settlements with the Afghanistan government; or possibly incentivize the Taliban to continue its fighting efforts," a
U.S. Intelligence official said on condition of anonymity. The threat against U.S. assets, personnel overseas and the possibility of another 911 attack against the homeland "has increased since the rise of ISIL and
intelligence agencies are monitoring it closely," the intelligence official added.
American Believe Terrorist Attacks will happen

Bedard, October 6, 2015
(Bedard, Paul, American fear: 74% see 'catastrophic terrorist attack' inside United States, Washington
Examiner, October 6 2015)
Americans are deeply worried that the a "catastrophic terrorist attack " by Islamic
militants, like the one Wednesday on a Paris magazine staff, will happen in the United States, according to a new poll. According to the
74.2 percent of likely voters said they fear

terrorists affiliated with the Islamic State will strike U.S. targets if they arent
stopped. The poll was provided to Secrets. Worse, they believe the terrorists will use chemical or
biological weapons,
survey from national pollster McLaughlin & Associates,
ISIS focusing on US terror attacks now

Boot, 6/28/15
Max Boot, 6-28-2015, leading military historian and foreign-policy analyst.
The Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the
Council on Foreign Relations , An ISIS Terror Attack on US Is Coming,"
Commentary Magazine,
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/06/28/isis-terror-attack-on-theus/, Accessed: 6-29-2015, /Bingham-MB
The exact connections between ISIS and the foreign attacks remains to be
determined but the fact that ISIS claimed credit for the Kuwait and Tunisia
attacks suggests that it is expanding its attention, from Syria and Iraq toward
a more international wave of terror designed to better compete with Al
Qaeda, which has long been focused on the far enemy (i.e., the U.S. and
its allies). Already ISIS sympathizers have been linked to attacks in the U.S.
such as the thwarted attempt to shoot up an exhibition of Mohammad
cartoons in Texas. Its a safe bet that the U.S. will not be exempt from
ISIS growing foreign focus, and that some future attacks will
succeed.
No Nuke Terror
No nuclear terrordeterrence and prevention solves
Mearsheimer 10 John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished
Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, Imperial by
Design, The National Interest, 12/16/2010,
http://nationalinterest.org/print/article/imperial-by-design-4576
This assessment of Americas terrorism problem was flawed on every count. It was threat inflation of the
highest order. It made no sense to declare war against groups that were not trying to harm the United
States. They were not our enemies; and going after all terrorist organizations would greatly complicate the
daunting task of eliminating those groups that did have us in their crosshairs. In addition, there was no
alliance between the so-called rogue states and al-Qaeda. In fact, Iran and Syria cooperated with
Washington after 9/11 to help quash Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. Although the Bush administration
and the neoconservatives repeatedly asserted that there was a genuine connection between Saddam
Hussein and al-Qaeda, they never produced evidence to back up their claim for the simple reason that it
did not exist. The fact is that states have strong incentives to distrust terrorist groups ,
in part because they might turn on them someday, but also because countries cannot control what
This is
why there is hardly any chance that a rogue state will give a nuclear weapon
to terrorists. That regimes leaders could never be sure that they would not
be blamed and punished for a terrorist groups actions. Nor could they be
certain that the United States or Israel would not incinerate them if either
country merely suspected that they had provided terrorists with the ability to
carry out a WMD attack. A nuclear handoff, therefore, is not a serious threat. When you get down
to it, there is only a remote possibility that terrorists will get hold of an atomic
bomb. The most likely way it would happen is if there were political chaos in a
nuclear-armed state, and terrorists or their friends were able to take advantage of the ensuing
confusion to snatch a loose nuclear weapon. But even then, there are additional obstacles to
overcome: some countries keep their weapons disassembled, detonating one
is not easy and it would be difficult to transport the device without being
detected. Moreover, other countries would have powerful incentives to work with
Washington to find the weapon before it could be used. The obvious implication is that
terrorist organizations do, and they may do something that gets their patrons into serious trouble.
we should work with other states to improve nuclear security, so as to make this slim possibility even more
the ability of terrorists to strike the American homeland has been

blown out of all proportion. In the nine years since 9/11, government officials
and terrorist experts have issued countless warnings that another major
attack on American soil is probableeven imminent. But this is simply not
the case.3 The only attempts we have seen are a few failed solo attacks by
individuals with links to al-Qaeda like the shoe bomber, who attempted to blow up
an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami in December 2001, and the underwear bomber,
who tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit in December 2009. So, we do
have a terrorism problem, but it is hardly an existential threat . In fact, it is a minor
unlikely. Finally,
threat. Perhaps the scope of the challenge is best captured by Ohio State political scientist John Muellers
the number of Americans killed by international terrorism

since the late 1960s . . . is about the same as the number killed over the
same period by lightning, or by accident-causing deer, or by severe allergic
reactions to peanuts.
telling comment that
Also no motivationnuclear attack is suicideterrorists

prefer smaller strikes
Umana 11 Felipe Umana, Loose Nukes: Real Threat? Foreign Policy in
Focus, 8/17/2011, http://www.fpif.org/articles/loose_nukes_real_threat?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed
%3A+FPIF+%28Foreign+Policy+In+Focus+%28All+News%29%29
threat of military, political, and economic repercussions from foreign
actors provides another viable deterrent. For example, the existence of a nuclear
weapon or the confirmed knowledge that a belligerent non-state actor has
developed a feasible nuclear weapon can goad major world governments to
join forces and unleash a rapid and strong military operation on the region
where these non-state actors. Atomic weapons in the hands of terrorist
organizations are likely to remain immobile (seeing as the proper resources to
move and handle it carefully are likely absent or of low quality), so an allied
military procedure from the worlds most powerful militaries could then aim
to neutralize an entire organization. The complete annihilation of a groups
membership and hideouts is an extremely unattractive measure from the
perspective of any terrorist organization. The country that hosts these
organizations, deliberately or inadvertently, would face severe opprobrium if
it did not deal with radicals within its own borders. Diplomatic and economic
sanctions could similarly be used to dissuade these states from potentially
aiding the belligerent non-state actors, while also restricting corruption
tactics from diverting financial flows to radical groups. Even more
importantly, sanctions could serve as punishment or discouragement against
states seeking nuclear capabilities for an offensive atomic program. Iran, for
The
instance, has faced a long history of economic sanctions, partly because of its nuclear program.
High chance of detection, logistic problems and just

unlikely
Mannes 11 [Aaron, former Director of Research @ Middle East Media
Research Institute, Schelling on nuclear terrorism,
http://terrorwonk.blogspot.com/2011/09/schelling-on-nuclear-terrorism.html,
AD: 10-16-11]JN
A Nobel on Nukes Those thoughts were in the back of my mind when I attended a lecture by Nobel
Laureate in Economics and University of Maryland Professor Thomas Schelling. Uppermost in my mind
in 1982 Schelling
wrote an article stating that sooner rather then later a non-state armed group
would acquire a nuclear weapon . This became conventional wisdom, gathering steam
however, was the topic of his talk - what happened to nuclear terrorism. Back
particularly after 9/11 when we had an all too frightening demonstration of how capable and creative
terrorist groups can be. Schelling, as a towering intellectual figure, has the presence of mind to admit that
Much of the focus on nuclear terrorism is in

stealing fissile material and then constructing a weapon. This is not as easy
as it seems. He compared it to stealing a Picasso - all respectable figures in
the art community would be on the lookout for it so, as valuable as it is in
theory, it is very difficult to sell it. Moving fissile material out of a country, say
an FSU state, to a terrorist haven in Pakistan or Yemen requires traveling long
it hasn't happened and wonder why.
distances across many borders and languages. These barriers present multiple
opportunities for the nuclear terrorists to be detected . It is an added factor that the
people one is likely to interact with are extremely nasty (criminals, murderers etc.) Schelling went on to
suppose they can get the stuff, a terrorist group would need a highly
skilled team to build the device including metallurgists and engineers. There are a
limited number of loyal terrorists with needed skills and hiring people would be difficult.
speculate,
People with the requisite skills usually can earn money legitimately, might turn them in after they are
approached, and probably wouldnt want to join the project since they might just be murdered after it was
complete. Schellings analysis, tracks with my own analysis that counter-terror is the application of
Murphys Law, which emphasizes the logistics of terrorism always good to be on the same page as a
Nobel Laureate! (Thedifficulties Aum Shinrikyo faced in developed chemical and biological weapons
trucking in nuclear
material across borders might bring the group under additional intelligence
Schelling then asks what would a group do with a nuclear weapon , simply blowing
up a city would be a waste it makes more sense for the group to seek influence.
Presumably any organization sophisticated enough to build a weapon is also
capable of strategic thought. I am not as certain of this, some terrorist groups
are very strategic in their thinking but others are eschatological. For that matter,
provides a telling example of the logistics of WMD terror.) I would add, that
for some strategy and eschatology are tightly linked! Further, humiliation and revenge are key motives for
many terrorists so that simply inflicting pain and destruction may be its own end. Schelling also discussed
the difficulties in proving the possession of a weapon. Detonating one is the best proof, but a terrorist
group might only possess one. Another option is showing to experts (perhaps kidnapping them.) This is
Schelling dismisses the possibility of an insider handing a

complete nuke to a group, since it would be impossible to be certain the device was a nuclear
possible but difficult.
bomb that would work without dismantling it which would render it inoperable. Finally, Schelling argued
that a group that did possess a bomb would be wise to secrete it in an American city tell the government
it was in one of several cities and threaten to detonate it. This would create an enormous panic. But
ultimately, such a terrorist group would, Schelling argues, seek to acquire influence
and a seat at the table. Schelling doesnt mention that transporting and secreting a
nuke also has logistical challenges. It would probably be easier then acquiring the materials,
but there would still be numerous opportunities for things to go wrong . For a
related comparison, see my analysis one why a Mumbai style attack in the US would be difficult to
undertake. This summary is pretty dry, Schelling is very funny and having been deeply engaged in these
issues for decades has some illuminating anecdotes about these issues. Finally, unaddressed was the
question of a nuclear state being taken over by terrorists or a state with nuclear weapons supporting
Schelling examines the nightmare scenario of an

unaccountable terrorist group acquiring nukes and finds it unlikely . There are
many potential nuclear dangers in the world, but this one in particular, while it cannot be dismissed,
does not need to be the focus of enormous government resources.
terrorism. These are different issues.
Other forces are more important to creating terrorism.

Happened in the past, no nuclear war. Whats so special now?
Already passed freedom act, which curtailed surveillance. why is there no war
now?
We are simply using resources more effectively.
1. No Link
Not specific
Link Turn
Our plan specifically provides higher quality information to the FBI. We are
not triggering any of the Negatives effects
Surveillance is critical to stopping terror threats
Lewis 14 [James Andrew Lewis, Director and Senior Fellow of the Technology and
Public Policy Program at the CSIS, December 2014, "Underestimating Risk in the
Surveillance Debate", Center for Strategic and International Studies,
http://csis.org/files/publication/141209_Lewis_UnderestimatingRisk_Web.pdf
pg 10-11 jf]
Assertions that a collection program contributes nothing because it has not

singlehandedly prevented an attack reflect an ill-informed understanding of
how the United States conducts collection and analysis to prevent harmful acts against itself and its
allies. Intelligence does not work as it is portrayed in films solitary agents do not make
startling discoveries that lead to dramatic, last-minute success (nor is technology consistently
infallible). Intelligence is a team sport. Perfect knowledge does not exist and success is
the product of the efforts of teams of dedicated individuals from many agencies, using many
tools and techniques, working together to assemble fragments of data from many sources into a coherent
picture. Analysts assemble this mosaic from many different sources and based on experience and intuition.
Luck is still more important than anyone would like and
the alternative to luck is acquiring
more information. This ability to blend different sources of intelligence has improved U.S.
intelligence capabilities and gives us an advantage over some opponents. Portrayals of spying in popular
culture focus on a central narrative, essential for storytelling but deeply misleading. In practice, there can
be many possible narratives that analysts must explore simultaneously. An analyst might decide, for
example, to see if there is additional confirming information that points to which explanation deserves
contribution from collection programs comes not from

what they tell us, but what they let us reject as false. In the case of the 215
program, its utility was in being able to provide information that allowed analysts to rule out
some theories and suspects. This allows analysts to focus on other, more likely, scenarios.
In one instance, an attack is detected and stopped before it could be executed . U.S.
further investigation. Often, the
forces operating in Iraq discover a bomb-making factory. Biometric data found in this factory is correlated
with data from other bombings to provide partial identification for several individuals who may be bombmakers, none of whom are present in Iraq. In looking for these individuals, the United States receives
information from another intelligence service that one of the bombers might be living in a neighboring
Using communications intercepts, the United States

determines that the individual is working on a powerful new weapon. The United
Middle Eastern country.
States is able to combine the communications intercept from the known bomb maker with information
from other sourcesbattlefield data, information obtained by U.S. agents, collateral information from other
nations intelligence servicesand
use this to identify others in the bombers network,

understand the plans for bombing, and identify the bombers target, a major
city in the United States. This effort takes place over months and involves multiple intelligence,
law enforcement, and military agencies, with more than a dozen individuals from these agencies
the bomb-maker
leaves the Middle East to carry out his attack, he is prevented from entering the United
States. An analogy for how this works would be to take a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle, randomly select 200
collaborating to build up a picture of the bomb-maker and his planned attack. When
pieces, and provide them to a team of analysts who, using incomplete data, must guess what the entire
picture looks like.
The likelihood of their success is determined by how much
information they receive, how much time they have, and by experience and luck. Their guess can
be tested by using a range of collection programs, including communications surveillance
programs like the 215 metadata program. What is left out of this picture (and from most fictional
portrayals of intelligence analysis) is the number of false leads the analysts must pursue, the number of
dead ends they must walk down, and the tools they use to decide that something is a false lead or dead
end. Police officers are familiar with how many leads in an investigation must be eliminated through
legwork and query before an accurate picture emerges. Most leads are wrong, and much of the work is a
process of elimination that eventually focuses in on the most probable threat. If real intelligence work were
a film, it would be mostly boring.
Where the metadata program contributes is in
eliminating possible leads and suspects. This makes the critique of the 215
program like a critique of airbags in a car you own a car for years, the airbags never
deploy, so therefore they are useless and can be removed. The weakness in this argument is that
discarding airbags would increase risk. How much risk would increase and whether other
considerations outweigh this increased risk are fundamental problems for assessing surveillance programs.
With the Section 215 program, Americans gave up a portion of their privacy in exchange for decreased
Eliminating 215 collection is like subtracting a few of the random pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. It
decreases the chances that the analysts will be able to deduce what is
actually going on and may increase the time it takes to do this. That means there is an increase
in the risk of a successful attack. How much of an increase in risk is difficult to determine.
risk.
Cooperating with outweighs spying on for counter

terrorism
Said, 2010
2015. /Bingham-MB
The government's use of informants reflects a debate within the FBI about
the benefits of cooperating with, as opposed to spying on, the
American Muslim community. (288) That significant sections of the nation's
main law enforcement agency responsible for prosecuting terrorism in U.S.
courts view an entire community, encompassing many nationalities and
ethnic groups, as irredeemably loyal to the nebulous concept of "terrorism" at
the expense of their loyalty to the United States, is factually incorrect (289)
and speaks volumes about how difficult it is for a terrorism suspect to
disprove predisposition to commit a crime. Viewing Arab- and MuslimAmericans as presumptively disloyal, at a time when the United States is
embroiled in two wars in Muslim- majority countries, enhances the perception
in the Muslim world that the war on terrorism is a war on Islam. (290)
The link outweighs the turnthere is little evidence that

informants in Muslim communities solve terrorand their
racial profiling is net worse
Hanley, 2012
Hanley, Delinda C. executive director and news editor at The Washington

Report on Middle East Affairs, The Washington Report on Middle East
Affairs31.4 (Jun/Jul 2012): 27-28., It's Time to End Racial, Religious and Ethnic
Profiling of Americans, /Bingham-MB
It never occurred to me that FBI agents or police officers could be attending

such community events around the country, in order to record data about
congregants' religious activities and the racial, ethnic and national origin of
members. But in early 2003 FBI Director Robert Mueller directed all 56 FBI
field offices to count the number of Muslims, mosques and Islamic charities in
their region to create demographic profiles. The FBI maintains tens of
thousands "official" and "unofficial" spies and informants, many of whom
are tasked with infiltrating the Muslim community, according to the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). On April 17, amid the controversies
surrounding the killing of Trayvon Martin (see May 2012 Washington Report,
p. 34) and revelations that the New York Police Department (NYPD) monitored
Muslim groups (see p. 36 of the same issue), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) chaired
the Senate's first post-9/11 hearing on racial profiling. The American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) submitted a statement for the record
describing how racial profiling causes communities to "mistrust the
government and fuels the perception of the criminal justice system
as biased and unjust." ADC also noted the fact that "there is not one
documented incident in which racial profiling resulted in the capture or
detention of a suspect related to terrorism, again showing that racial profiling
does not work."
2. Impact
Magnitude
Impact Calc
Pennsylvania 2006
For nearly half a century, the worlds most powerful nucleararmed countries have been locked in a military stalemate
known as mutual assured destruction (MAD). By the early 1960s,
the United States and the Soviet Union possessed such large, welldispersed
nuclear arsenals that neither state could entirely destroy the others nuclear
forces in a rst strike. Whether the scenario was a preemptive strike during a
crisis, or a bolt-from-the-blue surprise attack, the victim would always be
able to retaliate and destroy the aggressor. Nuclear war was therefore
tantamount to mutual suicide. Many scholars believe that the nuclear
stalemate helped prevent conict between the superpowers during the Cold
War, and that it remains a powerful force for great power peace today. 1 The
age of MAD, however, is waning. Today the United States

plausible great power adversaries. For the frst time in decades,
it could conceivably disarm the long-range nuclear arsenals of
Russia or China with a nuclear first strike . A preemptive strike on an
alerted Russian arsenal would still likely fail, but a surprise attack at
peacetime alert levels would have a reasonable chance of
success. Furthermore, the Chinese nuclear force is so
vulnerable that it could be destroyed even if it were alerted
during a crisis.

impossible
Pennsylvania 2006

Russia to launch on warning (i.e., quickly launch a retaliatory strike
before its forces are destroyed ). It is unlikely that Russia could do
this. Russian commanders would need 713 minutes to carry
out the technical steps involved in identifying a U.S. attack and
launching their retaliatory forces. They would have to (1) confirm the
sensor indications that an attack was under way; (2) convey the news to
political leaders; (3) communicate launch authorization and launch codes to
the nuclear forces; (4) execute launch sequences; and (5) allow the missiles
to fly a safe distance from the silos. 38 This timeline does not include the time
required by Russian leaders to absorb the news that a nuclear attack is The
End of MAD? 21 under way and decide to authorize retaliation. Given that
both Russian and U.S. early warning systems have had false
alarms in the past, even a minimally prudent leader would need
to think hard and ask tough questions before authorizing a
catastrophic nuclear response.39 Because the technical steps
require 713 minutes, it is hard to imagine that Russia could
detect an attack, decide to retaliate, and launch missiles in less
than 1015 minutes. The Russian early warning system would
probably not give Russias leaders the time they need to
retaliate; in fact it is questionable whether it would give them
any warning at all. Stealthy B-2 bombers could likely penetrate
Russian air defenses without detection. Furthermore, low-flying B-52
bombers could fire stealthy nuclear-armed cruise missiles from
outside Russian airspace; these missilessmall, radarabsorbing, and flying at very low altitude would likely provide
no warning before detonation. Finally, Russias vulnerability is
compounded by the poor state of its early warning system.
Russian satellites cannot reliably detect the launch of SLBM s;
Russia relies on groundbased radar to detect those warheads. 40 But there is
a large east-facing hole in Russias radar network; Russian
leaders might have no warning of an SLBM attack from the
Pacific.41 Even if Russia plugged the east-facing hole in its radar
network, its leaders would still have less than 10 minutes
warning of a U.S. submarine attack from the Atlantic, and
perhaps no time if the U.S. attack began with hundreds of
stealthy cruise missiles and stealth bombers.
The chance of a nuclear war is just as likely as it was a

half century ago.
Daily Newscaster November 15, 2008
(World conflict brewing but nuclear war unlikely, http://74.125.47.132/search?
q=cache:SLntzFWp_iEJ:www.dailynewscaster.com/2008/11/15/world-conflict-brewingbut-nuclear-war-unlikely/
+"World+conflict+brewing+but+nuclear+war+unlikely"&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=
us)
In August, oilgeopolitical expert F.W. Engdahl wrote, The signing on August

14th of an agreement between the governments of the United States and
Poland to deploy on Polish soil US interceptor missiles is the most
dangerous move towards nuclear war the world has seen since the 1962
Cuba Missile crisis. Now, I dont like being in a position where I
have to contradict the leading analyst of the New World Order,

but there is no chance we are any closer to a nuclear war than
we were in the 1950s, 1962, or any time in the last 58 years . I
cant speak for Mr. Engdahl but most NWO conspiracy theorists expect a
depopulation event to rid the planet of 5 billion useless eaters. The
Illuminati, they say, need only 500 million of us for slaves when they take
over the world. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying there couldnt be a
depopulation event before 2012 but a nuclear war is not in the cards.
Nuclear World War III would make too much of the planet
uninhabitable and that would include the One World governors
as well as the 500 million humans they need for slaves. Think
about it: why havent we had a nuclear accident since the 50s ?
Where is Dr. Strangelove or some insane Air Force General Jack D. Ripper
who orders a first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union or how about just
a plain f up? If things can go wrong, they will go wrong and the
U.S. government or any nuclear power are not exactly the

sharpest tools in the shed.
It is impossible to kill all humans.

Schilling 00
But others have pointed out that the human animal (as opposed
to human civilization) would be almost impossible to kill off at
this point. People have become too widespread and too
capable, a few pockets of individuals would find ways to survive
almost any conceivable nuclear war or ecological collapse.
These survivors would be enough to fully repopulate the Earth
in a few thousand years and another technological civilization
would be a precedent. Maybe this will happen many times
A nuclear war would only kill hundreds of thousands of

people. It is definitely survivable and the impact is not
huge.
Brian Martin Formal training in physics, with a PhD from Sydney
University, 2002
(Activism after nuclear war,
http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/meet/2002/Martin_ActivismNuclearWar.html)
In the event of nuclear war, as well as death and destruction there will be serious political consequences. Social activists should be prepared.
The confrontation between Indian and Pakistani governments earlier this year showed that military use of nuclear weapons is quite possible.
There are other plausible scenarios. A US military attack against Iraq could lead Saddam Hussein to release chemical or biological weapons,
providing a trigger for a US nuclear strike. Israeli nuclear weapons might also be unleashed. Another possibility is accidental nuclear war. Paul
Rogers in his book Losing Control says that the risk of nuclear war has increased due to proliferation, increased emphasis on nuclear warfighting, reduced commitment to arms control (especially by the US government) and Russian reliance on nuclear arms as its conventional
A major nuclear war could kill hundreds of millions of people.

But less catastrophic outcomes are possible. A limited exchange might
kill "only" tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Use of nuclear
"bunker-busters" might lead to an immediate death toll in the
thousands or less.
forces disintegrate.
Humanity is resilient: extinction is highly unlikely.

Bruce Tonn, Futures Studies Department, Corvinus University of Budapest, 2005,
Human Extinction Scenarios, www.budapestfutures.org/ downloads/abstracts/Bruce
% 20Tonn%20-%20Abstract.pdf)
The human species faces numerous threats to its existence. These include
global climate change, collisions with near-earth objects, nuclear war, and
pandemics. While these threats are indeed serious, taken separately they fail to
describe exactly how humans could become extinct. For example, nuclear
war by itself would most likely fail to kill everyone on the planet, as strikes
would probably be concentrated in the northern hemisphere and the Middle East,
leaving populations in South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand some
hope of survival. It is highly unlikely that any uncontrollable nanotechnology
could ever be produced but even it if were, it is likely that humans could
develop effective, if costly, countermeasures, such as producing the technologies
in space or destroying sites of runaway nanotechnologies with nuclear
weapons. Viruses could indeed kill many people but effective quarantine of a
healthy people could be accomplished to save large numbers of
people. Humans appear to be resilient to extinction with respect to single
events
Timeframe:
We solve for dehumanization RIGHT NOW. Our plan solves the most important
impact in the quickest way.
Risk Probability
It is highly unlikely that we would ever have nuclear war mutually assured
destruction solves.
Terrorism is war not dehumanization - dehumanization trumps all

Solving root cause aka Muslims are feeling alienated now
DEHUMANIZATION STILL OUTWEIGHS ALL
No link:
terrorism nuclear war
Has there ever been nuclear terrorism?
AT: Human Trafficking

Disadvantage
No Uniqueness:
Polaris Project Polaris, named after the North Star that guided slaves to
freedom in the U.S., disrupts the conditions that allow human trafficking to
thrive in our society. From working with government leaders to protect
victims rights, to building partnerships with the worlds leading technology
corporations, we spark long-term change that focuses communities on
identifying, reporting and eliminating trafficking networks. Our
comprehensive model puts victims at the center of all that we do -- helping
survivors restore their freedom, preventing more victims, and gathering the
data to pursue traffickers wherever they operate. Unparalleled expertise.
Relentlessness. And an innovative spirit. This is how Polaris eradicates the
slavery networks that rob human beings of their lives and their
independence. Freedom happens now.
https://www.polarisproject.org/take-action/365-days
19,724 Cases of Human Trafficking
TOP 3 SEX TRAFFICKING VENUES 1. Commercial Front Brothel 2. Internet Ad,
Venue Unknown 3. Hotel/Motel TOP 3 LABOR TRAFFICKING INDUSTRIES 1.
Domestic Work 2. Traveling Sales Crews 3. Restaurant/Food Service
FBI not investigating Human Trafficking

BREITBART NEWS, 12 (BREITBART NEWS, 30 Jul 2012, BRANDON
DARBY: FBI IGNORING SEX TRAFFICKING OF MINORS,
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/07/30/brandon-darby-fbiignoring-sex-trafficking-of-minors/)
Darby has delivered serious allegations today at Townhall.com. Darby has revealed that he has been
working undercover for the past eight months with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on
human trafficking cases. To his dismay, Darby watched as the cases and evidence presented to the
FBI were not investigated. Many of these cases involved the sex trafficking of minors. Crimes involving minors are
Breitbart News Brandon
meant to trigger an immediate and swift response by the FBI. Instead, these cases were not pursued by the Bureauand Darby began a quest
to find out why such serious crimes were being overlooked by the trusted law enforcement agency. The conclusions of his own investigation
have led Darby, along with another trusted FBI informant, to come forward with disturbing and serious allegations against the FBI and
Department of Justice leadership. Darby alleges that the politically appointed leaders and their executive managers within the
FBI
neglected their duty to human trafficking victims,
particularly sex trafficked minors. Darby concludes

further that someone within the FBI changed internal reports to remove one or more victims designation as a minor, so that the FBI and DOJ
t abuses of power amounting to

retribution on the part of FBI leadership against federal agents have resulted
in the mistreatment of one or more federal agents, and have affected the integrity of investigations
would not be obligated to act immediately. In addition, Darby contends tha
and the well-being of the public at large. Breitbart News supports Darby in his past efforts with the FBIs Joint Terrorism Task Force, as well as
his current efforts to help the victims of human trafficking. We ask Congress to investigate these most serious allegations.
Human Trafficking happening right now

Live 58, 2015 (10 FACTS ABOUT HUMAN TRAFFICKING EVERYONE
SHOULD KNOW http://www.live58.org/10-facts-about-human-traffickingeveryone-should-know )
10 Facts About Human Trafficking Freedom is a short, powerful word we take for granted every day. Its hard to fully appreciate freedom when
weve never had it snatched away from us. We get to choose our jobs, where we live, what we eat. If we are unhappy at work, we have the
freedom to quit and find work elsewhere. Unfortunately, some people arent so lucky. They live the majority of their lives without ever
Millions of men, women and children are being

kidnapped, virulently mistreated and sometimes even murdered all to facilitate cheap or
free labor and sexual pleasure. Its happening right here, right now, in countries all over the world including the
U.S. Here are 10 facts about human trafficking that everyone should know: 1. There are an estimated 27
million slaves in the world today. Thats the highest recorded number of
slaves in history! 2. The average cost of a slave around the world is $90. 3.
Human trafficking has been identified as the largest human rights violation in
the history of mankind. 4. Human trafficking is the second largest criminal enterprise in the world, after drug smuggling
and arms dealing. 5. The United States is one of the top three destination points for
trafficked victims. California, New York, Texas and Nevada are the top destination states within the country. 6. According to
experiencing freedom due to modern day slavery.
estimates, approximately 80 percent of trafficking involves sexual exploitation, and 19 percent involves labor exploitation. 7. The average
age of a young woman being trafficked is 1214 years old. 8. Immigration agents estimate that 10,000 women are being held in Los Angeles
underground brothels; this does not include the thousands of victims in domestic work, sweatshops or other informal industries. 9. An
estimated 13 million children are enslaved around the world today, accounting for nearly half of trafficking victims in the world. 10. Trafficked
children are significantly more likely to develop mental health problems, abuse substances, engage in prostitution as adults, and either
that human trafficking is a very prevalent

crime against basic human rights, a crime that has spiraled out of control right under our
noses. But dont let these troubling facts and grim human trafficking statistics overwhelm you. Thousands of people both at home and
commit or be victimized by violent crimes later in life. Its important to note
abroad have been taking very effective measures to combat the heinous injustice that is human trafficking. Things are a far cry from perfect,
but with new anti-trafficking laws, preventive measures, rigorous aftercare and human rights agencies like our alliance partner IJM, who rescue
victims of slavery on a regular basis, substantial progress is being made. How you can help Let this quote by Elie Wiesel inspire you to take
action: I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides.
Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Refuse to be neutral. Educate yourself on human trafficking issues. Spread the word. Stand
for freedom. Prayer Idea: Pray that this year we can save thousands of people subjected to a life of human trafficking, that the preventive
measures are effective, and also that the survivors can successfully rebuild their lives and find security and happiness.
More HT than anytime in history

Fight Slavery.Org, no date (This website is created entirely for
Human Trafficking and trying to solve it. We can assume it is up to date and
correct. Why Fight? There are 27 Million Reasons! Fight slavery now .org.
http://fightslaverynow.org/ )
There are more people in slavery today, than at any other time in human
history. ~Kevin Bales, author of Disposable People Yes, we are talking about actual slavery. The buying and selling of human
beings for profit, that ancient and most fundamental abuse. Not only does this crime against humanity still exist, it is flourishing in our own
backyards! Sadly, New York is a major hub for this multi-billion dollar criminal enterprise. The sex trafficking industry overwhelmingly preys
on young women and children. The slave labor markets rely on a ready supply of men and women fleeing desperate circumstance. Threats,
trickery and false promises are the everyday tools of traffickers. Once under their control, victims find only abuse, humiliation, and endless
exploitation. This is the face of modern-day slavery.
done to combat this crime.
Because of its low visibility, too little is being
Accurate statistics are scarce, but estimates run higher than 27 million people currently in
some form of slave bondage, far more than ever before in history! Not all trafficking is across borders. Many people are trafficked right here
within the United States including U.S. citizens, foreign nationals here legally, as well as undocumented immigrants. Specific laws against
Trafficking in Persons were formulated only in this decade, and in New York State only in 2007. We are concerned citizens bound in a common
cause: educating ourselves and others about this scourge in our midst, and doing everything we can to eradicate it. Becoming informed is the
first step you can take in learning how to help. We hope that this website will be a useful tool for you, and that you will join us in our mission.
HT In Us and biggest amount of Sex slaves ever

Goldburg, 14 (The Huffington Post ,Eleanor Goldberg 01/15/2014, 10
Things You Didn't Know About Slavery, Human Trafficking (And What You Can
Do About It), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/15/human-traffickingmonth_n_4590587.html)
You may know that in far-off countries, like Cambodia and India, children are prime victims for sex trafficking. You probably also know that trafficked workers are forced to toil for long hours, with little or no pay, to
produce such everyday items as bricks and chocolate. But what you may not know is how prevalent the crime of trafficking is right here in the U.S. and just how varied the victims are. The $32 billion business of
modern-day slavery coerces adults and children into the sex trade or into working against their will. Trafficking cuts across gender and ethnicity, with some slaves being brought to the U.S. with false promises of a
better life. Others are often vulnerable citizens who may have been abused. During National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, were raising awareness about these unspeakable crimes in the hopes
that one day we will no longer have to. 1. Slavery and human trafficking can mean two different things: Modern-day slavery involves exploiting people, often through forced labor or sex. Human trafficking is when
a person is recruited, harbored, provided or obtained for the purposes of exploitation -- often sold as an object. Trafficking victims, two-thirds of whom are women and girls, are recruited by means of threat and are
often sent into the sex trade or forced to get involved in manual and servitude work, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2
. There are more slaves
around the world today than ever before in history. globe Though slavery has been banned
across the globe, more than 29 million people are living in slavery, the greatest
number in history.
Some 15,000 people are being trafficked each year right here in the U.S. for purposes of forced labor or sexual exploitation. And they're working for you. Even if
your shelves are lined with fair-trade and locally produced items, theres a good chance that a number of slaves have contributed to making the food you eat, the clothes you wear and the laptop on which youre
reading this story, according to Slavery Footprint. Find out how many slaves you employ by taking the Slavery Footprint quiz and then learn how you can urge major retailers to be more transparent. 3. Sex
trafficking victims are often treated like criminals. woman arrested handcuffs Trafficking laws vary from state to state, with victims often being arrested and treated like criminals, reinforcing their belief that the
police cant be trusted. Advocates are calling for a Uniform Law, one that will allow all agencies to properly identify victims, provide rehabilitative services, and prosecute traffickers. 4. Your state could be doing a
lot more to put a stop to trafficking. 50 states map Shared Hope, a nonprofit that works to bring justice to victims of sex trafficking, has graded each state on the way it responds to sex trafficking crimes. Find out
how your state ranks and then reach out to your state representative and urge him or her to do more. 5. You support trafficking when you watch porn. watching porn Yes, while some experts say watching porn
with your partner could improve your relationship, it could also enable traffickers to exploit their victims. Even if a porn explicitly states that all actors are over 18 and have consented to being filmed, that just may
not be true, Yahoo News reported. The trafficked actresses may simply be trained to look and act older. 6. Forced laborers are making some of your favorite things. Theres a good chance that the Christmas
decorations you recently packed away and the shoes youre wearing right now were made by slave workers. But theres an easy fix for that. The U.S. Department of Labor has devised a list of countries and the
items they export that are produced by child and forced laborers. Peruse the list so you can effectively change the way you shop. 7. Slaves are working at the very hotels where you vacation. hotel room Many
trafficking victims are forced to work grueling hours at hotels and motels for little or no pay and children are often exploited sexually at hotels because employees are not trained to spot such crimes. To educate
hotel workers, End Child Prostitution and Trafficking has devised a training course to teach staff how to identify a victim and to properly react. Find out if your hotel has completed the course before you book your
next trip. 8. The Super Bowl is the single largest incident of human trafficking in the U.S. super bowl Because hundreds of thousands of fans descend upon the Super Bowl host city, it becomes the optimal
breeding ground for forced workers, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott told USA Today back in 2011. Sex trafficking victims are brought to the city to work, and one survivor told the Times-Piscuyane that she was
expected to sleep with around 25 men a day during such events. As the Super Bowl nears, authorities in New Jersey say theyve redoubled their efforts and are training law enforcement personnel, hospitality
workers, high school students, airport employees and others in how to identify and protect a trafficking victim. 9. Some are working against their will at "massage parlors" that you frequent. We've all heard the
term "happy ending," but the truth is, it isn't so happy for both parties. While the masseuse may seem complicit, even eager to please, oftentimes these businesses are just commercial-front brothels where the
women can be forced to have sex with men six to 10 times a day. Learn about the signs you should look out for when you're getting a treatment and how you can help if you spot something suspicious. 10.
Identifying - and helping -- a victim is easier than you might think. phone call Learn to look out for some of the red flags -- a worker who lives with her employer, someone who wont speak unaided and shares
what appears to be a scripted speech -- and call the National Human Trafficking Resource Center if you have information that may be valuable. You can also get involved with a number of organizations, including the
Polaris Project, Not for Sale and the Project to End Human Trafficking, which are all working to put an end to modern-day slavery. CLARIFICATION: An earlier version of this post defined human trafficking as a
situation where a victim is physically transported for the purposes of being exploited. A trafficking victim can be transported, recruited, harbored, provided or obtained.
No Link:
Human Trafficking has nothing to do with our plan. It is hopelessly generic
Specifically, informants in Muslim communities have never shown a
connection to human trafficking. Link too generic
Do we have a problem or no? point out inconsistencies.
DEHUMANIZATION:
Out ways all impact
Our plan is specific and clear an estimated 15,000 informants are being
dehumanized right now. Extend card from Montague and Madson,
Dehumanization trumps all.
Plan Timeframe: dehumanization right now

Disad Timeframe: happens with a chain of internal links in some
unforeseeable future.
Government organizations That Combat human Trafficking

(Not FBI or NSA)
US Department of State, 10 (U.S. Government Entities Combating
Human Trafficking June 14, 2010, Us Department of State,
http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/fs/2010/143237.htm
Combating human trafficking requires participation and coordination among agencies with
responsibilities for criminal enforcement, labor enforcement, victim outreach and services, public
awareness, education, trade policy, international development and programs, immigration, intelligence,
and diplomacy. Coordinated efforts are essential to an integrated response to human trafficking that
leverages resources. For this reason the United States advocates that foreign governments undertake
This fact sheet presents information about U.S.

government (USG) anti-trafficking coordination efforts and the roles of principal
agencies. The Presidents Interagency Task Force The Presidents Interagency Task Force to
interagency coordination efforts.
Monitor and Combat Trafficking (PITF) is a ycabinet-level entity created by the Trafficking Victims Protection
Act (TVPA) of 2000 whose purpose is to coordinate government-wide efforts to combat human trafficking.
Member and invited agencies of the PITF include those on this fact sheet in addition to the Directorate of
National Intelligence and the White House Offices of Management and Budget, National Security Council,
and Domestic Policy Council. Senior Policy Operating Group The TVPA amended in 2003 also
established the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) to implement the vision of the PITF and coordinate
the governments interagency effort to combat human trafficking. The SPOG includes senior
representatives from the PITF member and invited agencies and oversees three committees: Grantmaking,
Research and Data, and Public Affairs.
(DOS):
Principal roles of USG agencies Department of State
DOS represents the United States in the global fight to address human trafficking by engaging
with foreign governments, international and intergovernmental organizations, and civil society to develop
and implement effective strategies for confronting modern slavery. This occurs through bilateral and
multilateral diplomacy, targeted foreign assistance, public outreach, and specific projects on trafficking in
persons. DOS chairs the PITF and the SPOG. The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) and
the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (G/TIP) fund international anti-trafficking programs.
PRM also funds the Return, Reintegration, and Family Reunification Program for Victims of Trafficking. G/TIP
produces the annual Trafficking in Persons Report which spotlights modern slavery around the world,
encourages the work of the civil sector, and is the U.S. governments principal diplomatic tool used to
engage foreign governments. Department of Defense (DOD): DOD endeavors to ensure that the
U.S. military, its civilian employees, and its contractors are aware of and adopt the zero tolerance policy on
human trafficking. A demand reduction campaign helps make contractors, government personnel, and
military members aware of common signs of human trafficking and provides a hotline number to report
suspected incidents. The awareness campaign is reinforced by the requirement for all military and civilian
members of the Department to take annual trafficking awareness training. DODs subordinate
organizations are further required to report on completion of their personnels annual training. Public
service announcements on labor and sex trafficking are in effect. Department of Justice (DOJ): The
Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit within DOJs Civil Rights Division prosecutes traffickers in partnership
with U.S. Attorneys Offices nationwide. The cases are investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation
or the Department of Homeland Security as well as other federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies. Its national complaint line is 1-888-428-7581. The Criminal Divisions Child Exploitation and
Obscenity Section prosecutes cases of child sex trafficking and child sex tourism. The Criminal Divisions
Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training program provides antitrafficking training and
technical assistance to law enforcement internationally. The Bureau of Justice Assistance funds 38 antitrafficking task forces composed of local, state, and federal law enforcement as well as nongovernmental
victim service providers. The Office of Victims of Crime funds nongovernmental organizations to provide
services to U.S. citizen victims and foreign victims. Significant research is conducted by the National
Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. DOJ also produces the Attorney Generals Annual
Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons.
Department of
Agriculture (USDA):
The USDAs Consultative Group to Eliminate the Use of Child Labor and Forced
Labor in Imported Agricultural Products includes government, private sector, academic, and
nongovernmental organization entities. It is charged with making recommendations to the Secretary of
Agriculture regarding guidelines to reduce the likelihood that agricultural products imported into the United
States are produced with the use of child or forced labor. The Secretary is then required to finalize the
guidelines and release them for public comment . Department of Labor (DOL): DOLs Wage and
Hour Division (WHD) carries out civil law enforcement in the nations workplaces and its field investigators
are often the first government authorities to detect exploitive labor practices. WHD coordinates with other
law enforcement agencies to ensure restitution on behalf of victims of trafficking. DOLs Employment and
Training Administration offers job search, placement and counseling services, and vocational skills training
to trafficking victims. Additionally, DOLs Bureau of International Labor Affairs awards international grants
to combat exploitive child labor and publishes three reports on child labor and/or forced labor, including
the List of Goods Produced by Child or Forced Labor, which identifies 122 goods from 58 countries .
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS): HHS leads the Rescue & Restore Victims of

Human Trafficking public awareness campaign, funds organizations to conduct outreach to foreign and U.S.
citizen victims, funds comprehensive case management and support services for foreign victims in the
United States, and certifies foreign victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons to be eligible to
receive federal benefits and services to the same extent as refugees. A range of programs also assist
youth at-risk of trafficking, including the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program. HHS also funds the
National Human Trafficking Resource Center that provides a nationwide 24/7 hotline at 1-888-3737-888.
Department of Education
(ED): EDs Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools uses the internet, listservs,
and trainings to raise awareness both to prevent trafficking of children and to increase victim identification
of trafficked children in schools. Trafficking often involves school-age children who are vulnerable to
coerced labor exploitation, domestic servitude, or commercial sexual exploitation. The Office of Safe and
Drug-Free Schools develops and disseminates materials about preventing human trafficking, such as
Department of
Homeland Security (DHS): DHS U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Human Trafficking of Children in the United States: A Fact Sheet for Schools.
conducts domestic and international investigations of human trafficking, child sex tourism, and forced child
labor. Worldwide, ICE conducts law enforcement training and public awareness campaigns as part of its
outreach efforts. ICE also provides trafficking victims with short-term immigration relief, manages the DHS
Victim Assistance Program, and operates a 24-hour hotline at 1-866-DHS-2-ICE. U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services grants immigration relief to trafficking victims, while also conducting training for
nongovernmental organizations and law enforcement. U.S. Customs and Border Protection conducts public
awareness campaigns and victim identification screenings. The U.S. Coast Guard routinely conducts
maritime operations independently and with other federal law enforcement agencies and international
partners. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center provides human trafficking training to federal,
Agency for
International Development (USAID): USAID funds international programs that prevent trafficking,
state, local, campus, and tribal law enforcement officers throughout the United States.
protect and assist victims, and support prosecutions through training for police and criminal justice
personnel. USAID reinforces successful anti-trafficking initiatives by funding programs that support
economic development, child protection, womens empowerment, good governance, education, health,
and human rights. USAID supports country assessments of the scope and nature of trafficking and the
efforts of governments, civil society, and international organizations to combat it.
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC):
U.S. Equal
The EEOC investigates, attempts to informally

resolve, and litigates charges alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex,
religion, age, disability, and genetic information. In appropriate cases, therefore, the EEOC is able to secure
civil remedies (e.g., monetary and equitable relief) for trafficking victims. In 2010, the EEOC participated
for the first time in both the PITF and SPOG meetings as a full partner. The EEOC has committed to active
participation in order to identify additional labor trafficking cases through its 53 offices nationwide.
Link Turn:
Double Bind: Intelligence key to Human Trafficking (either
link turn or no link)
District Attorney, 14 (Rene Pea District Attorney in Atascosa, Frio,
Karnes, La Salle, and Wilson Counties-Texas, September 2014, TDCAA Texas
District and Country Attorney association, http://www.tdcaa.com/journal/whydoes-human-trafficking-matter )
It is a crime against humanity. It is a crime against everything that we as human beings find most sacred. We all have the right not to be abused mentally or physically; not to be tortured, killed, or sexually
assaulted; and not to be forced into a life of despair, pain, and torment. We all have the right to be safe and secure in our homes and in public. For those of us in law enforcement and prosecution, the issue is that
human trafficking exists on a large scale and is difficult to detect and ultimately to prosecute. It matters because we are losing a generation of human beings. It matters because human trafficking is a significant
part of the criminal enterprise model we fight every day. It generates millions of dollars for the enterprise. Anyone who has turned on a television in the last several months knows that the Texas border has seen
an increase in immigrants crossing into the United States. Some of the immigrants are hard-working people looking for a better life, some are people fleeing from danger in their home country, some are criminal
aliens trying to avoid detection by law enforcement, some are terrorists, and many are victims who need to be rescued. Most law enforcement in South Texas has encountered human smuggling or trafficking at
some point in their career. However, how many of those people are actually being trafficked in Texas? Before we go any further, lets distinguish between human smuggling and human trafficking. Human
smuggling primarily involves transporting undocumented individuals into the United States for a fee.1 Essentially, a human being becomes cargo that a smuggler is paid to transport. Unfortunately, many of these
individuals are threatened, tortured, and physically abused along their journey into the United States. In some instances the alien-smuggling operations demand more money to release the individuals from stash
houses, force the individuals into involuntary servitude, or even worse, force the individuals to engage in sex acts with strangers for money to pay off their travel debt. As the debt keeps increasing, the smuggling
victim has become a victim of human trafficking. Human trafficking involves forcing another individual to engage in labor or prohibited sexual conduct through threats and coercion.2 Essentially, a human being
becomes a product sold repeatedly by the trafficker. The business of human trafficking is real and exists here in Texas. So you might be asking yourself, Why do we have difficulty detecting the people involved in
human trafficking? First, there has been a lack of awareness that human trafficking exists. Texas has enacted more effective laws and has begun training law enforcement personnel on human trafficking and
smuggling, but there are still many barriers to overcome. The general public may assume immigrants are coming to the United States to make more money and find a better life, but all too often the reality is that
the victims dream of a better life will soon turn into a nightmare filled with abuse, mistreatment, and often times sexual assault. Making detection even more difficult for law enforcement is that at first glance the
victim appears to be going willingly with the smuggler or trafficker. Moreover, the victim rarely wants to engage in conversation with law enforcement because they fear deportation and retaliation from the
traffickers. In some cases, a language barrier prevents the victim from communicating with law enforcement at all. All these factors combined make it difficult for law enforcement to combat this growing epidemic.
Although detection of human trafficking or smuggling can be difficult, law enforcement has found some successful strategies. Identifying the victim is the first step in this process. The second and critical part of this
process is victim services. Examples of services are child advocacy centers, proper housing, medical services, and psychological services. As you may surmise, these victims are in many cases poor or displaced,
. The most effective tool when combatting any

organized criminal activity is the use of confidential informants and
undercover officers. Once law enforcement recognizes a human
trafficking operation, it is imperative that we gather intelligence on
how the scheme is working, who is involved, and on what resources
it depends. With such information, the State can obtain and effectively execute search warrants on locations involved in human
trafficking. More importantly, this intelligence helps the State identify
victims from the perpetrators
making them ideal targets of a criminal enterprise
(because oftentimes a victim may promote into a recruiter and later into perpetrator role). For an effective human
trafficking and smuggling investigation, law enforcement must also remember our federal partners who can provide invaluable resources and assistance. The majority of the time, the victim will need immigration
relief, and the State cannot proceed on a human trafficking case without a victim. Our federal partners can also provide assistance with search warrants, wiretaps, court orders, and the detection of fraudulent
documents. In addition, many of these investigations will lead to criminal organizations operating in multiple jurisdictions. In 2011, our office prosecuted a case that started out as human smuggling and turned
into an aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault. Juan, the victim in the case, made his way from Honduras to Nuevo Laredo, where he paid a man $3,000 in advance to bring him across the Rio Grande River.
Juan, along with 10 other men and one woman, walked from the border until they were picked up and placed like cordwood in the bed of a pickup truck for transportation. Juan said the woman in his party was either
sick or drugged and was kept isolated from the rest of the immigrants with the smugglers. They were all taken to a compound made up of three mobile homes in a rural area near Poteet, where they were all slowly
transported on to further destinations. Because Juan had paid in advance, his smugglers decided they could get more money from his family and kept him in a locked room for almost three weeks. The smugglers
periodically called Juans family to demand more money, but there wasnt any more. Eventually, Juan saw an opportunity to escape when the door to his room was left unlocked. He ran from the room and jumped
out a front window of the mobile home. Unfortunately, a meeting of numerous men was occurring outside and Juan was immediately caught. He was kicked and beaten unconscious. Juan woke up to hear the men
talking about disposing of his dead body, and when the men moved away from him, Juan picked up his broken, bleeding body and ran to a neighbors house for help. The neighbor called law enforcement and
officers came to the scene. Law enforcement called Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as the agency was known then, for assistance. Local law enforcement parked down the road from the compound
and watched vehicle after vehicle leave the scene. Law enforcement believed it was too dangerous for them to approach.
More importantly, they believed
the case was now a federal matter,
so they waited for ICE to arrive. ICE had to assemble its team and drive at
least a half hour to get to the compound, so by the time they got there, only the women and children residents remained at the scene. Local
law enforcement believed ICE was handling the entire case; ICE agents knew they were there only to handle a smuggling case. Consequently,
no evidence was recovered from the three mobile homes and the area surrounding themno photographs or videos were taken, no blood from
the ground or glass was sampled, and no one was even certain which of the windows had burglar bars on them. Fortunately, Juan recovered
from his injuries and made an excellent witness for the State. The jury returned guilty verdicts on aggravated kidnapping and aggravated
assault charges. The defendant in the case was sentenced to 60 years and 20 years, respectively, for those charges. The prosecutor spoke
with the jury after the trial and most jurors pointed out what was painfully obvious: that there had been no communication between the
law
enforcement needs to be better trained on how to handle these types of
cases, that local law enforcement has to understand the roles of the different federal agencies, and that communication between
agencies, merely assumptions about what each agency would do. What did we discover during this trial? That
agencies is key. Had Juan not been such a strong witness, this defendant would have walked. Incidentally, during the course of this
investigation, we also discovered that the defendant, who had been voluntarily deported numerous times, had been sexually assaulting his
wifes little sister for years. He pled to 50 years on that case. You may be asking yourself, Why would criminal organizations be involved in
? Criminal organizations exist to make money. Mexican cartels

have historically been involved in human trafficking and smuggling, and as
part of the trafficking and smuggling operations,
human trafficking
the cartels have built a partnership with Texas prison gangs to further the
cartels smuggling activities. It is difficult to provide statistics on these criminal organizations involvement with human trafficking since we have only recently begun to document human trafficking cases, but what
we do know is that the individual members of the gangs have been attracted to the easy money associated with human trafficking. According to the 2014 Gang Threat Assessment by the Texas Department of Public
Safety, members from Barrio Azteca, Black Gangster Disciples, Bloods, Crips, MS-13, Sureos, and Tango Blast have all been involved in human trafficking in Texas. As long as there is a demand for forced sex
criminal organizations will work to supply the victims.
Trafficking provides a high return on a perpetrators investment.
The victim can be sold multiple times a day, every day, for years on end. According to statistics reported to the Texas Department of Public Safety, the drug trade in Texas in 2012 profited over $1.24 billion.
According to the 2014 Human Trafficking Assessment by the Texas Department of Public Safety, an individual human trafficker with only two victims could earn between $1,120 and $8,960 per week, which
translates to $53,760 to $430,080 per year.3 According to the Urban Institutes Justice Policy Center, an individual trafficker in Dallas could earn $12,025 a week, or $577,200 per year.4 If an individual trafficker can
make around half a million dollars annually, we can only imagine the revenue the human trafficking trade makes as a whole every year in Texas. With such high profits, low risk of detection, and renewable
resources, the human trafficking trade will continue to grow. So in the end, dealing with trafficking or smuggling requires a comprehensive approach where the vested institutions, whether they be law enforcement,
prosecution, victim services, or federal partners, collaborate to effectively detect, investigate, and prosecute human trafficking.
More to reinforce Double Bind: Terrorists human Traffic

Terrorist Organizations Use Sex slaves as well as Human
Traffic for Revenue
Shelley, 14 (Louise I. Shelley, 12.26.14, ISIS, Boko Haram, and the
Growing Role of Human Trafficking in 21st Century Terrorism,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/isis-boko-haram-and-thegrowing-role-of-human-trafficking-in-21st-century-terrorism.html )
The list of atrocities committed by ISIS continues to grow, with the latest
being a chilling pamphlet that details the organizations policy on treating the
women they kidnap and then use as sex slaves. This is the latest account of
ISISs dealings in kidnapping and human trafficking in which they target
women and children, often from the minority Yazidi religion, and sell them for
as little as $25 or keep them as slaves. ISIS is not the only terrorist group to
engage in kidnapping and trafficking. Just a few days ago, Boko Haram
kidnapped 200 villagers and killed dozens more in Nigeria, further terrorizing
the already tormented community. Indeed, human trafficking plays a growing
role in the operation of 21st-century terrorist organizations. Several years ago I
gave a public lecture on the topic and mentioned a case that is in the first chapter of my new book, Dirty
Entanglements: Corruption, Crime and Terrorism. The White Lace Case in Los Angeles involved women
from the former USSR trafficked into high-end prostitution. Many of the women arrived in the United States
as part of sports and religious delegations. In order to extend their legal residence in the United States,
they had to obtain other visas. One of the leaders of this trafficking ring registered the trafficked women as
students at a language skills school, thereby obtaining student visas for the prostitutes in her
organization. The language school did not focus on providing instruction but instead was a visa mill. This
same language school also provided visas to the 9/11 hijackers. In other words ,
the 9/11 hijackers

and the trafficking victims shared the same facilitator. This facilitator was a
point of intersection of crime and terrorism . When I finished this talk, a government
official approached me. He informed me that he was on a task force studying human trafficking and his
role was to find the links between trafficking and terrorism. In his months in this position, he had not found
a single example such as this. He asked how I found it. I answered that I had gone and talked to many
members of law enforcement who through their investigations understood these links. At that time, pre
-9/11, the links were more subtle and had to be hunted down. But this case, already 15 years ago, shows
that
there were links at that time between human trafficking and terrorist
activity even in the United States. Today they are more direct, especially in
many conflict regions of the world. Yet policymakers focus nearly all their
attention on more visible crime-terrorism linksprimarily drug trafficking
and miss the important links between human trafficking and terrorist
organizations. Human trafficking now serves three main purposes for terrorist
groups: generating revenue, providing fighting power, and vanquishing the
enemy. For terrorists, human trafficking is a dual-use crime like drug
trafficking and kidnapping. It not only generates revenue, but it decimates
communities. As we see in Nigeria and Iraq today, trafficking intimidates
populations and reduces resistance just as enslavement and rape of women
were used as tools of war in the past. Trafficking and smuggling are part of
the business of terrorism, and constitute one activity in the product mix of terrorist groups.
Terrorists smuggle drugs, arms, and people. Maoist insurgents in Nepal have exploited the long-standing
trade of young girls taken from their country to the brothels of India to finance their activities. Evidence
suggests that the LTTE smuggled Sri Lankans to finance their activities and the PKK exploited the porous
mountain borders in eastern Turkey to facilitate human smuggling from countries in the Middle East and
South Asia. Cells of the Ulster Volunteer Force of Northern Ireland received narcotics as payment from
Chinese snakeheads in support of their smuggling networks. German authorities in 2006 arrested an
Iraqi and a Syrian who smuggled individuals from their home region and were suspected of having links
with the Ansar al-Islam terrorist network. While trafficking and smuggling does generate revenue, they
are not central money-making endeavors for terrorists and are committed primarily for other reasons.
Pakistani terrorists buy children to serve as suicide bombers.
Rebels in
Africa trade in children to fund their conflicts and obtain child soldiers. More recently, Boko Haram shocked
the world by kidnapping 276 female students and threatened to traffic them. ISIS members have taken
young Azidi girls, raped and sold them off for trivial prices. The girls and women may sell for as little as
$25 and sometimes even less, suggesting that this is not a revenue-generating operation when a million
dollars daily is gained from oil sales.
Rather, human trafficking, like slavery in the past,

is a way of demoralizing the conquered.
Those not in the direct sight of terrorist groups may also become victims of human trafficking, even
as they flee to safety. People displaced by terrorists are vulnerable to traffickingboth sexual and labor. Young girls fleeing with their families from the Syrian conflict today have been trafficked in Jordan and other
neighboring states, just as occurred with earlier waves of refugees from Iraq. In Turkey, crime groups in border areas are exploiting the labor of Syrian male refugees who cannot find legitimate employment. Many
more illegal migrants face labor trafficking in Europe as they flee the conflict regions of North Africa and the Middle East. Human trafficking, drug smuggling landing on the Treasure Coast WPEC - West Palm, FL
Human trafficking was once a crime associated primarily with a range of small to large crime groups. But as terrorist groups begin to function more as businesses, we unfortunately observe the expansion of terrorist
groups into this criminality. Historically, conquering armies have seized inhabitants of conquered areas and enslaved them. But what is different is that traditional practices of the past have been combined with the
business acumen of terrorist groups today. In their effort to diversify their revenue, they have capitalized on traditional practices to new advantage. Women and children are disproportionately victims, but they are
not alone. Exploitation of trafficking victims may be most acute in conflict and adjoining regions, but it is not confined to these areas. To combat the link between human trafficking and terrorism, we and European
allies must prioritize this problem. Unfortunately, almost all attention goes to the drug trafficking-terrorism link without addressing the role that human trafficking plays as a terrorist funding source and a destroyer
of communities. This must be added to our national security priorities and those of NATO. But it also must be given much higher priority by non-governmental organizations and peacekeepers who intervene in
conflict regions. Moreover, recipient countries of refugees fleeing terrorist conflicts must prioritize anti-trafficking efforts to ensure that traumatized refugees are not subject to further victimization. Support for
refugees must include anti-trafficking measures that include targeting traffickers and support to safeguard women and children.
Human Trafficking and Terrorism Linked, Increases threat

of terror in Us
Anderson, 12 (The Connection Between Human Trafficking and
Terrorism, Sarah Anderson, January 19, 2012,
http://notenoughgood.com/2012/01/human-trafficking-and-terrorism/ )
Human trafficking and terrorism are two huge social and political issues which plague our society with the responsibility to identify and eliminate the root causes. As I stated in my first blog earlier this week, it is not
enough to just educate society, monitor progress and sanction countries who do not fall into compliance with what the U.S. deems an acceptable level of action in regards to counter-human trafficking efforts. We
must look at efforts to activate public policy change in order to deal with these two conjunctive issues more effectively. Education is helpful but lets face it education does not effectuate change. Before I go on I
want to communicate to you that I am interested in your thoughts or ideas on these two crucial issues. What are your unique perspectives on public policy change in regards to human trafficking and terrorism?
Perhaps you have ideas or thoughts I have not considered. I am interested in learning from others with regards to these issues as no one person has all the answers and if we find the resolution to these two
important conflicts it will more than likely be a collaborative effort of many. I am definitely not the first researcher to believe in the connection between human trafficking and terrorism. In 2000, a researcher by the
name of Christine Dolan conducted a 9 week study throughout Europe in which she interviewed over 500 local people including children, pimps, police and prostitutes and concluded there is definitively a connection
between human trafficking and terrorism. Her study entitled, Shattered Innocence, Millennium Holocaust was mentioned in the Spring 2002 Initiative Against Sex Trafficking Report and reported that human
trafficking is enabling international criminals to play into a wider field of international drug trafficking, weapons and arms dealing, and even piracy, to name a few. At the beginning of the Millennium, around the
. The Taliban were

reportedly abducting women and children and selling them as sexual slaves,
using them as concubines or even collecting them as war booty. When the
Taliban was finally moved out of Afghanistan they left several of the victims
behind but then collected several more. I believe it is imperative that we are
able to connect human trafficking and terrorism and create a Nexus between
them in order to obtain greater public policy change. Currently, human trafficking is
same time when the Taliban was being originally moved out of Afghanistan, there were multiple abductions of women and children reported in Afghanistan
treated more as a social issue than as a matter of national security. Albeit there are certain social problems
created by human trafficking, it is most definitely more than a social issue. Trafficking is a political issue as
is terrorism and as such it should be treated in the same manner. Should trafficking be treated as a matter
of national security, instead of solely a social issue, public policy could be changed in a way in which
Women and
children are trafficked into the U.S. every day through Mexico and Canada as
well as Florida and other minor points of entry for the purpose of prostitution.
Terrorist organizations not only utilize human trafficking for financial
support, they can also align themselves with trafficking groups to
obtain a point of entry into the U.S. Those who are trafficked into the
U.S. for the purpose of prostitution could also potentially be utilized for
terrorist activities. Al Qaeda has been successful at setting up terrorist cells
substantial impact could be made. As an example, lets analyze a case scenario.
within the U.S. and is also known to use human trafficking, prostitution and
other illegal activities to fund their organization. What is to stop them
from using a prostitute or someone closely affiliated to their sex
trafficking activities to carry out an attack within U.S. borders?
This is a
frightening thought but the U.S. government has already considered this possibility. Cutting off the funding prostitution provides to terrorist activities would be a step in the right direction. I believe major progress
can be achieved by changing our own views of prostitution. Many still view prostitution as a simple vice instead of a major crime and breach of national security. If we change how we view this industry we can start
a major shift in public opinion and perhaps public policy. It may sound extreme to you but if policy was changed to treat prostitution as a serious offense when certain factors are present that suggest trafficking,
that may have an impact on the sex trade. If forced domestic servitude and forced slavery of any kind was treated as a breach of national security here in the U.S. we may be able to get a handle on our own
domestic trafficking problem. If trafficking of a U.S. citizen in the international community was treated as serious as a terrorist threat because of the Nexus between the two, there may be some decline in that
activity. If the U.S. shows the global community that it views trafficking as a contributor to terrorism perhaps that would persuade more global action. Do you have other suggestions?
Many Terrorist Organizations Use human trafficking to

Finance
Gonzalez, 13 (The Nexus between Human Trafficking and
Terrorism/Organized Crime: Combating Human Trafficking By Creating a
Cooperative Law Enforcement System Seton Hall Law Seton Hall Law
eRepository, 5-1-2013, http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1227&context=student_scholarship )
Al-Qaeda and its associated groups have greatly diversified their methods of raising money to finance
jihad. 102 They finance themselves to varying extents through common crime, according to the
conditions and opportunities in the locations in which they operate.103 It is therefore often difficult to
distinguish between terrorist groups, insurgents and organized crime groups since these categories often
overlap.104 Their methods and sources of financing are often similar if not the same.105
Is there a
link between terrorism and human trafficking? According to Christine Dolan,
panelist at the recent Terrorism Nexus seminar hosted by the World Affairs
Council of Washington D.C. the answer is, yes.106 In 2000, the
International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children commissioned Dolan
to investigate the exploitation of children in the Balkan. 107 In the report
Dolan concluded that, human trafficking is not only one of the first financial
steps into the transnational and transcriminal mobsters financial network but
that it is the bedrock of these criminal syndicates. It is far more profitable
than trafficking drugs or weapons. Taliban soldiers abducted many women
and girls during their five-year rule of Afghanistan.109 Shabnams abduction is one of
many to impossible to count, females kidnapped by the Taliban. Farhat Bokhari, a researcher for Human
Rights Watch in New York, says that estimates of abductions are in the hundreds, but abductions are
underreported because of whole issue of dishonor.110 General Mohammed Qasim, Chief military
prosecutor for the Northern Alliance in Kabul at the time, believed that many of the girls were no longer in
Afghanistan.111 Qasim said many of the girls are used as concubines by Taliban officers, while others are
sold as sex slaves to wealthy Arabs through contracts arranged by Al Qaeda.112 Proceeds help keep
the cash strapped Taliban afloat.113
The following is a passage from an investigation

into the Talibans practice of sex slavery and human trafficking by Time
Magazine.114 With the women stripped of their burkas, it was a simple task
for the Taliban soldiers to cull the young beauties. Nafiza was one of them.
Green-eyed with raven black hair that grazed her waist . . . a Taliban fighter
spotted the beauty. She was his prize. With the butt of his AK-47 rifle, he
slammed Nafiza into the dust and dragged her, pleading and crying to the
highway. There Arabs and Pakistanis of al-Qeada joined the Taliban to sort
out the women. Nafiza and other women, numbering in the hundreds, were
herded into trucks and buses. They were never seen again.
The article goes on to

describe what happens to the women and girls at the hands of the Taliban and Al-Qeda: rape, forced
marriage, sex slavery in brothels, domestic slavery, and more.115 More evidence that terrorists are
engaging in human trafficking emerged on December 16, 2009,116 when Harouna Toure, whom headed a
criminal group that works with Al-Qaeda affiliates in North Africa, was apprehended in Ghana by Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA). 117 The DEA accused Toure of transporting cocaine through North
Africa for $2,000 a kilogram, a fee that was to be partially turned over to Al-Qaeda in return for protection
along the route. Toure told a DEA informant that Al-Qaeda could protect cocaine shipments and assist in
potential kidnappings to raise money.118 Terrorism is an expensive business, and like everyone else,
terrorists have recession issues.119 Al-Qaeda has long been suspected of engaging in the drug
trade.120 However, AlQaeda, and other terrorist groups, are now suspected of human trafficking to
replace traditional sources, like contributions from rich donors that dried up due to United States
government efforts after September 9, 2011.121 Law enforcement agencies agree that one of the best
strategies to fight Al-Qaeda is to cut off their cash and starve them out. This strategy now includes
fighting human trafficking.122
Impacts
Human Trafficking issue worldwide, exact number
impossible to find
KECSKEMETHY 15 (TOM KECSKEMETHY, MAY 7, 2015, Our Very Real
Problem With Human Trafficking, Pacific Standard,
http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/five-studies-our-very-realproblem-with-human-trafficking )
In November 2012, on Capitol Hill, Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal, Republican senator Rob Portman, and celebrity Jada Pinkett Smith
Human
trafficking is modern-day slaverya horrific crime that occurs across the
world and the nation. According to anti-trafficking groups, 27 million people
are held captive in human trafficking networks around the world. That
sounds terrible. The trouble is, we dont know if its true. We do know that people around the
launched the Senate Caucus to End Human Trafficking. The announcement, from Senator Blumenthals website, reads in part:
world are forced into labor and sex slavery against their willa situation that politicians and advocates across the ideological spectrum agree
is reprehensible. But though we make declarations and pass laws
, we in fact know very little about the
scope and nature of trafficking. In part, this is because technical and political issues make trafficking data
notoriously (in many cases irresponsibly) bad. When the European Union, for example, tried to
estimate the extent of trafficking in 27 nations, it had to rely on self-reported
data from those nations, which differed in their definitions of trafficking; some were even reporting presumed victims.
Add to that countries such as Argentina and the Dominican Republic, which, according to the Georgetown professor Denise Brennan, report
numbers that are unreliable because of the threat of United States economic sanctions. By its very nature,
trafficking is a
clandestine, illicit activity.
The result is numerous unsubstantiated claims, repeated and reified, but little reliable
information with which to start devising effective solutions. Last May, in our Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
we featured research that, through localized fact-gathering, showed how complex and confounding quantifying human trafficking can be. Here,
Trafficking laws in the U.S. are still new: Theyve

existed for only 15 years. And definitions of trafficking can be difficult to
interpret. Federal and state trafficking laws are generally about the denial of
a persons liberty, but what exactly does that mean? The criminologists Amy Farrell and Rebecca Pfeffer (from Northeastern
summaries of five revealing studies.
University and the University of Houston) looked at trafficking case files in 12 U.S. counties and found considerable confusion among police,
. And
because police tend to focus on what they think the public wants, many
police departments interpret trafficking as encompassing only prostitution
rings, sex crimes, and vice networks meaning that other trafficking crimes, such as labor trafficking, are
prosecutors, and victim service providers about what human trafficking actually is. Lawmakers and civilians also appear divided
being overlooked. Policing Human Trafficking: Cultural Blinders and Organizational Barriers, Amy Farrell and Rebecca Pfeffer
TRAFFICKING OF MINORS ISN'T ALWAYS ABUSIVE People who are illegally trafficked are not always deceived or mistreated. The political
anthropologist Neil Howard of the European University Institute in Florence investigated the case of teenage boys who move from Benin to
work in Nigerias gravel quarries. The boys would be considered trafficked by the International Labour Organizations Programme on the
Elimination of Child Labour, which guides international child-labor law. But Howard found that the boys dont self-identify as victims. Many of
them willingly left their farms, and the quarry work at times was less challenging than what they would have faced at home. Working under
two-year contracts, the boys brought home about $260 for their efforts, enough for the purchase of a motor scooter, perhaps, or for
improvements to the family home. Because such labor networks can be culturally ingrained and economically helpful, Howard concludes that
laws aimed at the blanket elimination of child labor are, at the very least, wrong-headed.
No way to estimate how many human trafficking victims

there are
UNODC, No date (United nations Office on Drugs and Crime, No date,
Human Trafficking FAQs, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-
trafficking/faqs.html#Who_are_the_victims_and_culprits_of_human_trafficking
)
The question of the magnitude of the trafficking problem - that is, how many victims there are
- is hotly debated as there is no methodologically sound available estimate. In December 2013, UNODC
hosted a meeting with academics and researchers with experience in uncovering various 'hidden populations'*. The objective of the meeting
was to obtain an overview of successful methodologies in enumerating hidden populations and to discuss research methods on trafficking in
Generating a
methodologically sound estimate of the global number of trafficking victims is
a commendable objective. Achieving it, however, would require significant
resources and a long-term perspective. *Further information on the research methodologies and
persons, with particular emphasis on the potential development of a global victim estimate.
approaches discussed at the expert meeting can be found in the next edition of the UNODC journal Forum on Crime and Society (forthcoming
2015).
AT: 5 Eyes
Unimportant American surveillance activity causes other
nations to follow suit.
Hager , 15 ( The price of the Five Eyes club: Mass spying on friendly
nations By Nicky Hager, Ryan Gallagher, Mar 5, 2015 NZ Herald,
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11411759)
New Zealand's electronic surveillance agency,
the GCSB, has dramatically expanded its spying
funnelling vast amounts of

the Government
Communications Security Bureau intelligence base at Waihopai has moved to "full-take collection", indiscriminately
intercepting Asia-Pacific communications and providing them en masse to the
NSA through the controversial NSA intelligence system XKeyscore, which is used to monitor
emails and internet browsing habits. Last year, Mr Key refused to say whether the GCSB uses Xkeyscore. The documents,
provided by US whistleblower whistleblower Edward Snowden, reveal that most of the targets are not
security threats to New Zealand, as has been suggested by the Government.
operations during the years of John Key's National Government and is automatically
intelligence to the US N
ational
ecurity
Agency, top-secret documents reveal. Since 2009,
Instead, the GCSB directs its spying against a surprising array of New Zealand's friends, trading partners and close Pacific neighbours.
These countries' communications are supplied directly to the NSA and other
Five Eyes agencies with little New Zealand oversight or decision-making, as a
contribution to US worldwide surveillance. The New Zealand revelations mirror what the Snowden
documents showed in Europe, where the US and Britain were found to be spying on supposedly close and friendly neighbouring nations in the
European Union. READ MORE How New Zealand spies on its Pacific neighbours How foreign spies access the data Join the Twitter
debate: #snowdenNZ The Herald has collaborated with US news site The Intercept to report on the New Zealand-oriented Snowden papers
(read the Intercept article here). They reveal the secret activity called signals intelligence - the interception of private phone calls, emails and
internet chats - globally. Pacific targets The documents identify
nearly two dozen countries that are
intensively spied on by the GCSB. On the target list are most of New Zealand's Pacific neighbours, including small
and vulnerable nations such as Tuvalu, Nauru, Kiribati and Samoa. Other South Pacific GCSB targets are Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, New
Caledonia, Fiji, Tonga and French Polynesia. The spy agency intercepts the flows of communications between these countries and then breaks
them down into individual emails, phone calls, social media messages and other types of communications.
All this intelligence
is immediately made available to the NSA,
which is based in Maryland, near Washington, DC. The South

Pacific targeting was confirmed by a New Zealand intelligence source, who said the GCSB monitoring included Pacific government ministers
and senior officials, government agencies, international organisations and non-government organisations. Mr Key, who is also the Minister of
National Security and Intelligence, has argued that the GCSB is needed to protect New Zealand from terrorism threats such as those
emanating from Islamic State (Isis). Since 2009, the GCSB intelligence base at Waihopai has moved to "full-take collection". Since 2009, the
the Snowden papers show that

counter-terrorism is at most a minor part of the GCSB's operations. Most
projects are assisting the US and allies to gather political and economic
intelligence country-by-country around the world. Monitoring the Pacific nations is part of New Zealand's role as a member of the
GCSB intelligence base at Waihopai has moved to "full-take collection". But
Five Eyes intelligence alliance. Mr Key said in January that sending troops to Iraq this year was, for his Government, "the price of the club". He
named the club as the US, Britain, Canada and Australia, the other Five Eyes members. The same Anzus-era language is used to justify GCSB
GCSB provided "valuable

access not otherwise available to satisfy US intelligence requirement". In
effect, the New Zealand spy agency gathers information on the country's
nearest neighbours to help secure its place in the US-led alliance.
intelligence operations. An NSA report on the GCSB, found in the Snowden papers, said the
'Full-take' South Pacific spying
has been greatly expanded in the past six years. A July 2009 GCSB document (scroll to end of article to see it) describes plans to move the Waihopai intelligence base to "full-take collection" - possibly the most
important expansion since the station opened in 1989. Previously, according to 1990s GCSB staff, Waihopai intercepted millions of emails and phone calls from the Asia-Pacific region but retained and gave its allies
only ones from specified targets. "Full-take collection" means the base now collects and retains everything it intercepts: both the content of all the messages and the "metadata" showing who is calling or emailing
whom, at what times and (for mobile calls) location information showing from which cell tower the phone calls were made. The 2009 report said the Waihopai engineers had been working to overcome problems in
storage capacity and planned to have "full-take collection on Mission carriers running by October." Mission carriers refers to the large regional communications satellites that the Waihopai base is tasked with
eavesdropping on. In 2009, according to the report, two NSA trainers visited GCSB to help the Waihopai station upgrade its "Xkeyscore suite" in "anticipation of full-take collection and second-party sharing".
Xkeyscore is the controversial US intelligence system that gathers and stores the billions of intercepted communications and "metadata" from all around the world, making them easily searchable by intelligence
staff. A 2008 NSA PowerPoint, obtained by Snowden and released publicly in 2013, included a slide headed "Where is Xkeyscore?" The accompanying map had red dots marking Xkeyscore sites around the world,
including one on New Zealand's South Island. This was Waihopai.
intelligence agencies
Metadata
is highly valued by the Five Eyes
as it allows a picture to be built of a person's activities and their network of friends and associates. It avoids the time-consuming effort of reading, listening
to and/or translating each individual communication. The "second-party sharing" meant sharing the intelligence with the Five Eyes agencies. These developments allow the Waihopai station, codenamed Ironsand,
to collect, retain and share metadata and content for every communication it intercepts during its 24/7, year-by-year monitoring of Asia-Pacific communications satellites. US-run system The German newspaper
Der Spiegel, which studied Snowden documents about Xkeyscore, wrote that "from the more than 500 million data communications to which the NSA has access every month, around 182 million of them are
the program also enables 'full-take' of all unfiltered data

over a period of several days - meaning not just metadata but also the
content of online communications." All the Waihopai full-take intelligence was
automatically shared with the "club": initially with the NSA
collected with the spying tool Xkeyscore". It noted that "
and, the 2009 report said, "it is hoped that sharing
with [the Australian and British sister agencies] DSD and GCHQ will be achieved soon after we can offer full-take collection data". John Key and Barack Obama talk following the closing session of the Nuclear
Security Summit in The Hague last year. Photo / Getty Images John Key and Barack Obama talk following the closing session of the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague last year. Photo / Getty Images A British
intelligence document a few years later (about 2011) said "GCSB have given us access to their XKS [Xkeyscore] deployments at Ironsand, a GCSB comsat [communications satellite] site which is rich in data for the
South Pacific region". It said, "Specifically, we can access both strong selected data and full-take feed from this site." Strong selected data means communications contained targeted email addresses and key words.
Full-take feed means everything intercepted from the region. Click here to read document excerpt The GCSB intelligence collecting occurs completely within a US-run system. The documents show that, far from
New Zealand retaining control over the intelligence it intercepts from its neighbours, the
network.
GCSB transfers it all directly into the US
The intelligence is probably stored in computers at Waihopai, but Xkeyscore sites are part of an NSA-run distributed network of computer systems, the same as at any NSA-run listening
posts. The documents show that when GCSB staff want to access communications intercepted at Waihopai, they have to log into NSA computer databases. Minutes of a June 2009 meeting at the NSA headquarters,
GCSB officer was present, show how integrated the GCSB is into the NSA
systems.
where a
The GCSB officer, manager of an intelligence analysis unit, told the meeting that 20 per cent of GCSB's analytic workforce did not have accounts or access to key NSA databases. "This is a
particularly significant issue for GCSB," she said, "as they provide NSA with NZL [New Zealand] data which they have traditionally accessed via NSA tool/databases." That meant some GCSB analysts were "unable to
query or access NZL data". Click here to read document excerpt Spying on Samoa An example of the routine South Pacific spying is GCSB monitoring of Samoa. The US-led Five Eyes alliance has allocated spying
on Samoa to New Zealand, as part of what the July 2009 document calls the GCSB's "South West Pacific Area of Responsibility". The report, authored by the acting head of the GCSB's computer network exploitation
unit, discusses changes to Pacific Island mobile phone systems that were creating problems for GCSB monitoring of "target telecommunications networks within GCSB's Area of Responsibility". The report - headed
Top Secret, Communications Intelligence, release to USA, AUS, CAN, GBR, NZL - expressed concern about a new undersea cable link connecting Samoa to the outside world. Previously Samoa channelled all its
overseas communications via the Pacific Intelsat satellite, which was monitored at the GCSB's Waihopai facility. The undersea cable was taking over most Samoan international communications and so removing
them from Waihopai's spying. SNOWDEN AND NZ: FROM THE VAULT John Key 'comfortable' that NSA is not spying on NZ Intercept: NZ launched mass surveillance project while publicly denying it Edward
Snowden: New Zealand's Prime Minister isn't telling the truth The GCSB report said: "Unfortunately, SIGINT [signals intelligence] has already lost access to Samoan bearers due to the [recently installed] American
Samoa-Hawaii cable. In all likelihood all but some backup carriers will be off the air by the end of the year." The GCSB had got help from the New Zealand Defence Force to monitor a commercial cable-laying ship,
the Ile De Re, that was installing the new undersea cable. Defence staff in the Joint Electronic Warfare Support Facility used Defence Force resources to track the ship day by day in March 2009 to provide information
to GCSB on the progress of the Samoan cable. When the Prime Minister of Samoa, Tuilaepa Lupesoliai Sailele Malielegaoi, visited New Zealand in October 2012, Mr Key said: "Samoa is the only country in the world
with which New Zealand has a formal Treaty of Friendship." The treaty had "been at the heart of our relationship ever since". But the Five Eyes obligations trumped this and Samoa continues to be monitored as part
of the GCSB's area of responsibility. It is the same with all the other South Pacific countries. The same 2009 GCSB report on "target telecommunications networks" discussed mobile phone networks in Nauru and
Kiribati. By 2015 Samoa, Vanuatu, Fiji and Tonga have undersea cable communications but all the other Pacific Island nations still use satellites that are monitored by GCSB. Fiji phone taps Australia and New
Zealand collaborate closely on South Pacific spying operations. A GCSB report on "continued effort against the South Pacific region" at the June 2009 NSA meeting said: "GCSB's access development activities
[researching new communications to spy on] will be focused on the South Pacific region and entail close partnering and engagement with DSD, NZSIS and ASIS." Click here to read document excerpt DSD is the
Australian Five Eyes agency (since renamed ASD, the Australian Signals Directorate) and ASIS is the Australian equivalent of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). NZSIS is New Zealand's Security Intelligence
Service, a domestic intelligence agency which has in recent years been expanding into some overseas operations. The same minutes discussed "pushing the priority up on GCSB [undersea] cable access effort and
capabilities". The July 2009 report said GCSB staff had provided all their information on Fijian communications to the Australian DSD's Military Support Unit that year. This was "to provide a Target Systems Analysis
on the Command, Control and Communications of the Fiji Government ... Up until now, GCSB's major targets in the [Fiji] Government and [Fiji military] have kept a preference for Vodafone services", it said, but they
were increasingly shifting to Digicel cellphones. This strongly suggests there was a listening post in the New Zealand or Australian high commission in Suva targeting local mobile calls. A presentation slide on NSA
surveillance shows New Zealand involvement. Photo / Screengrab A presentation slide on NSA surveillance shows New Zealand involvement. Photo / Screengrab In the same way that the Five Eyes alliance
allocates the southwest Pacific to GCSB, the Australian ASD is allocated surveillance of Indonesia and Southeast Asia. The report discussed a GCSB officer seconded to Canberra to work in the Australian agency's
Network Infrastructure Analysis section. His job was to assist spying operations by studying Indonesian cellphone firm Telkomsel. Overall, the leaked documents suggest an astonishing lack of independence in New
. The Government claims - most recently in its successful bid for a seat on the United Nations
Security Council - that it runs an independent foreign policy. The GCSB and allied
documents suggest the opposite. Some of the Pacific spying - and other operations further
afield - provide intelligence of use to the New Zealand Government. But GCSB operations are
primarily contributions to the NSA and other allies: the price of the club.
Zealand intelligence operations
Five Eyes intelligence sharing allows for circumvention.

WARNER, 13 (MARGARET WARNER , October 25, 2013, An exclusive club:
The five countries that dont spy on each other, PBS.Org
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/an-exclusive-club-the-five-countriesthat-dont-spy-on-each-other/ )
It was born out of American and British intelligence collaboration in World War II, a long-private club nicknamed the Five Eyes. The members
five English-speaking countries who share virtually all intelligence and

pledge not to practice their craft on one another. A former top U.S. counter-terrorism official called it
are
the inner circle of our very closest allies, who dont need to spy on each other. This is the club that German chancellor Angela Merkel and
French President Francois Hollande say they want to join or at least, win a similar no-spying pact with the U.S. themselves. It all began
with a secret 7-page agreement struck in 1946 between the U.S. and the U.K., the British-US Communication Agreement, later renamed
UKUSA. At first their focus was the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites. But after Canada joined in 1948, and Australia and New
They pledged to share intelligence

especially the results of electronic surveillance of communications and not
to conduct such surveillance on each other. Whiffs of the clubs existence appeared occasionally in the
Zealand in 1956, the Five Eyes was born, and it had global reach.
press, but it wasnt officially acknowledged and declassified until 2010, when Britains General Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ,
released some of the founding documents. The benefits of membership are immense, say intelligence experts. While the U.S. has worldwide
satellite surveillance abilities, the club benefits from each members regional specialty, like Australia and New Zealands in the Far East. We
The ease
and rapidity of information-sharing among the five makes it quicker to
connect the dots, said another intelligence veteran. You cant underestimate the importance of the common language, legal
practice intelligence burden sharing, said one former U.S. official. We can say, thats hard for us cover, so can you?'
system and culture, said another. Above all, there is total trust. That trust extends to not tapping the phones of one anothers leaders and
officials. Thats rooted in the belief that when their leaders talk to one another, they do so in full candor. There is very little we need to know
about these countries and their leaderships views that the leaders wouldnt tell us themselves, with all honesty, said a retired official familiar
with the program. A murkier question is whether theyve also agreed never to spy on each others citizens. U.S. officials say thats part of the
deal. Yet there have been reports in the British press amplified most recently by former NSA contractor and leaker Edward Snowden that
Five Eyes spy on one anothers citizens and share the

information to get around laws preventing agencies from spying on their own
citizens. Former CIA deputy director John McLaughlin insisted to me that this isnt so. Ive never heard of that, he said. You would
thats not the case, that the
think I would know if that were the case. But can we say for sure that unlike Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron doesnt have to
worry that his cell phone is bugged? Said a longtime spymaster, Not by us.
Did you know that the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand participate together in an electronic eavesdropping
Britain "has secretly gained access to

world's phone calls and internet traffic and
is
sharing with
, the N l S
A
big news, right! It's also four days old. Maybe some of you
cooperative called "The Five Eyes Alliance"? Or that
the network of cables which carry the
has started to process vast streams of sensitive personal information which it
its American partner
ationa
ecurity
gency"? That's
caught it, but you know what: The surveillance news is coming so fast these days that it's nearly impossible to process it all. One day, the
scandal is that big Internet companies secretly share data with the U.S. government. A few more days pass, and then this drops: One key
innovation has been GCHQ's ability to tap into and store huge volumes of data drawn from fibre-optic cables for up to 30 days so that it can be
sifted and analysed. That operation, codenamed Tempora, has been running for some 18 months. GCHQ and the NSA are consequently able to
access and process vast quantities of communications between entirely innocent people, as well as targeted suspects. This includes
all
of which is deemed legal, even though the warrant system was supposed to
limit interception to a specified range of targets . And this: By May last year 300 analysts from GCHQ,
recordings of phone calls, the content of email messages, entries on Facebook and the history of any internet user's access to websites -
and 250 from the NSA, had been assigned to sift through the flood of data. The Americans were given guidelines for its use, but were told in
legal briefings by GCHQ lawyers: "We have a light oversight regime compared with the US". When it came to judging the necessity and
proportionality of what they were allowed to look for, would-be American users were told it was "your call". What this portends is terrifying.
Say you're the NSA. By law, there are certain sorts of spying you're not lawfully allowed to do on Americans. (And agency rules constraining
you too.) But wait. Allied countries have different laws and surveillance rules. If there are times when America's spy agency has an easier time
spying on Brits, and times when Britain's spying agency has an easier time spying on Americans, it's easy to see where the incentives lead.
intelligence agencies have an incentive to make themselves complicit

in foreign governments spying on their own citizens. Reuters raised this concern: NSA
Put bluntly,
spokeswoman Judith Emmel rejected any suggestion the U.S. agency used the British to do things the NSA cannot do legally. Under U.S. law,
the NSA must get authorization from a secret federal court to collect
information either in bulk or on specific people.
"Any allegation that NSA relies on its foreign partners to circumvent U.S. law is
absolutely false. NSA does not ask its foreign partners to undertake any intelligence activity that the U.S. government would be legally prohibited from undertaking itself," Emmel said. What about when foreign
partners aren't "asked," per se, to collect information the NSA isn't allowed to gather ... but just happen to have it because, you know, they collect basically everything? The NSA has been misleading Americans at
every opportunity lately, so I'm loath to take their word for anything, but even if this sort of cooperation isn't happening now -- which I would not assume -- it seems like it's inevitably going to happen if Congress
doesn't preempt it, right? The alarming scenarios could fill a whole series of international thrillers. If all this had existed back in the aughts, would George W. Bush's NSA have been tempted to share surveillance with
Tony Blair on his political opponents, to keep an Iraq War ally in power? How many of Senator Ron Wyden's private communications can the British government access? Do we ever have to worry about the
Anglosphere's executives and spy agencies allying with one another against their respective legislatures? So much to ponder. (Oh, for an update of Mother Earth, Mother Board.) Meanwhile, a suggested question
for the White House press corps: "President Obama, how often do foreign governments let the U.S. government access information collected from U.S. citizens who aren't suspected of any crime?"
Five Eyes surveillance immoral

Hays, 14 (State of surveillance: the NSA Files and the global fightback
Ben Hayes, 2014,
https://www.tni.org/files/download/state_of_surveillance_chapter.pdf )
While the Summer of Snowden demonstrated the power of the NSA and the big tech companies, it has also shown up the weakness of
international law and the current system of international governance. Human rights law and jurisprudence leaves little room for doubt that
what the Five Eyes and others have been doing contravenes both the letter
and spirit of international law. It is not just human rights standards that have
been ignored, but decades of carefully crafted mutual legal assistance
frameworks (allowing states to request and access information or evidence about one anothers citizens), some of which have
been simplified since 9/11
Five Eyes invasive, indiscriminate, and obsolete

threatens total loss of privacy.
Evidence talks about how both 5 eyes bad and how there are already steps
being taken to dismantle it!
Privacy International, 13 (Unmasking the Five-Eyed monster, a global and
secret intelligence-sharing regime, Privacy International, 27 November
2013, iFex, https://www.ifex.org/international/2013/11/27/eyes_wide_open/ )
For almost 70 years, a secret post-war alliance of five English-speaking

countries has been building a global surveillance infrastructure to "master the internet"
and spy on the world's communications. This arrangement binds together the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to create what's
collectively known as the Five Eyes. While the existence of the agreement has been kept secret from the public and parliaments, dogged
investigative reporting from Duncan Campbell, Nicky Hager, and James Bamford has been trying to uncover the extent of the arrangement for
years. Now, thanks to Edward Snowden, the public are able to understand more of the spying that is being done in our name than ever before.
The invasive and indiscriminate surveillance that

is being conducted in secret, and justified on the basis of secret bi-lateral
agreements and inaccessible legal frameworks, must come to an end. That's
why Privacy International is launching an international campaign to pry open
the Five Eyes arrangement and bring their secretive spying alliance under the
rule of law.
Now, it is time to unmask this five-eyed monster.
Called "Eyes Wide Open," the campaign has four main goals: - Pry open the Five Eyes arrangement and subject the world's most powerful and secret intelligence-sharing regime to
appropriate transparency and scrutiny; - Challenge the legal frameworks that enable global surveillance practices, and particularly that discriminate between nationals and foreigners with respect to human rights
obligations; - Promote an understanding of human rights obligations as applying to all individuals under a State's jurisdiction, regardless of their location; and - Campaign for policies that bring intelligence
agencies under the rule of law. Taking action Already, we have challenged UK government spying in the IPT [Investigatory Powers Tribunal], filed OECD complaints against undersea cable companies, and sparked
European data protection authorities to investigate the NSA's hacking of the SWIFT network. And today [27 November 2013], we wrote to the governments of the Five Eyes States demanding the publication of the
treaties and agreements that underpin the alliance. Many other organisations are taking action too. Big Brother Watch, Open Rights Group, English PEN, and internet campaigner Constanze Kurtz are challenging
the UK government's surveillance of our data at the European Court of Human Rights. The Stop Watching Us coalition in the United States has been lobbying the US governments and holding mass protests in the
name of ending mass surveillance. Today, Privacy International is joining the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Access, Open Rights Group, and Open Media to launch a Campaign to End Mass Surveillance,
While these
arrangements have been in existence for decades, the alliance is now coming
out of the shadows to block UN resolutions condemning the mass surveillance
that has been revealed over the summer. Intelligence agencies and the
governments that operate them have been revealed to be not merely
secretive, but hypocritical, and dismissive of any legitimate public concerns.
enlisting citizens from around the world to urgently call on their governments to put down this mysterious arrangement. Out of the shadows
It
is time to bring these practices, and the covert agreements that underpin them, into the light. For more than sixty years, the secret patchwork of spying arrangements and intelligence-sharing agreements that
makes up the Five Eyes alliance has remained obfuscated by the States whom it benefits. Save for one critically important release of declassified documents in 2010, the Five Eyes States have spent almost 70 years
concealing from their citizens the scope and extent of their global surveillance ambitions - eroding the public's ability to communicate privately and securely without examination or question. Despite the fact that
the Five Eyes comprises democratic governments
, the rules which govern the arrangement - rules which have allowed the
infiltration of every aspect of the modern global communications systems - are entirely hidden from the public. Providing for a complex division of roles, responsibilities and lines of authority, and the establishment
of jointly-run operations centres, the Five Eyes arrangement creates a signals intelligence architecture vaster than NATO. And while its actions implicate the private communications of every connected individual
across the globe, the arrangement was executed and operates clandestinely, hidden from the scrutiny of public oversight mechanisms and - until recently - the public. The Five Eyes - in conjunction with others have infiltrated every aspect of modern communications systems. We know that their capabilities include directly accessing internet companies' data, tapping international fiber optic cables, sabotaging encryption
standards and standards bodies, hacking the routers, switches and firewalls that connect the internet together, and obtaining information from almost any source in the world they are able to get access to.
Yet, because the agreement is shrouded in secrecy, we do not have access to

the covert agreements and treaties that govern up the alliance.
We have no ability to challenge their
implementation and their impact upon our human rights. We cannot hold our governments accountable when their actions are obfuscated through secret deals. We do not live in the same world today as when the
Five Eyes arrangement was founded. Our communications are not confined by borders, our interests not defined by our nationality. Yet in seeking to justify their global surveillance practices the Five Eyes alliance
relies on outdated legal frameworks that arbitrarily purport to distinguish between nationals and foreigners, as if the internet required a passport to move through its corridors. These legal frameworks - which
attempt to provide one standard of privacy of communications for citizens of Five Eyes states, and another for the rest of the world's population - violate the internationally recognized right to privacy. An individual
does not need to reside within a country's borders for that State to violate their privacy rights when intelligence services intercept their emails, phone calls, and text messages. We know now that Five Eyes
governments can remotely spy into communications and computers across borders with impunity. What these governments do not seem to understand is this: human rights obligations apply to all individuals under
The Five Eyes must be held to a new legal framework

that respects the rights of all individuals, not just the citizens that live within
a respective government's borders. Without acting swiftly, the five-eyed
monster will continue to grow in ambition, size, and scale,
swallowing up everything in its path until we have no privacy left.
a State's jurisdiction, regardless of their physical location.
Cyberterror unlikely
No cyberterrorism impactthreats exaggerated
Quigley, Burns, and Stallard 15
(Kevin, Calvin, Kristen, 3/26/15, Government Information Quarterly, Cyber
Gurus: A rhetorical analysis of the language of cybersecurity specialists and
the implications for security policy and critical infrastructure protection,
http://cryptome.org/2015/05/cyber-gurus.pdf, 7/16/16, SM)
the
threat is exaggerated and oversimplified for some. Many note the lack of empirical
evidence to support the widespread fear of cyber-terrorism and cyber-warfare, for
While these are four prevalent types of cybersecurity issues, there is evidence to suggest that
instance (Cavelty, 2007; Hansen & Nissenbaum, 2009; Lewis, 2003; Rid, 2013; Stohl, 2007). According to
Stohl (2007),
there is little vulnerability in critical infrastructure that could lead

to violence or fatalities. Secondly, there are few actors who would be interested
in or capable of exploiting such vulnerabilities . Thirdly, and in relation to cyber-terrorism
in particular, the expenses necessary to carry out cyber-attacks are greater than
traditional forms of terrorism, limiting the utility of cyber-attacks compared to other available
measures (Stohl, 2007). Instead, technology is most often used by terrorists to provide information, solicit
financial support, network with like-minded terrorists, recruit, and gather information; in other words,
terrorist groups are simply exploiting modern tools to accomplish the same goals they sought in the
past (Stohl, 2007, p. 230).
Loss of tech leadership does not threaten U.S. economic

power or leadership
Bhid 9
Amar Bhid, Thomas Schmidheiny Professor in The Fletcher School of Law
and Diplomacy @ Tufts, was Glaubinger Professor of Business at Columbia
University. Where innovation creates value. February 2009.
http://whispersandshouts.typepad.com/files/where-innovation-createsvalue.pdf
Now, perhaps, more than ever, the fear of globalization haunts the United States. Many
manufacturing companies that once flourished there fell to overseas competition or relocated much of
their work abroad. Then services embarked on the same journey. Just as the manufacturing exodus started
with low-wage, unskilled labor, the offshoring of services at first involved data entry, routine software
programming and testing, and the operation of phone banks. But today, overseas workers analyze
financial statements, test trading strategies, and design computer chips and software architectures for US
It is the offshoring of research and developmentof innovation and

the futurethat arouses the keenest anxiety. The economist Richard Freeman spoke for
companies.
many Americans when he warned that the United States could become significantly less competitive as
large developing countries like China and India harness their growing scientific and engineering expertise
to their enormous, low-wage labor forces.1 What is the appropriate response? One, from the conservative
Another,
seemingly more progressive, approach would be to spend more money to
promote cutting-edge science and technology . Much of the establishment,
pundit Pat Buchanan, the TV broadcaster Lou Dobbs, and their like, calls for protectionism.
has embraced what the economists Sylvia Ostry and Richard

Nelson call techno-nationalism and techno-fetishism, which both claim that US
prosperity requires continued domination of these fields . Weve heard such
fears and prescriptions before . In the 1980s, many people attributed the problems of the US
Democratic and Republican alike,
economy to the proliferation of lawyers and managers and to a shortage of engineers and scientists;
Germany and Japan were praised as countries with a better occupational ratio. Yet in the 1990s, their
economies slackened while the United States prosperedand not because it heeded the warnings. Indeed,
math and science education in US high schools didnt improve much. Enrollment in law schools remained
high, and managers accounted for a growing proportion of the workforce. The US share of scientific
articles, science and engineering PhDs, and patents continued to decline, the service sector to expand,
and manufacturing employment to stagnate. Of course, the United States cant count on the same happy
The integration of China and India

into the global economy is a seminal and unprecedented phenomenon . Could
the outcome be different this time? Is the United States on the verge of being pummeled
by a technological hurricane? In my view, the answer is no. Worries about the
offshoring of R&D and the progress of science in China and India arise from a
failure to understand technological innovation and its relation to the global
economy. Innovation does play a major role in nurturing prosperity, but we
must be careful to formulate policies that sustain rather than undermine it for
instance, by favoring one form of innovation over another .
ending to every episode of the losing our lead serial.
Heg Bad
Hegemony causes terrorism
Innocent and Carpenter 9 [Malou, foreign policy analyst at Cato who
focuses on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Ted, vice president for defense and
foreign policy studies at Cato, Escaping the Graveyard of Empires: A
Strategy to Exit Afghanistan,http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/escapinggraveyard-empires-strategy-exit-afghanistan.pdf]
Contrary to the claims that we should use the U.S. military to stabilize the region
and reduce the threat of terrorism , a 2008 study by the RAND Corporation found that U.S.
policies emphasizing the use of force tend to create new terrorists. In How Terrorist Groups
End: Lessons for Countering al Qaida, Seth Jones and Martin Libicki argue that the U.S. military should
U.S. military]
presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment. 22 Some policymakers claim the war
generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since [a
is worth waging because terrorists flourish in failed states. But that argument cannot account for terrorists
who thrive in centralized states that have the sovereignty to reject external interference. 23 That is one
reason why militants find sanctuary in neighboring, nucleararmed Pakistan. In this respect, and perhaps
most important, is the belief that our presence in the region helps Pakistan, when in fact the seemingly
U.S. presence in Afghanistan risks creating worse problems for

Pakistan. Amassing troops in Afghanistan feeds the perception of a foreign
occupation, spawning more terrorist recruits for Pakistani militias and thus placing undue
open-ended
stress on an already weakened nation. Christian Science Monitor correspondent Anand Gopal finds, In late
2007, as many as 27 groups merged to form an umbrella Taliban movement, the Tehreek-e-Taliban, under
guerrilla leader Baitullah Mehsud. He continues, Three of the most powerful, once-feuding commanders
Mr. Mehsud and Maulavi Nazeer of South Waziristan and Hafiz Gul Behadur of North Waziristanformed
an alliance in response to US airstrikes. 24 Americas presence has already caused major problems for the
government in Islamabad, which is deeply unpopular for many reasons, including its alignment with U.S.
policies. 25 There are also indications that it has raised tensions in Uzbekistan and other Central Asian
countries.
For Islamic militants throughout the region, the U.S. occupation of

Afghanistan like the occupation of Iraqis an increasingly potent recruiting
tool. Only by prolonging our military presence do we allow the Taliban,
Gulbuddin Hekmatyars Hizb-e Islami, the Haqqani network, and even Pakistani Taliban militants to
reframe the conflict and their position within it as a legitimate defense
against a foreign occupation. In this respect, policymakers should recognize that not everyone
willing to resist U.S. intervention is necessarily an enemy of the United States. Most importantly, we must
understand that not every Islamic fundamentalist is a radical Islamist, let alone one who is hell-bent on
launching a terrorist attack against the American homeland.
Heg causes terror and prolif

Layne 09 Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The
Independent Institute and Mary Julia and George R. Jordan Professorship of
International Affairs at the George Bush School of Government and Public
Service at Texas A&M University
(Chris, Americas Middle East grand strategy after Iraq: the moment for offshore balancing has arrived, Review of
International Studies (2009
In addition to soft balancing,
asymmetric strategies are another type of nontraditional

balancing that is being employed to contest US primacy . When employed by states,
asymmetric strategies mean the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities .
Regional powers especially those on the US hit list like Iran and Saddam Husseins Iraq cannot slug
it out toe-to-toe against the US dominant high-tech conventional forces. Because they are threatened by the US,
however, these states seek other methods of offsetting American power, and dissuading
Washington from using its military muscle against them. WMD especially the possession of nuclear weapons is
one way these states can level the strategic playing field and deter the US
from attacking them. Terrorism is another asymmetric strategy one employed by
non-state actors like Al-Qaeda and similar jihadist groups to resist US dominance. The use of
asymmetric strategies to oppose American power especially in the Middle
East where US policy has an imperial dimension illustrates the dictum that
empires inevitably provoke resistance.
US heg not key to global peace

Fettweis 14 (Christopher J., associate professor of political science at
Tulane University, Delusions of Danger: Geopolitical Fear and Indispensability
in U.S. Foreign Policy, in A Dangerous World?: Threat Perception and U.S.
National Security, 2014)
According to what might be considered the indispensability fallacy, many

Americans believe that U.S. actions are primarily responsible for any stability
that currently exists. All that stands between civility and genocide, order and mayhem, explain Lawrence
Kaplan and William Kristol, is American power.37 That belief is an offshoot, witting or not, of what is known as
hegemonic stability theory, which proposes that international peace is possible only when one country is strong enough
to make and enforce a set of rules.38 Were U.S. leaders to abdicate their responsibilities, that reasoning goes, unchecked
conflicts would at the very least bring humanitarian disaster and would quite quickly threaten core U.S. interests.39
Brzezinski is typical in his belief that outright chaos and a string of specific horrors could be expected to follow a loss of
hegemony, from renewed attempts to build regional empires (by China, Turkey, Russia, and Brazil) to the collapse of the
U.S. relationship with Mexico as emboldened nationalists south of the border reassert 150-year-old territorial claims.
Overall, without U.S. dominance, todays relatively peaceful world would turn violent and bloodthirsty.40 The liberal
proponents of
hegemonic stability theory base their view on faith alone.41 There is precious
little evidence to suggest that the United States is responsible for the pacific
trends that have swept across the system. In fact, the world remained equally
peaceful, relatively speaking, while the United States cut its forces
throughout the 1990s, as well as while it doubled its military spending in the
first decade of the new century. 42 Complex statistical methods should not be needed to demonstrate
that levels of U.S. military spending have been essentially unrelated to global
stability. Hegemonic stability theorys flaws go way beyond the absence of
simple correlations to support them, however. The theorys supporters have never been able to
world order that is so beneficial to all would come tumbling down. Like many believers,
explain adequately how precisely 5 percent of the worlds population could force peace on the other 95 percent, unless, of
Most states are quite free to go to

war without U.S. involvement but choose not to. The United States can be
counted on, especially after Iraq, to steer well clear of most civil wars and
ethnic conflicts. It took years, hundreds of thousands of casualties, and the use of chemical weapons to spur
course, the rest of the world was simply not intent on fighting.
even limited interest in the events in Syria, for example; surely internal violence in, say, most of Africa would be unlikely
to attract serious attention of the worlds policeman, much less intervention. The continent is, nevertheless, more
peaceful today than at any other time in its history, something for which U.S. hegemony cannot take credit.43 Stability
exists today in many such places to which U.S. hegemony simply does not extend. Overall, proponents of the stabilizing
power of U.S. hegemony should keep in mind one of the most basic observations from cognitive psychology: rarely are our
actions as important to others calculations as we perceive them to be.44 The so-called egocentric bias, which is
essentially ubiquitous in human interaction, suggests that although it may be natural for U.S. policymakers to interpret
their role as crucial in the maintenance of world peace, they are almost certainly overestimating their own importance.
Washington is probably not as central to the myriad decisions in foreign

capitals that help maintain international stability as it thinks it is. The indispensability
fallacy owes its existence to a couple of factors. First, although all people like to bask in the reflected glory of their
countrys (or cultures) unique, nonpareil stature, Americans have long been exceptional in their exceptionalism.45 The
short history of the United States, which can easily be read as an almost uninterrupted and certainly unlikely story of
success, has led to a (perhaps natural) belief that it is morally, culturally, and politically superior to other, lesser countries.
It is no coincidence that the exceptional state would be called on by fate to maintain peace and justice in the world.
Americans have always combined that feeling of divine providence with a sense of mission to spread their ideals around
the world and battle evil wherever it lurks. It is that sense of destiny, of being the object of historys call, that most
obviously separates the United States from other countries. Only an American president would claim that by entering
World War I, America had the infinite privilege of fulfilling her destiny and saving the world.46 Although many states are
motivated by humanitarian causes, no other seems to consider promoting its values to be a national duty in quite the
same way that Americans do. I believe that God wants everybody to be free, said George W. Bush in 2004. Thats what
I believe. And thats one part of my foreign policy.47 When Madeleine Albright called the United States the indispensable
nation, she was reflecting a traditional, deeply held belief of the American people.48 Exceptional nations, like exceptional
people, have an obligation to assist the merely average. Many of the factors that contribute to geopolitical fear
Manichaeism, religiosity, various vested interests, and neoconservatismalso help explain American exceptionalism and
the indispensability fallacy. And unipolarity makes hegemonic delusions possible. With the great power of the United
States comes a sense of great responsibility: to serve and protect humanity, to drive history in positive directions. More
than any other single factor, the people of the United States tend to believe that they are indispensable because they are
powerful, and power tends to blind states to their limitations. Wealth shapes our international behavior and our image,
observed Derek Leebaert. It brings with it the freedom to make wide-ranging choices well beyond common sense.49
It
is quite likely that the world does not need the United States to enforce
peace. In fact, if virtually any of the overlapping and mutually reinforcing explanations for the current stability are
correct, the trends in international security may well prove difficult to reverse. None of the contributing
factors that are commonly suggested (economic development, complex
interdependence, nuclear weapons, international institutions, democracy,
shifting global norms on war) seem poised to disappear any time soon.50 The
world will probably continue its peaceful ways for the near future, at the very
least, no matter what the United States chooses to do or not do. As Robert Jervis
concluded while pondering the likely effects of U.S. restraint on decisions made in foreign capitals, It is very
unlikely that pulling off the American security blanket would lead to thoughts
of war.51 The United States will remain fundamentally safe no matter what it doesin other words, despite
widespread beliefs in its inherent indispensability to the contrary.
US power is declining broken economic system and

poor political culture
Augstein 11 (Jakob Augstein. Once Upon a Time in the West. August
8th, 2011. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/opinion-once-upon-atime-in-the-west-a-778396.html)
The word "West" used to have a meaning. It described common goals and values, the dignity of democracy
and justice over tyranny and despotism. Now it seems to be a thing of the past. There is no longer a West,
and those who would like to use the word -- along with Europe and the United States in the same sentence
By any definition, America is no longer a Western

nation. The US is a country where the system of government has fallen firmly
into the hands of the elite. An unruly and aggressive militarism set in motion two costly wars in
the past 10 years. Society is not only divided socially and politically -- in its ideological
blindness the nation is moving even farther away from the core of democracy . It is losing its ability
-- should just hold their breath.
to compromise. America has changed. It has drifted away from the West.
The country's social

disintegration is breathtaking. Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz recently described the phenomenon. The
richest 1 percent of Americans claim one-quarter of the country's total income for themselves -- 25 years
ago that figure was 12 percent. It also possesses 40 percent of total wealth, up from 33 percent 25 years
ago. Stiglitz claims that in many countries in the so-called Third World, the income gap between the poor
and rich has been reduced. In the United States, it has grown. Economist Paul Krugman, also a Nobel
America's path is leading it down the road to "bananarepublic status." The social cynicism and societal indifference once associated
primarily with the Third World has now become an American hallmark . This
accelerates social decay because the greater the disparity grows, the less likely
the rich will be willing to contribute to the common good. When a company like
laureate, has written that
Apple, which with 76 billion in the bank has greater reserves at its disposal than the government in
Washington, a European can only shake his head over the Republican resistance to tax increases. We see it
as self-destructive. The same applies to America's broken political culture. The name
"United States" seems increasingly less appropriate. Something has become routine in American political
culture that has been absent in Germany since Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik policies of rapprochement with
reason has been

replaced by delusion. The notion of tax cuts has taken on a cult-like status, and the limited role of
the state a leading ideology. In this new American civil war, respect for the country's
highest office was sacrificed long ago . The fact that Barack Obama is the country's first
East Germany and the Soviet Bloc (in the 1960s and '70s): hate. At the same time,
African-American president may have played a role there, too.
Nuke War not likely

Pennsylvania 2006
For nearly half a century, the worlds most powerful nuclear-armed

countries have been locked in a military stalemate known as mutual
assured destruction (MAD). By the early 1960s, the United States and the Soviet
Union possessed such large, welldispersed nuclear arsenals that neither state
could entirely destroy the others nuclear forces in a rst strike. Whether the
scenario was a preemptive strike during a crisis, or a bolt-from-the-blue surprise
attack, the victim would always be able to retaliate and destroy the aggressor.
Nuclear war was therefore tantamount to mutual suicide. Many scholars believe
that the nuclear stalemate helped prevent conict between the superpowers
during the Cold War, and that it remains a powerful force for great power peace
today.1 The age of MAD, however, is waning. Today the United States

plausible great power adversaries. For the frst time in decades, it
could conceivably disarm the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia
or China with a nuclear first strike . A preemptive strike on an alerted
Russian arsenal would still likely fail, but a surprise attack at peacetime
alert levels would have a reasonable chance of success.
Furthermore, the Chinese nuclear force is so vulnerable that it
could be destroyed even if it were alerted during a crisis.
Nuke War Not Likely US Russia

impossible
Pennsylvania 2006

Russia to launch on warning (i.e., quickly launch a retaliatory strike before
its forces are destroyed). It is unlikely that Russia could do this. Russian
commanders would need 713 minutes to carry out the technical
steps involved in identifying a U.S. attack and launching their
retaliatory forces. They would have to (1) confirm the sensor indications that
an attack was under way; (2) convey the news to political leaders; (3)
communicate launch authorization and launch codes to the nuclear forces; (4)
execute launch sequences; and (5) allow the missiles to fly a safe distance from
the silos.38 This timeline does not include the time required by Russian leaders to
absorb the news that a nuclear attack is The End of MAD? 21 under way and
decide to authorize retaliation. Given that both Russian and U.S. early
warning systems have had false alarms in the past, even a

minimally prudent leader would need to think hard and ask tough
questions before authorizing a catastrophic nuclear response .39
Because the technical steps require 713 minutes, it is hard to
imagine that Russia could detect an attack, decide to retaliate, and
launch missiles in less than 1015 minutes. The Russian early
warning system would probably not give Russias leaders the time
they need to retaliate; in fact it is questionable whether it would
give them any warning at all . Stealthy B-2 bombers could likely
penetrate Russian air defenses without detection . Furthermore, lowflying B-52 bombers could fire stealthy nuclear-armed cruise missiles
from outside Russian airspace; these missilessmall, radarabsorbing, and flying at very low altitude would likely provide no
warning before detonation. Finally, Russias vulnerability is
compounded by the poor state of its early warning system. Russian
satellites cannot reliably detect the launch of SLBM s; Russia relies on
groundbased radar to detect those warheads. 40 But there is a large eastfacing hole in Russias radar network; Russian leaders might have
no warning of an SLBM attack from the Pacific.41 Even if Russia
plugged the east-facing hole in its radar network, its leaders would
still have less than 10 minutes warning of a U.S. submarine attack

from the Atlantic, and perhaps no time if the U.S. attack began with
hundreds of stealthy cruise missiles and stealth bombers.
Nuke War Not Likely Rising Costs

Major war is obsolete nuclear weapons and rising cost check aggression
Michael Mandelbaum, American foreign policy professor at the Nitze School

of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, 1999 Is Major
War Obsolete?, http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/cfr10/
My argument says, tacitly, that while this point of view, which was widely
believed 100 years ago, was not true then, there are reasons to think that it
is true now. What is that argument? It is that major war is obsolete. By
major war, I mean war waged by the most powerful members of the
international system, using all of their resources over a protracted period of
time with revolutionary geopolitical consequences. There have been four
such wars in the modern period: the wars of the French Revolution, World War
I, World War II, and the Cold War. Few though they have been,their
consequences have been monumental. They are, by far, the most influential
events in modern history. Modern history which can, in fact, be seen as a
series of aftershocks to these four earthquakes. So if I am right, then what
has been the motor of political history for the last two centuries that has
been turned off? This war, I argue, this kind of war, is obsolete; less than
impossible, but more than unlikely. What do I mean by obsolete? If I may
quote from the article on which this presentation is based, a copy of which
you received when coming in, Major war is obsolete in a way that styles of
dress are obsolete. It is something that is out of fashion and, while it
could be revived, there is no present demand for it. Major war is
obsolete in the way that slavery, dueling, or foot-binding are obsolete. It is a
social practice that was once considered normal, useful, even desirable, but
that now seems odious. It is obsolete in the way that the central planning of
economic activity is obsolete. It is a practice once regarded as a plausible,
indeed a superior, way of achieving a socially desirable goal, but that
changing conditions have made ineffective at best, counterproductive at
worst. Why is this so? Most simply, the costs have risen and the
benefits of major war have shriveled. The costs of fighting such a
war are extremely high because of the advent in the middle of this
century of nuclear weapons, but they would have been high even
had mankind never split the atom. As for the benefits, these
now seem, at least from the point of view of the major powers, modest
to non-existent. The traditional motives for warfare are in retreat, if not
extinct. War is no longer regarded by anyone, probably not even Saddam
Hussein after his unhappy experience, as a paying proposition. And as for the
ideas on behalf of which major wars have been waged in the past, these are
in steep decline. Here the collapse of communism was an important
milestone, for that ideology was inherently bellicose. This is not to say that
the world has reached the end of ideology; quite the contrary. But the
ideology that is now in the ascendant, our own, liberalism, tends to be pacific.
Moreover, I would argue that three post-Cold War developments have
made major war even less likely than it was after 1945. One of these
is the rise of democracy, for democracies, I believe, tend to be
peaceful. Now carried to its most extreme conclusion, this eventuates in an
argument made by some prominent political scientists that democracies
never go to war with one another. I wouldnt go that far. I dont believe that
this is a law of history, like a law of nature, because I believe there are no
such laws of history. But I do believe there is something in it. I believe there is
a peaceful tendency inherent in democracy. Now its true that one important
cause of war has not changed with the end of the Cold War. That is the
structure of the international system, which is anarchic. And realists, to whom
Fareed has referred and of whom John Mearsheimer and our guest Ken Waltz
are perhaps the two most leading exponents in this country and the world at
the moment, argue that that structure determines international activity, for it
leads sovereign states to have to prepare to defend themselves, and those
preparations sooner or later issue in war. I argue, however, that a post-Cold
War innovation counteracts the effects of anarchy. This is what I have called
in my 1996 book, The Dawn of Peace in Europe, common security. By
common security I mean a regime of negotiated arms limits that reduce
the insecurity that anarchy inevitably produces by transparencyevery state can know what weapons every other state has and what it
is doing with them-and through the principle of defense dominance, the
reconfiguration through negotiations of military forces to make them more
suitable for defense and less for attack. Some caveats are, indeed, in
order where common security is concerned. Its not universal. It exists only in
Europe. And there it is certainly not irreversible. And I should add that what I
have called common security is not a cause, but a consequence, of the major
forces that have made war less likely. States enter into common security
arrangements when they have already, for other reasons, decided
that they do not wish to go to war. Well, the third feature of the post-Cold
War international system that seems to me to lend itself to warlessness is the
novel distinction between the periphery and the core, between the powerful
states and the less powerful ones. This was previously a cause of conflict and
now is far less important. To quote from the article again, While for much of
recorded history local conflicts were absorbed into great-power conflicts, in
the wake of the Cold War, with the industrial democracies debellicised and
Russia and China preoccupied with internal affairs, there is no great-power
conflict into which the many local conflicts that have erupted can be
absorbed.
Nuke War Not Likely Deterrence

Nuclear deterrence prevents great power
G John Ikenberry Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International

Affairs at Princeton University The Rise of China and the Future of the West
Foreign Affairs January/February 2008
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87102/g-john-ikenberry/therise-of-china-and-the-future-of-the-west.html
The most important benefit of these features today is that they give
the Western order a remarkable capacity to accommodate rising
powers. New entrants into the system have ways of gaining status and
authority and opportunities to play a role in governing the order. The fact
that the United States, China, and other great powers have nuclear
weapons also limits the ability of a rising power to overturn the
existing order. In the age of nuclear deterrence, great-power war is,
thankfully, no longer a mechanism of historical change. War-driven
change has been abolished as a historical process.
Nuke War Not Likely International System

The international system prevents wareconomic, military, and
ideological trends have changed.
Christopher
Fettweiss, April prof security studies naval war college,
Comparative Strategy 22.2 April 2003 p 109-129
Mackinder can be forgiven for failing to anticipate the titanic changes in the
fundamental nature of the international system much more readily than can his
successors. Indeed, Mackinder and his contemporaries a century ago would hardly
recognize the rules by which the world is run todaymost significantly, unlike their
era, ours is one in which the danger of major war has been removed, where
World War III is, in Michael Mandelbaums words, somewhere between impossible
and unlikely.25 Geopolitical and geo-strategic analysis has not yet come to terms
with what may be the central, most significant trend of international politics: great
power war, major war of the kind that pit the strongest states against each
other, is now obsolete.26 John Mueller has been the most visible, but by no means
the only, analyst arguing that the chances of a World War III emerging in the next
century are next to nil.27 Mueller and his contemporaries cite three major arguments
supporting this revolutionary, and clearly controversial, claim.
First, and most obviously, modern military technology has made major war too
expensive to contemplate. As John Keegan has argued, it is hard to see how
nuclear war could be considered an extension of politics by other meansat the
very least, nuclear weapons remove the possibility of victory from the calculations of
the would-be aggressor.28 Their value as leverage in diplomacy has not been
dramatic, at least in the last few decades, because nuclear threats are not credible in
the kind of disagreements that arise between modern great powers. It is unlikely
that a game of nuclear chicken would lead to the outbreak of a major
war. Others have argued that, while nuclear weapons surely make war an irrational
exercise, the destructive power of modern conventional weapons make todays great
powers shy away from direct conflict.29 The world wars dramatically reinforced
Angells warnings, and today no one is eager to repeat those experiences, especially
now that the casualty levels among both soldiers and civilians would be even higher.
Second, the shift from the industrial to the information age that seems to
be gradually occurring in many advanced societies has been accompanied
by a new definition of power, and a new system of incentives which all but
remove the possibility that major war could ever be a cost-efficient
exercise. The rapid economic evolution that is sweeping much of the world,
encapsulated in the globalization metaphor so fashionable in the media and
business communities, has been accompanied by an evolution in the way national
wealth is accumulated.30 For millennia, territory was the main object of war because
it was directly related to national prestige and power. As early as 1986 Richard
Rosecrance recognized that two worlds of international relations were emerging,
divided over the question of the utility of territorial conquest.31 The intervening
years have served only to strengthen the argument that the major industrial powers,
quite unlike their less-developed neighbors, seem to have reached the revolutionary
conclusion that territory is not directly related to their national wealth and prestige.
For these states, wealth and power are more likely to derive from an increase in
economic, rather than military, reach. National wealth and prestige, and therefore
power, are no longer directly related to territorial control.32 The economic
incentives for war are therefore not as clear as they once may have been.
Increasingly, it seems that the most powerful states pursue prosperity rather than
power. In Edward Luttwaks terminology, geopolitics is slowly being replaced by
geoeconomics, where the methods of commerce are displacing military methods
with disposable capital in lieu of firepower, civilian innovation in lieu of military
technical advancement, and market penetration in lieu of garrisons and bases.33
Just as advances in weaponry have increased the
cost of fighting, a socioeconomic evolution has reduced the rewards that a major war
could possibly bring. Angells major error was one that has been repeated over and
over again in the social sciences ever sincehe overestimated the rationality of
humanity. Angell recognized earlier than most that the industrialization of military
technology and economic interdependence assured that the costs of a European war
would certainly outweigh any potential benefits, but he was not able to convince his
contemporaries who were not ready to give up the institution of war. The idea of war
was still appealingthe normativecost/benefit analysis still tilted in the favor of
fighting, and that proved to be the more important factor. Today, there is reason to
believe that this normative calculation may have changed. After the war, Angell
noted that the only things that could have prevented the war were surrendering of
certain dominations, a recasting of patriotic ideals, a revolution of ideas.34 The third
and final argument of Angells successors is that today such a revolution of ideas has
occurred, that a normative evolution has caused a shift in the rules that govern state
interaction. The revolutionary potential of ideas should not be underestimated.
Beliefs, ideologies, and ideas are often, as Dahl notes, a major independent
variable, which we ignore at our peril.35 Ideas, added John Mueller, are very often
forces themselves, not flotsam on the tide of broader social or economic patterns . . .
it does not seem wise in this area to ignore phenomena that cannot be easily
measured, treated with crisp precision, or probed with deductive panache.36 The
heart of this argument is the moral progress that has brought a change in
attitudes about international war among the great powers of the world,37
creating for the first time, an almost universal sense that the deliberate
launching of a war can no longer be justified.38 At times leaders of the past
were compelled by the masses to defend the national honor, but today popular
pressures push for peaceful resolutions to disputes between industrialized states.
This normative shift has rendered war between great powers subrationally
unthinkable, removed from the set of options for policy makers, just as dueling is
no longer a part of the set of options for the same classes for which it was once
central to the concept of masculinity and honor. As Mueller explained, Dueling, a form
of violence famed and fabled for centuries, is avoided not merely because it has
ceased to seem necessary, but because it has sunk from thought as a viable,
conscious possibility. You cant fight a duel if the idea of doing so never occurs to you
or your opponent.39 By extension, states cannot fight wars if doing so does not occur
to them or to their opponent. As Angell discovered, the fact that major war was futile
was not enough to bring about its endpeople had to believe that it was futile.
Angells successors suggest that such a belief now exists in the industrial (and
postindustrial) states of the world, and this autonomous power of ideas, to borrow
Francis Fukuyamas term, has brought about the end of major, great power war.40
Nuke War Not Likely North Korea

North Korea wouldnt Use a nuclear weapon, too many
complications
Quester, Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland,
2005
(George Quester, Professor of government and politics at the University of
Maryland, Spring 2005, Naval War College Review, If the Nuclear Taboo gets
broken, https://portal.nwc.navy.mil/press/Naval%20War%20College
%20Review/2005/Article%20by%20Quester%20Spring%202005.pdf)
history of successful nuclear

deterrence suggests that nations have indeed been in awe of
nuclear weapons, have been deterred by the prospect of their
use, even while they were intent on deterring their adversaries
as well. Would the nations that have been so successfully
deterred (sinceNagasaki) fromusing nuclear weapons not then be
stopped in their tracks once deterrence had failed, once the
anticipated horror of the nuclear destruction of even a single
city had been realized?2 Another of the more probable scenarios
has been a use of such weapons by North Korea , a state perhaps
Yet on the more positive note, the
not quite as undeterrable as the suicidal pilots of 11 September 2001 but

given to rational calculations that are often very difficult to sort out. This use
could come in the form of a North Korean nuclear attack against Japan,
South Korea, or even the United States. 3 The nearest targets for a
North Korean nuclearweaponwould be South Korea and Japan,

but therewould be many complications should Pyongyang use
such weapons against either.
Nuke War Not Likely Pakistan

CTC Sentinel, The Combating Terrorism Center is an independent educational
West Point, 2009
(CTC Sentinel, The Combating Terrorism Center is an independent educational
West Point, July 2009 http://www.ctc.usma.edu/sentinel/CTCSentinelVol2Iss7.pdf)
Pakistan has established a robust set of measures to assure the

security of its nuclear weapons. These have been based on
copying U.S. practices, procedures and technologies, and
comprise: a) physical security; b) personnel reliability programs; c)
technical and procedural safeguards; and d) deception and
secrecy. These measures provide the Pakistan Armys Strategic Plans
Division (SPD)which oversees nuclear weapons operations a high degree of
confidence in the safety and security of the countrys nuclear
weapons.2 In terms of physical security, Pakistan operates a
layered concept of concentric tiers of armed forces personnel to
guard nuclear weapons facilities, the use of physical barriers
and intrusion detectors to secure nuclear weapons facilities, the
physical separation of warhead cores from their detonation
components, and the storage of the components in protected
underground sites. With respect to personnel reliability, the Pakistan Army
conducts a tight selection process drawing almost exclusively
on officers from Punjab Province who are considered to have fewer links with
religious extremism or with the Pashtun areas of Pakistan from which groups such as the
Pakistani Taliban mainly garner their support. Pakistan operates an analog to the U.S.
Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) that screens individuals for Islamist sympathies,
personality problems, drug use, inappropriate external affiliations, and sexual deviancy. 3
The army uses staff rotation and also operates a two-person

rule under which no action, decision, or activity involving a
nuclear weapon can be undertaken by fewer than two persons .4
The purpose of this policy is to reduce the risk of collusion with
terrorists and to prevent nuclear weapons technology getting
transferred to the black market. In total, between 8,000 and 10,000
individuals from the SPDs security division and from Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence
Directorate (ISI), Military Intelligence and Intelligence Bureau agencies are involved in the
security clearance and monitoring of those with nuclear weapons duties. 5 Despite formal
command authority structures that cede a role to Pakistans civilian leadership, in practice
It
imposes its executive authority over the weapons through the
use of an authenticating code system down through the
command chains that is intended to ensure that only authorized
the Pakistan Army has complete control over the countrys nuclear weapons.
nuclear weapons activities and operations occur. It
operates a tightly
controlled identification system to assure the identity of those involved in the nuclear
chain of command, and it also uses a rudimentary Permissive Action Link (PAL) type
This system uses technology

similar to the banking industrys chip and pin to ensure that
even if weapons fall into terrorist hands they cannot be
detonated.6 Finally, Pakistan makes extensive use of secrecy and
deception. Significant elements of Pakistans nuclear weapons
infrastructure are kept a closely guarded secret. This includes
the precise location of some of the storage facilities for nuclear
core and detonation components, the location of preconfigured
nuclear weapons crisis deployment sites, aspects of the nuclear
command and control arrangements,7 and many aspects of the
system to electronically lock its nuclear weapons.
arrangements for nuclear safety and security (such as the numbers of those removed
under personnel reliability programs, the reasons for their removal, and how often
authenticating and enabling (PAL-type) codes are changed). In addition, Pakistan uses
deceptionsuch as dummy missilesto complicate the calculus of adversaries and is
Taken
together, these measures provide confidence that the Pakistan
Army can fully protect its nuclear weapons against the internal
terrorist threat, against its main adversary India, and against
the suggestion that its nuclear weapons could be either spirited
out of the country by a third party (posited to be the United States) or
destroyed in the event of a deteriorating situation or a state
collapse in Pakistan.
likely to have extended this practice to its nuclear weapons infrastructure.
No Nuclear Terror
Heaberlin Head of the Nuclear Safety and Technology Applications Product
Line at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, managed by Battelle 2004,
(Scott W. Heaberlin Head of the Nuclear Safety and Technology Applications
Product Line at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, managed by
Battelle, A Case for Nuclear-Generated Electricity,, Battelle Press, 2004)
But, of course, airline crashes are not the only way for a
terrorist to attack a nuclear power plant. Truck bombs and
armed attacks are certainly something to consider . It turns out
that nuclear power plants are one of the few facilities in our
national infrastructure that does consider these things. Every
U.S. nuclear power plant has a trained armed security force who
is authorized to use deadly force to protect the plant. Not wanting to
give any terrorists alternative ideas, but if I had a choice of going after a
facility either totally unprotected or protected with only a night watchman
versus a facility with a team of military capable troopers armed with
automatic weapons, it would not be a tough choice. That is not to say these
wackos are afraid to die. Clearly, they have demonstrated that they are not.
However, one would assume that they do want to have a
reasonable chance of successfully completing their vile mission.

In that regard, a nuclear power plant would be a tough nut to
crack.
Ambiguous internal links bad

Ejecting low probability internal link chains is key to
rational policymaking - accumulated experience proves
that appeals to the possibility of catastrophic causal
chains should not influence decision-making
Hansson, Department of Philosophy and the History of
Technology, 05
Sven Ove Hansson, Professor at Department of Philosophy and the History of
Technology, Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, Sweden ["The
Epistemology of Technological Risk," Techne: research in philosophy and
Technology, Volume 9, Number 2, Winter 2005 http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/
ejournals/SPT/v9n2/hansson. html]
However, it would not be feasible to take such possibilities into account in all
decisions that we make. In a sense, any decision may have
catastrophic unforeseen consequences. If far-reaching indirect

effects are taken into account, then given the unpredictable
nature of actual causation almost any decision may lead to a disaster.
In order to be able to decide and act, we therefore have to disregard
many of the more remote possibilities. Cases can also easily be found
in which it was an advantage that far-fetched dangers were not taken
seriously. One case in point is the false alarm on so-called polywater, an
alleged polymeric form of water. In 1969, the prestigious scientific journal
Nature printed a letter that warned against producing polywater. The
substance might "grow at the expense of normal water under any conditions
found in the environment," thus replacing all natural water on earth and
destroying all life on this planet. (Donahoe 1969 ) Soon afterwards, it was
shown that polywater is a non-existent entity. If the warning had been
heeded, then no attempts would had been made to replicate the polywater
experiments, and we might still not have known that polywater does not
exist. In cases like this, appeals to the possibility of unknown dangers may
stop investigations and thus prevent scientific and technological
progress.We therefore need criteria to determine when the
possibility of unknown dangers should be taken seriously and

when it can be neglected. This problem cannot be solved with
probability calculus or other exact mathematical methods. The
best that we can hope for is a set of informal criteria that can
be used to support intuitive judgement. The following list of four
criteria has been proposed for this purpose. (Hansson 1996) Asymmetry of
uncertainty: Possibly, a decision to build a second bridge between Sweden
and Denmark will lead through some unforeseeable causal chain to a nuclear
war. Possibly, it is the other way around so that a decision not to build such a
bridge will lead to a nuclear war. We have no reason why one or the other of
these two causal chains should be more probable, or otherwise more worthy
of our attention, than the other. On the other hand, the introduction of a new
species of earthworm is connected with much more uncertainty than the
option not to introduce the new species. Such asymmetry is a necessary but
insufficient condition for taking the issue of unknown dangers into serious
consideration. 2. Novelty: Unknown dangers come mainly from new and
untested phenomena. The emission of a new substance into the stratosphere
constitutes a qualitative novelty, whereas the construction of a new bridge
does not. An interesting example of the novelty factor can be found in
particle physics. Before new and more powerful particle accelerators have
been built, physicists have sometimes feared that the new levels of energy
might generate a new phase of matter that accretes every atom of the
earth. The decision to regard these and similar fears as groundless has been
based on observations showing that the earth is already under constant
bombardment from outer space of particles with the same or higher
energies. (Ruthen 1993) 3. Spatial and temporal limitations: If the effects of
a proposed measure are known to be limited in space or time, then these
limitations reduce the urgency of the possible unknown effects associated
with the measure. The absence of such limitations contributes to the severity
of many ecological problems, such as global emissions and the spread of
chemically stable pesticides. 4. Interference with complex systems in
balance: Complex systems such as ecosystems and the atmospheric system
are known to have reached some type of balance, which may be impossible
to restore after a major disturbance. Due to this irreversibility, uncontrolled
interference with such systems is connected with a high degree of
uncertainty. (Arguably, the same can be said of uncontrolled interference
with economic systems; this is an argument for piecemeal rather than
drastic economic reforms.) It might be argued that we do not know that
these systems can resist even minor perturbations. If causation is
chaotic, then for all that we know, a minor modification of the

liturgy of the Church of England may trigger a major ecological
disaster in Africa. If we assume that all cause-effect
relationships are chaotic, then the very idea of planning and
taking precautions seems to lose its meaning. However, such a
world-view would leave us entirely without guidance, even in
situations when we consider ourselves well-informed .
Fortunately, experience does not bear out this pessimistic
worldview. Accumulated experience and theoretical reflection
strongly indicate that certain types of influences on ecological
systems can be withstood, whereas others cannot. The same
applies to technological, economic, social, and political systems,
although our knowledge about their resilience towards various
disturbances has not been sufficiently systematized.
Rights Malthus DA
No Uniqueness
CO2 emissions prevent the next Ice Age which would
inevitably lead to extinction
Didymus 12(John Thomas Didymus, journalist from the Digital Journal,
Human carbon dioxide emissions could prevent next Ice Age, Digital
Journal, January 2012.)Accessed online at:
http://digitaljournal.com/print/article/317605#ixzz1w2W7dBCR
high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could
prevent the next Ice Age. The scientists say that even if carbon emissions stopped today,
A team of scientists say that
enough has accumulated in the atmosphere to prevent the next Ice Age glaciation. The
Telegraph reports that according to the team of scientist, in a study published in Nature Geoscience,
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that has been source of concern among
environmental scientists could prevent glaciation. The scientists said that at the next Ice Age,
high levels of
the climate will cool down, but not as severely it could have with normal carbon dioxide levels.
According to scientists, the Earth will probably not experience glaciation. The team included scientists
from University College London, the University of Florida and Norway's Bergen University. BBC reported
that paleoclimatologist Luke Skinner, from Cambridge University, said: "At current levels of CO2, even if
emissions stopped now we'd probably have a long interglacial duration determined by whatever longterm processes could kick in and bring [atmospheric] CO2 down." The current level of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere is 390 parts per million. The scientists say that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere
will need to drop down to 240 parts per million for glaciation to take place. Some groups, according
to BBC, are citing the study as evidence that
beneficial for humankind.
human carbon dioxide emission may be
The UK lobby group Global Warning Policy Foundation, refers to an
essay by Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, that said: " The
renewal of ice-age
conditions would render a large fraction of the world's major food-growing areas
inoperable, and so would inevitably lead to the extinction of most of the present
human population. We must look to a sustained greenhouse effect to maintain
the present advantageous world climate. This implies the ability to inject effective
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the opposite of what environmentalists are
erroneously advocating."
The warming pause is real -dont trust other research - it

manipulates data
Lott 15
(Maxim Lott [Writer for FoxNews.com and producer for John Stossel], 6/10/15,
"Climate scientists criticize government paper that erases pause in
warming," Fox News, www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/10/climatescientists-criticize-government-paper-that-erases-pause-in-warming/, MX)
Until last week, government data on climate change indicated that the Earth
has warmed over the last century, but that the warming slowed dramatically
and even stopped at points over the last 17 years. But a paper released May 28 by
researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has readjusted the data in a
way that makes the reduction in warming disappear, indicating a steady
increase in temperature instead. But the studys readjusted data conflict with
many other climate measurements, including data taken by satellites, and some
climate scientists arent buying the new claim. While Im sure this latest analysis
from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama
administration, I dont regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our
scientific understanding of what is going on , Judith Curry, a climate science professor at Georgia Tech,
wrote in a response to the study. And in an interview, Curry told FoxNews.com that that the adjusted data doesnt
match other independent measures of temperature. The new NOAA dataset
disagrees with a UK dataset, which is generally regarded as the gold standard
for global sea surface temperature datasets, she said. The new dataset also disagrees with ARGO buoys
and satellite analyses. The NOAA paper, produced by a team of researchers led by Tom Karl, director of the agencys National Climatic Data
Center, found most of its new warming trend by adjusting past measurements of sea temperatures. Global ocean temperatures are estimated
both by thousands of commercial ships, which record the temperature of the water entering their engines, and by thousands of buoys
floatation devices that sit in the water for years. The buoys tend to get cooler temperature readings than the ships, likely because ships
engines warm the water. Meanwhile, in recent years, buoys have become increasingly common. The result, Karl says, is that even if the
worlds oceans are warming, the unadjusted data may show it not to be warming because more and more buoys are being used instead of
ships. So Karls team adjusted the buoy data to make them line up with the ship data. They also double-checked their work by making sure
The paper
that the readjusted buoy readings matched ships recordings of nighttime air temperatures.
came out last week, and there
has not been time for skeptical scientists to independently check the adjustments, but some are questioning it because of how much the
disagrees with the readings of more than

3,000 ARGO buoys, which are specifically designed to float around the ocean and measure temperature. Some scientists
adjusted data vary from other independent measurements. First, it
view their data as the most reliable. The ARGO buoy data do not show much warming in surface temperature since they were introduced in
2003. But Karls team left them out of their analysis, saying that they have multiple issues, including lack of measurements near the Arctic. In
an email, Karl told FoxNews.com that the ARGO buoy readings may be added to his data if scientific methods can be found to line up these
two types of temperatures together (of course after correcting the systematic offsets) This is part of the cumulative and progressive
scientific process. Karls study also clashes with satellite measurements. Since 1979, NOAA satellites have estimated the temperature of
Earths atmosphere. They show almost no warming in recent years and closely match the surface data before Karls adjustments. The satellite
data is compiled by two separate sets of researchers, whose results match each other closely. One team that compiles the data includes
Climate Professors John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, both of whom question Karls adjusted data.
The study is one more example that you can get any answer you want when
the thermometer data errors are larger than the global warming signal you
are looking for, Spencer told FoxNews.com.
Scientists manipulate data to suit their trends

Tracinski 6/8
(Robert Tracinski [a senior writer at The Federalist. He studied philosophy at
the University of Chicago and for more than 20 years has written about
politics, markets, and foreign policy], 6/8/15, "Global Warming: The Theory
that Predicts Nothing and Explains Everything," The Federalist,
thefederalist.com/2015/06/08/global-warming-the-theory-that-predictsnothing-and-explains-everything/, MX)
A lot of us having been pointing out one of the big problems with the global
warming theory: a long plateau in global temperatures since about 1998.
Most significantly, this leveling off was not predicted by the theory, and
observed temperatures have been below the lowest end of the range
predicted by all of the computerized climate models. So what to do if your
theory doesnt fit the data? Why, change the data, of course! Hence a blockbuster new
report: a new analysis of temperature data since 1998 adjusts the numbers and
magically finds that there was no plateau after all. The warming just
continued. Starting in at least early 2013, a number of scientific and public commentators have suggested that the rate of recent
global warming has slowed or even stopped. The phenomena has been variably termed a pause, a slowdown, and a hiatus. But as a
team of federal scientists report today in the prestigious journal Science,
there may not have been any pause at all. The researchers from the National Oceanic and
adjusted their data on land and

ocean temperatures to address residual data biases that affect a variety of measurements, such
as those taken by ships over the oceans. And they found that newly corrected and updated
global surface temperature data from NOAAs NCEI do not support the notion
of a global warming hiatus. How convenient. Its so convenient that theyre signaling for everyone
Atmospheric Administrations National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
else to get on board. One question raised by the research is whether other global temperature datasets will see similar adjustments. One, kept
by the Hadley Center of the UK Met Office, appears to support the global warming hiatus narrativebut then, so did NOAAs dataset up until
Before this update, we were the slowest rate of warming, said Karl. And
with the update now, were the leaders of the pack. So as other people make
updates, they may end up adjusting upwards as well. This is going to be the new party line.
Hiatus? What hiatus? Who are you going to believe, our adjustments or your lying thermometers? The new adjustments
are suspiciously convenient, of course. Anyone who is touting a theory that
isnt being borne out by the evidence and suddenly tells you hes analyzed
the data and by golly, what do you know, suddenly it does support his theory
well, he should be met with more than a little skepticism. If we look, we find some big
now.
problems. The most important data adjustments by far are in ocean temperature measurements. But anyone who has been following this
debate will notice something about the time period for which the adjustments were made. This is a time in which the measurement of ocean
temperatures has vastly improved in coverage and accuracy as a whole new set of scientific buoys has come online. So why would this data
need such drastic correcting? As climatologist Judith Curry puts it: The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to
the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the
highest quality of measurementsARGO buoys and satellites dont show a warming trend. Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial
NOAA corrected the ocean temperature

measurements to be more consistent with a previous set of measurements.
But those older measurements were known to be a problem. Scientists relied
on measurements from merchant vessels, which had slowly switched from
measuring water in buckets dipped over the side to measuring it on its way
through intake ports for cooling the ships engines. But that meant that water
temperatures were more likely to be increased by contact with the ship,
producing an artificial warming. Hence the objection made by Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, and Chip
increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998.
Knappenberger: As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from
the engine itself, and as such, never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose of the
buoys. Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable. Thats putting it mildly. They also point to another big change in
the adjusted data: projecting far northern land temperatures out to cover gaps in measurement over the Arctic Ocean. Yet the land
the warmists are desperate,

but they might not have thought through the overall effect of this new
adjustment push. Weve been told to take very, very seriously the objective
data showing global warming is real and is happeningand then they
announce that the data has been totally changed post hoc. This is meant to
shore up the theory, but it actually calls the data into question. Anthony Watts, one of the
chief questioners of past adjustments, points out that to make the pause disappear, they didnt just
increase temperatures since 1998. They also adjusted downward the
temperatures immediately before that. Starting from a lower base of
temperature makes the adjusted increase look even bigger. Thats a pattern that
temperatures are likely to be significantly warmer than the ocean temperatures. I realize
invariably shows up in all these adjustments: the past is always adjusted downward to make it cooler, the present upward to make it warmer
the global warming theory

has been awful at making predictions about the data ahead of time. But it has
been great at going backward, retroactively reinterpreting the data and retrofitting the theory to mesh with it. A line I
an amazing coincidence that guarantees a warming trend. All of this fits into a wider pattern:
saw from one commenter, I cant remember where (update: it was David Burge), has been rattling around in my head: once again, the theory
that predicts nothing explains everything. There is an important difference between prediction before the fact and explanation after the fact.
Prediction requires that you lay down a marker about what the data ought to be, to be consistent with your theory, before you actually know
what it is. Thats something thats very hard to get right. If your theory is going to be able to consistently predict data before it is gathered, it
But explanations
of data after the fact are a lot easier. As they say, hindsight is 20/20. Its a lot
easier to tweak your theory to make it a better fit to the data, or in this case,
has got to be pretty darned good. Global warming theories have a wretched track record at making predictions.
to tweak the way the data is measured and analyzed in order to make it
better fit your theory. And then you proclaim how amazing it is that your
theory explains the data. The whole political cause of global warming is based on the theorys claim to make
predictions before the fact. If this difference between prediction and explanation seems merely technical, remember that the whole political
cause of global warming is based on the theorys claim to make predictions before the factway before the fact, projecting temperatures for
the next century. Were supposed to base the whole organization of our civilization, at a cost of many trillions of dollars, on those ultra-longterm predictions. So exulting that they can readjust the data for the last few years to jibe with their theory after the fact is not exactly the
Anyone with the slightest familiarity with science ought to be

immediately skeptical of this new claim, so naturally mainstream media science reporters repeat it with
reassurance we need.
complete credulity and even pre-emptively inoculate us against the sin of doubt. The Washington Post report/press-release-transcription has a
nice little passive-aggressive twist, sneering that The details of the data adjustments quickly get complicatedand will surely be where
global warming doubters focus their criticism. Those global warming doubters, always finding something to kvetch about! What are you
gonna do? Worse, the Post ends by passing along a criticism of mainstream scientists for even discussing the global warming pause before
now. Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes recently co-authored a paper depicting research on the hiatus as a case study in how
scientists had allowed a seepage of climate skeptic argumentation to affect the formal scientific literature. Of the new NOAA study, she said
in an e-mail: I hope the scientific community will do a bit of soul searching about how they got pulled into this framework, which was clearly a
contrarian construction from the start. Remember that everybodys data was showing a plateau in global temperatures, and many of the
studies focused on this were attempting to uphold the global warming theory in the face of that evidence. Yet now some of the theorys own
supporters are going to be thrown under the bus for showing too much faith in the data and too little faith in the cause. They will get the
That gives us a pretty good

idea of what is going on here. Because any field where people say this sort of
thing is by that very fact not a field of science any longer.
message stated bluntly by Oreskes: science must never be contaminated by skepticism.
climate change is a scam alarmists are unqualified and

self interested
Starck, PhD, Feb 2015, (Walter, "The Climate Scam's Meltdown" Ausmarine
37.4: 26-27. Proquest. search.proquest.com/docview/1666284048?pqorigsite=gscholar)
"A conspiracy does not require secret planning"
An argument is often made that the climate-change threat must be real
because a conspiracy involving an overwhelming majority of the world's
scientists is simply not credible. This is disingenuous in that the climate
threat, as exemplified by the IPCC's scare machine, is far from
representing a scientific consensus, even a majority. Global scientific
opinion on this matter is highly mixed with the alarmist position concentrated
in Europe and the Anglosphere. Even here thousands of dissenters exist,
including many highly qualified and respected researchers with very relevant
expertise. The core alarmist proponents only comprise a few dozen, mostly
third-rate, academics whose scientific reputations are minimal outside of
climate alarmism. They co-opted the niche, little known interdisciplinary field
of climatology, proclaimed themselves to be the world authorities, declared a
global crisis, received lavish funding to research it and gained global
attention. They have been aided and abetted by sundry fellow travellers who
see advantage for various other agendas. A conspiracy does not require
secret planning. It can be implemented just as easily with a wink and a nod
when the aims and methods are apparent to all the participants. It is time to
recognise the climate scam for what it is: a conspiracy to defraud on a
monumental scale. Although climate itself is presenting its irrefutable
opposing argument, failed prophets never willingly concede defeat until their
mouths are stopped with the dust of reality. In this instance gob-stopping
reality seems likely to take the form of severe winter weather leading to a
widespread collapse of electrical power in an overloaded grid suffering from
underinvestment, malinvestment, restraints and neglect. All these stem from

years of misguided climate policies. Until the crunch comes, the rent-seekers
and their useful idiots in the press will rant and rage without pause, their
livelihoods and careers hanging on their ability to perpetuate the hoax they
foisted on the rest of us. As so often, Shakespeare said it best: "A tale, told by
an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Global warming is a liberal lie

McFarlane15
(Bonnie McFarlane, 6/19/15, [Totally serious standup comedian], "Global
warming is totally a lie liberals tell to distract us from their commie agendas,"
The Guardian,
www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2015/jun/19/globalwarming-lie-liberals-tell-distract-us, MX)
Everybody is talking about global warming. Clearly, its got a great publicist. My guess is its the same one that Amy Schumer uses. However, unlike Schumer whom I have on good authority is real
Global Warming is a big fat lie
. Now, before you spit out your fair trade coffee and start yelling about carbon emissions, let me assure you that this is not a
conclusion that came easily to me. I thought about it a lot. Just this morning I was in the shower for a good two hours debating the pros and cons of dating someone with a giant global footprint. Once the water went
This so-called environmental Armageddon is

a fictitious construction cooked up by the left so well spend all our
time
changing out our light bulbs and flattening
cardboard and completely overlooking their pinko/commie/socialist
agendas.
The
planet doesnt need saving. After all, its been around for almost 2,000 years.
It was fine before you got here, and itll be fine after the apocalypse destroys
most of humankind
cold and I dried myself off with a hair dryer, I knew I had my answer.
(or at least a half hour a week)
Im on to you, liberals! Youre trying to be heroes to humanity. You want everyone to pat you on the back and say, Oh, look who saved the planet! Well, I have news for you.
for the sins of homosexuality and shellfish consumption. God hates Shrimp Scampi, but He doesnt seem to have a problem with littering. (Leviticus 10:10) I
wish people would stop incessantly asking, Dont we care what kind of planet were going to leave our children? First of all, Im pretty sure any child psychologist would agree that leaving a whole planet to a kid is
an appalling idea. I wouldnt dream of spoiling my daughter with an entire planet. You dont have to give your kids the world; just spend some time with them once in a while. Thats what they really want. That, and
I wish scientists would stop blaming us humans for causing

global warming. This is patently false, since global warming is not real!
weve just experienced the coldest spring on record
my sister went to Greenland and never saw any polar
bears stranded on tiny ice floes.
But the most
telling sign that global warming is not an actual threat is this: the Republican
presidential candidates arent trying to scare us with the prospect that were
all doomed to die from toxic air and scorching temperatures. And Republican
presidential candidates love scaring the public. Its their passion
despite the numerous scientific claims and
all those hockey-stick graphs
I dont think theres any truth to
this whole global warming thing. At the very least, the declarations are
exaggerated and we have nothing to worry about for at least a decade.
a Mercedes SUV for their sweet 16.
If the fact that
isnt enough to sway you, Ive got other anecdotal evidence that
should be plenty convincing. For example:
In fact, my sister didnt see any live polar bears at all, so there.
. If they could put a gun to each of
our heads individually and say, Vote for me or else you die, I think they would. Thats why,
showing the sharp rise in temperatures,
*Democracy more sustainable than authoritarianismtransition not inevitable

Davis 15 (Davis, Michael C has an LLM from Yale and teaches at the
University of Hong Kong. "East Asia After the Crisis: Human Rights,
Constitutionalism, and State Reform." Human Rights Quarterly 26.1 (2004):

126-51. ProQuest. Web. 29 June 2015.)
In assessing the debates over political and economic reform, it becomes
apparent that constitutionalism has a central role to play. Studies in the
political economy literature appear to verify that regime type ultimately
matters in the achievement of economic development goals.96 While
authoritarianism with proper developmental institutions can do reasonably
well at early-stage development, this is not invariably so. Furthermore, as
economic development proceeds the developmental potential of the
authoritarian model may be exhausted. Recent studies have shown that the
developmental achievement of authoritarian regimes in East Asia is not
uniformly positive. Latent costs are just now being appreciated. In addition to
the deficiencies of authoritarian practices in respect to democracy, human
rights, and the rule of law, there have also been high levels of corruption.
Corruption appears to be a consequence of both early predatory practices
and a lack of transparency, and subsequent incapacity of authoritarian
regimes to respond to the interests that economic development creates.
Rent-seeking evolves from a top-down predatory behavior in the authoritarian
period when the state is strong, to a bottom-up predatory behavior in the
early stages of democracy as business becomes stronger and the state
weaker. Corruption may serve as a substitute for adequate state institutions.
Democratic consolidation will aim to curb corruption by affording greater
transparency and stable institutions for checks and balances. Greater
dispersal and open competition in the society should accompany this
consolidation. Local institutions shape investor confidence. Either extreme
concentrations of power or extreme dispersal appears to have worked poorly;
the former is too volatile and the latter too rigid. Liberal constitutionalism,
including democracy, human rights and the rule of law, appears to provide
the tools to engender the degree of public engagement and political reliability
needed for sustained development. Finding the proper institutional balance is
by no means an easy task. The constitutional fundamentals are essential.
Minimally maintaining the protections embodied in human rights and the rule
of law is important to achieving transparency and accountability, while
sustaining confidence in political and legal institutio ns. Constitutional
institutions must be shaped to the local condition. This reality is
demonstrated by the varied consequences of importing similar institutions
into different countries. Constitutional systems deeply influenced by the
American model work very differently in Japan, the Philippines, and the
United States. Getting the fit just right is the challenge of local politics.
Democracy inevitable- More sustainable than

authoritarian regimes
Slater and Bennis 90 (Philip Slater and Warren Bennis Democracy is
Inevitable Harvard Business review. THE SEPTEMBEROCTOBER 1990 ISSUE.
Democracy has been so widely embraced not because of some vague

yearning for human rights but because under certain conditions it is a more
efficient form of social organization. (Our concept of efficiency includes the
ability to survive and prosper.) It is not accidental that those nations of the
world that have endured longest under conditions of relative wealth and
stability are democratic, while authoritarian regimes have, with few
exceptions, either crumbled or eked out a precarious and backward
existence. Despite this evidence, even so acute a statesman as Adlai
Stevenson argued in a New York Times article on November 4, 1962, that the
goals of the Communists are different from ours. They are interested in
power, he said, we in community. With such fundamentally different aims,
how is it possible to compare communism and democracy in terms of
efficiency? Democracy (whether capitalistic or socialistic is not at issue here)
is the only system that can successfully cope with the changing demands of
contemporary civilization. We are not necessarily endorsing democracy as
such; one might reasonably argue that industrial civilization is pernicious and
should be abolished. We suggest merely that given a desire to survive in this
civilization, democracy is the most effective means to this end.
Democracy is the only system capable of adapting to change- that makes it
sustainable
Slater and Bennis 90 (Philip Slater and Warren Bennis Democracy is
Inevitable Harvard Business review. THE SEPTEMBEROCTOBER 1990 ISSUE.
And here we come to the point. For the spirit of inquiry, the foundation of
science, to grow and flourish, there must be a democratic environment.
Science encourages a political view that is egalitarian, pluralistic, liberal. It
accentuates freedom of opinion and dissent. It is against all forms of
totalitarianism, dogma, mechanization, and blind obedience. As a prominent
social psychologist has pointed out, Men have asked for freedom, justice,
and respect precisely as science has spread among them. 2 In short, the
only way organizations can ensure a scientific attitude is to provide the
democratic social conditions where one can flourish. In other words,
democracy in industry is not an idealistic conception but a hard necessity in
those areas where change is ever present and creative scientific enterprise
must be nourished. For democracy is the only system of organization that is
compatible with perpetual change.
Democracy is the most sustainable- history proves- if we choose to stay
committed, it will expand over the next century
Diamon 3 (Diamond, Larry. "Universal Democracy?" Policy Review.119
(2003): 3. ProQuest. Web. 29 June 2015.)
The fully global triumph of democracy is far from inevitable, yet it has never
been more attainable. If we manage to sustain the process of global
economic integration and growth while making freedom at least an important
priority in our diplomacy, aid, and other international engagements,
democracy will continue to expand in the world. History has proven that it is
the best form of government. Gradually, more countries will become

democratic while fewer revert to dictatorship. If we retain our power, reshape
our strategy, and sustain our commitment, eventually - not in the next
decade, but certainly by mid-century - every country in the world can be
democratic.
Environmental authoritarianism isnt uniquely key in

solving ecocide, status quo can solve with the right
efforts.
White, 10 (Micah, Senior editor at Adbusters and an award-winning activist, An alternative
to the new wave of ecofascism, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifgreen/2010/sep/16/authoritarianism-ecofascism-alternative)
Environmentalism is currently marketed as a luxury brand for guilty

consumers. The prevailing assumption is that a fundamental lifestyle change
is unnecessary: being green means paying extra for organic produce and
driving a hybrid. The incumbent political regime remains in power and the
same corporations provide new "green" goods; the underlying consumerist
ideology is unquestioned. This brand of environmentalism only emboldens
ecofascists who rightly claim that shopping green can never stop the
ecological crisis. And yet, ecofascists are wrong to suggest that the
suspension of democracy is the only alternative. Humanity can avert
climate catastrophe without accepting ecological tyranny. However,
this will take an immediate, drastic reduction of our consumption. This
requires the trust that the majority of people would voluntarily reduce their
standard of living once the forces that induce consumerism are overcome.
The future of environmentalism is in liberating humanity from the compulsion
to consume. Rampant, earth-destroying consumption is the norm in the west
largely because our imaginations are pillaged by any corporation with an
advertising budget. From birth, we are assaulted by thousands of commercial
messages each day whose single mantra is "buy". Silencing this refrain is the
revolutionary alternative to ecological fascism. It is a revolution which is
already budding and is marked by three synergetic campaigns: the
criminalisation of advertising, the revocation of corporate power and the
downshifting of the global economy. In So Paulo, the seventh largest city in
the world, outdoor advertising has been banned. Meanwhile, artists in New
York City and Toronto are launching blitzkrieg attacks on billboards, replacing
commercials with art. Their efforts have put one visual polluter out of
business. Grassroots organisers in the US are pushing for an amendment to
the constitution that will end corporate personhood while others are fighting
to revive the possibility of death penalties for corporations. The second
international conference on degrowth economics met recently in Barcelona.
In Ithaca, New York a local, time-based currency is thriving. Buy Nothing Day
campaign is celebrated in dozens of nations and now Adbusters is upping the
ante with a call for seven days of carnivalesque rebellion against
consumerism this November. And, most important of all, across the world
everyday people are silently, unceremoniously and intentionally spending

less and living more. Authoritarian environmentalists fail to imagine a world
without advertising, so they dream of putting democracy "on hold". In
Linkola's dystopian vision, the resources of the state are mobilised to clamp
down on individual liberty. But there is no need to suspend democracy if
it is returned to the people. Democratic, anti-fascist
environmentalism means marshalling the strength of humanity to
suppress corporations. Only by silencing the consumerist forces will
both climate catastrophe and ecological tyranny be averted. Yes,
western consumption will be substantially reduced. But it will be
done voluntarily and joyously.
Link Turn/ No Link
Authoritarianism isnt coming

If Beeson card is read
The card says that eco authoritarianism is a possible

reaction to ecological challenges, no proof that
guaranteed there is going to be a transititon to eco
authoritarianism, this collapses their DA.
Dehumanization Outweighs
Extend the Berube card dehumanization outweighs the
impact of the DA, and we get solvency for the worst
impact in the round. Vote Neg on this issue
No Impact
No impact to the environment
Easterbrook 95 (Gregg, Distinguished Fellow @ The Fullbright
Foundation and Reuters Columnist, A Moment on Earth, p. 25, 1995)
In the aftermath of events such as Love Canal or the Exxon Valdez oil spill, every reference to the
environment is prefaced with the adjective "fragile." "Fragile environment" has become a welded phrase of
the modern lexicon, like "aging hippie" or "fugitive financier." But
the notion of a fragile
environment is profoundly wrong. Individual animals, plants, and people are distressingly
fragile. The environment that contains them is close to indestructible. The living
environment of Earth has survived ice ages; bombardments of cosmic radiation more
deadly than atomic fallout; solar radiation more powerful than the worst-case projection for ozone
depletion; thousand-year periods of intense volcanism releasing global air pollution far worse than
that made by any factory; reversals of the planet's magnetic poles; the rearrangement of
continents; transformation of plains into mountain ranges and of seas into plains; fluctuations of ocean
currents and the jet stream; 300-foot vacillations in sea levels; shortening and lengthening of the seasons
asteroids and comets bearing far more force

than man's nuclear arsenals; and the years without summer that followed these impacts. Yet hearts
beat on, and petals unfold still. Were the environment fragile it would have expired many eons
before the advent of the industrial affronts of the dreaming ape. Human assaults on the
environment, though mischievous, are pinpricks compared to forces of the
magnitude nature is accustomed to resisting.
caused by shifts in the planetary axis; collisions of
No impact to biodiversity loss

Sagoff 97 Mark, Senior Research Scholar Institute for Philosophy and Public policy in School of
Public Affairs U. Maryland, William and Mary Law Review, INSTITUTE OF BILL OF RIGHTS LAW
SYMPOSIUM DEFINING TAKINGS: PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE FUTURE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION:
MUDDLE OR MUDDLE THROUGH? TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE MEETS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, 38
Wm and Mary L. Rev. 825, March, L/N Note Colin Tudge - Research Fellow at the Centre for Philosophy at
the London School of Economics. Frmr Zoological Society of London: Scientific Fellow and tons of other
positions. PhD. Read zoology at Cambridge. Simon Levin = Moffet Professor of Biology, Princeton. 2007
American Institute of Biological Sciences Distinguished Scientist Award 2008 Istituto Veneto di Scienze
Lettere ed Arti 2009 Honorary Doctorate of Science, Michigan State University 2010 Eminent Ecologist
Award, Ecological Society of America 2010 Margalef Prize in Ecology, etc PhD
Although one may agree with ecologists such as Ehrlich and Raven that the earth stands on the
brink of an episode of massive extinction, it may not follow from this grim fact that
human beings will suffer as a result. On the contrary, skeptics such as science writer Colin Tudge have
challenged biologists to explain why we need more than a tenth of the 10 to 100 million species that grace the earth.
Noting that "cultivated systems often out-produce wild systems by 100-fold or more," Tudge declared that
"the argument that humans need the variety of other species is, when you think about it, a theological one." n343
elimination of all but a tiny minority of our fellow creatures does

not affect the material well-being of humans one iota." n344 This skeptic challenged ecologists to list
Tudge observed that "the
more than 10,000 species (other than unthreatened microbes) that are essential to ecosystem productivity or
human species could survive just as well if 99.9% of our fellow creatures
went extinct, provided only that we retained the appropriate 0.1% that we need." n346 [*906] The
functioning. n345 "The
monumental Global Biodiversity Assessment ("the Assessment") identified two positions with respect to redundancy of
species. "At one extreme is the idea that each species is unique and important, such that its removal or loss will have
demonstrable consequences to the functioning of the community or ecosystem." n347 The authors of the
Assessment, a panel of eminent ecologists, endorsed this position, saying it is "unlikely that there is much, if any,
ecological redundancy in communities over time scales of decades to centuries, the time period over which
environmental policy should operate." n348 These eminent ecologists rejected the opposing view, "the notion that
species overlap in function to a sufficient degree that removal or loss of a species will be compensated by others, with
negligible overall consequences to the community or ecosystem." n349 Other biologists believe, however,
species are so fabulously redundant in the ecological functions they perform that the life-support
processes in general will function perfectly well
with fewer of them, certainly fewer than the millions and millions we can expect to remain even if
every threatened organism becomes extinct. n350 Even the kind of sparse and
that
systems and processes of the planet and ecological
miserable world depicted in the movie Blade Runner could provide a "sustainable" context for the human economy as
long as people forgot their aesthetic and moral commitment to the glory and beauty of the natural world. n351 The
Assessment makes this point. "Although any ecosystem contains hundreds to thousands of species interacting among
themselves and their physical environment, the emerging consensus is that the system is driven by a small number of
. . . biotic variables on whose interactions the balance of species are, in a sense, carried along." n352 [*907] To
make up your mind on the question of the functional redundancy of species, consider an endangered species of bird,
plant, or insect and ask how the ecosystem would fare in its absence. The fact that the creature is endangered
suggests an answer: it is already in limbo as far as ecosystem processes are concerned. What crucial ecological
services does the black-capped vireo, for example, serve? Are any of the species threatened with extinction necessary
to the provision of any ecosystem service on which humans depend? If so, which ones are they? Ecosystems and the
species that compose them have changed, dramatically, continually, and totally in virtually every part of the United
States. There is little ecological similarity, for example, between New England today and the land where the Pilgrims
died. n353 In view of the constant reconfiguration of the biota, one may wonder why Americans have not suffered
more as a result of ecological catastrophes. The cast of species in nearly every environment changes constantly-local
extinction is commonplace in nature-but the crops still grow. Somehow, it seems, property values keep going up on
the sheer
number and variety of creatures available to any ecosystem buffers that system against
stress. Accordingly, we should be concerned if the "library" of creatures ready, willing, and able to colonize
Martha's Vineyard in spite of the tragic disappearance of the heath hen. One might argue that
ecosystems gets too small. (Advances in genetic engineering may well permit us to write a large number of additions
to that "library.") In the United States as in many other parts of the world, however,
the number of
species has been increasing dramatically, not decreasing, as a result of human activity. This is
because the hordes of exotic species coming into ecosystems in the United States far exceed the number of species
that are becoming extinct. Indeed, introductions may outnumber extinctions by more than ten to one, so that the
United States is becoming more and more species-rich all the time largely as a result of human action. n354 [*908]
Peter Vitousek and colleagues estimate that over 1000 non-native plants grow in California alone; in Hawaii there are
861; in Florida, 1210. n355 In Florida more than 1000 non-native insects, 23 species of mammals, and about 11 exotic
birds have established themselves. n356 Anyone who waters a lawn or hoes a garden knows how many weeds desire
to grow there, how many birds and bugs visit the yard, and how many fungi, creepy-crawlies, and other odd life forms
show forth when it rains. All belong to nature, from wherever they might hail, but not many homeowners would claim
that there are too few of them. Now, not all exotic species provide ecosystem services; indeed, some may be
disruptive or have no instrumental value. n357 This also may be true, of course, of native species as well, especially
because all exotics are native somewhere. Certain exotic species, however, such as Kentucky blue grass, establish an
area's sense of identity and place; others, such as the green crabs showing up around Martha's Vineyard, are
nuisances. n358 Consider an analogy [*909] with human migration. Everyone knows that after a generation or two,
immigrants to this country are hard to distinguish from everyone else. The vast majority of Americans did not evolve
here, as it were, from hominids; most of us "came over" at one time or another. This is true of many of our fellow
species as well, and they may fit in here just as well as we do. It is possible to distinguish exotic species from native
ones for a period of time, just as we can distinguish immigrants from native-born Americans, but as the centuries roll
by, species, like people, fit into the landscape or the society, changing and often enriching it. Shall we have a rule that
a species had to come over on the Mayflower, as so many did, to count as "truly" American? Plainly not. When, then,
is the cutoff date? Insofar as we are concerned with the absolute numbers of "rivets" holding ecosystems together,
extinction seems not to pose a general problem because a far greater number of kinds of mammals, insects, fish,
plants, and other creatures thrive on land and in water in America today than in prelapsarian times. n359 The
Ecological Society of America has urged managers to maintain biological diversity as a critical component in
strengthening ecosystems against disturbance. n360 Yet as Simon Levin observed, "much of the detail about
species composition will be irrelevant in terms of influences on ecosystem properties." n361 [*910] He added: "For net
primary productivity, as is likely to be the case for any system property, biodiversity matters only up to a point; above
a certain level, increasing biodiversity is likely to make little difference." n362 What
about the use of plants and animals in agriculture? There is no scarcity foreseeable. "Of an estimated 80,000 types of
plants [we] know to be edible," a U.S. Department of the Interior document says, "only about 150 are extensively
cultivated." n363 About twenty species, not one of which is endangered, provide ninety percent of the food the world
takes from plants. n364 Any new food has to take "shelf space" or "market share" from one that is now produced.
Corporations also find it difficult to create demand for a new product; for example, people are not inclined to eat pawpaws, even though they are delicious. It is hard enough to get people to eat their broccoli and lima beans. It is harder
still to develop consumer demand for new foods. This may be the reason the Kraft Corporation does not prospect in
remote places for rare and unusual plants and animals to add to the world's diet. Of the roughly 235,000 flowering
plants and 325,000 nonflowering plants (including mosses, lichens, and seaweeds) available, farmers ignore virtually
all of them in favor of a very few that are profitable. n365 To be sure, any of the more than 600,000 species of plants
could have an application in agriculture, but would they be preferable to the species that are now dominant? Has
anyone found any consumer demand for any of these half-million or more plants to replace rice or wheat in the human
diet? There are reasons that farmers cultivate rice, wheat, and corn rather than, say, Furbish's lousewort. There are
many kinds of louseworts, so named because these weeds were thought to cause lice in sheep. How many does
agriculture really require? [*911] The species on which agriculture relies are domesticated, not naturally occurring;
they are developed by artificial not natural selection; they might not be able to survive in the wild. n366 This
argument is not intended to deny the religious, aesthetic, cultural, and moral reasons that command us to respect and
protect the natural world. These spiritual and ethical values should evoke action, of course, but we should also
recognize that they are spiritual and ethical values. We should recognize that ecosystems and all that dwell therein
compel our moral respect, our aesthetic appreciation, and our spiritual veneration; we should clearly seek to achieve
the goals of the ESA. There is no reason to assume, however, that these goals have anything to do with human wellbeing or welfare as economists understand that term. These are ethical goals, in other words, not economic ones.
Protecting the marsh may be the right thing to do for moral, cultural, and spiritual reasons. We should do it-but
someone will have to pay the costs. In the narrow sense of promoting human welfare, protecting nature often
represents a net "cost," not a net "benefit." It is largely for moral, not economic, reasons-ethical, not prudential,
reasons- that we care about all our fellow creatures. They are valuable as objects of love not as objects of use. What is
good for [*912] the marsh may be good in itself even if it is not, in the economic sense, good for mankind. The most
valuable things are quite useless.
Biodiversity loss wont cause extinction

Lomberg 1 (Bjorn Lomborg, associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science
at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, August 9, 2001, Environmentalists tend to believe that, ecologically
speaking, things are getting worse and worse.
We are all familiar with the litany of our ever-deteriorating environment. It is the doomsday message
endlessly repeated by the media, as when Time magazine tells us that "everyone knows the planet is in
We are
defiling our Earth, we are told. Our resources are running out. The population
is ever-growing, leaving less and less to eat. Our air and water is more and
more polluted. The planet's species are becoming extinct in vast numbers we kill off more than 40,000 each year. Forests are disappearing, fish stocks
are collapsing, the coral reefs are dying. The fertile topsoil is vanishing. We
are paving over nature, destroying the wilderness, decimating the biosphere,
and will end up killing ourselves in the process . The world's ecosystem is
breaking down. We are fast approaching the absolute limit of viability. Global warming is probably
taking place, though future projections are overly pessimistic and the
traditional cure of radical fossil-fuel cutbacks is far more damaging than the
original affliction. Moreover, its total impact will not pose a devastating
problem to our future. Nor will we lose 25-50% of all species in our lifetime in fact, we are losing probably 0.7%. Acid rain does not kill the forests, and
the air and water around us are becoming less and less polluted. In fact, in
terms of practically every measurable indicator, mankind's lot has improved .
bad shape", and when the New Scientist calls its environmental overview "self-destruct".
This does not, however, mean that everything is good enough. We can still do even better. Take, for
example, starvation and the population explosion. In 1968, one of the leading environmentalists, Dr Paul R
Erlich, predicted in his bestselling book, The Population Bomb, that "the battle to feed humanity is over. In
the course of the 1970s, the world will experience starvation of tragic proportions - hundreds of millions of
people will starve to death." This did not happen. Instead, according to the UN, agricultural production in
the developing world has increased by 52% per person. The daily food intake in developing countries has
increased from 1,932 calories in 1961 - barely enough for survival - to 2,650 calories in 1998, and is
expected to rise to 3,020 by 2030. Likewise, the proportion of people going hungry in these countries has
dropped from 45% in 1949 to 18% today, and is expected to fall even further, to 12% in 2010 and 6% in
2030. Food, in other words, is becoming not scarcer but ever more abundant. This is reflected in its price.
Since 1800, food prices have decreased by more than 90%, and in 2000, according to the World Bank,
prices were lower than ever before. Erlich's prediction echoed that made 170 years earlier by Thomas
Malthus. Malthus claimed that, unchecked, human population would expand exponentially, while food
production.
Warming will be slow and the impact will be small

Ridley 6/19/14,
(Matt Ridley is the author of The Rational Optimist, a columnist for the Times
(London) and a member of the House of Lords. He spoke at Ideacity in Toronto on June 18., PCC
commissioned models to see if global warming would reach dangerous levels this century. Consensus is
no , [ http://tinyurl.com/mgyn8ln ] , //hss-RJ)
The debate over climate change is horribly polarized. From the way it is
conducted, you would think that only two positions are possible: that
the whole thing is a hoax or that catastrophe is inevitable. In fact there
is room for lots of intermediate positions, including the view I hold,
which is that man-made climate change is real but not likely to do
much harm, let alone prove to be the greatest crisis facing humankind
this century. After more than 25 years reporting and commenting on
this topic for various media organizations, and having started out
alarmed, thats where I have ended up. But it is not just I that hold this
view. I share it with a very large international organization, sponsored
by the United Nations and supported by virtually all the worlds
governments: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
itself. The IPCC commissioned four different models of what might happen to the
world economy, society and technology in the 21st century and what each would mean for the climate,
given a certain assumption about the atmospheres sensitivity to carbon dioxide. Three of the models
show a moderate, slow and mild warming, the hottest of which leaves the planet just 2 degrees Centigrade
Now two
degrees is the threshold at which warming starts to turn dangerous,
according to the scientific consensus. That is to say, in three of the four
scenarios considered by the IPCC, by the time my childrens children
are elderly, the earth will still not have experienced any harmful
warming, let alone catastrophe. But what about the fourth scenario? This
warmer than today in 2081-2100. The coolest comes out just 0.8 degrees warmer.
is known as RCP8.5, and it produces 3.5 degrees of warming in 2081-2100. Curious to know what
assumptions lay behind this model, I decided to look up the original papers describing the creation of this
Frankly, I was gobsmacked. It is a world that is very, very

implausible. For a start, this is a world of continuously increasing
global population so that there are 12 billion on the planet. This is
more than a billion more than the United Nations expects, and flies in
the face of the fact that the world population growth rate has been
falling for 50 years and is on course to reach zero i.e., stable
population in around 2070. More people mean more emissions.
Second, the world is assumed in the RCP8.5 scenario to be burning an
astonishing 10 times as much coal as today, producing 50% of its primary energy
scenario.
from coal, compared with about 30% today. Indeed, because oil is assumed to have become scarce, a lot of
liquid fuel would then be derived from coal. Nuclear and renewable technologies contribute little, because
of a slow pace of innovation and hence fossil fuel technologies continue to dominate the primary energy
portfolio over the entire time horizon of the RCP8.5 scenario. Energy efficiency has improved very little.
These are highly unlikely assumptions. With abundant natural gas displacing coal on a
huge scale in the United States today, with the price of solar power plummeting, with nuclear power
experiencing a revival, with gigantic methane-hydrate gas resources being discovered on the seabed, with
energy efficiency rocketing upwards, and with population growth rates continuing to fall fast in virtually
every country in the world, the one thing we can say about RCP8.5 is that it is very, very implausible.
Notice, however, that even so, it is not a world of catastrophic pain.

The per capita income of the average human being in 2100 is three
times what it is now. Poverty would be history. So its hardly
Armageddon. But theres an even more startling fact. We now have many different studies of
climate sensitivity based on observational data and they all converge on the conclusion that it is much
lower than assumed by the IPCC in these models. It has to be, otherwise global temperatures would have
risen much faster than they have over the past 50 years. As Ross McKitrick noted on this page earlier this
week, temperatures have not risen at all now for more than 17 years. With these much more realistic
estimates of sensitivity (known as transient climate response), even RCP8.5 cannot produce dangerous
warming. It manages just 2.1C of warming by 2081-2100. That is to say, even if you pile crazy assumption
upon crazy assumption till you have an edifice of vanishingly small probability, you cannot even manage to
make climate change cause minor damage in the time of our grandchildren, let alone catastrophe. Thats
not me saying this its the IPCC itself. But what strikes me as truly fascinating about these scenarios is
that they tell us that globalization, innovation and economic growth are unambiguously good for the
environment. At the other end of the scale from RCP8.5 is a much more cheerful scenario called RCP2.6. In
this happy world, climate change is not a problem at all in 2100, because carbon dioxide emissions have
plummeted thanks to the rapid development of cheap nuclear and solar, plus a surge in energy efficiency.
The RCP2.6 world is much, much richer. The average person has an income about 15 times todays in real
terms, so that most people are far richer than Americans are today. And it achieves this by free trade,
massive globalization, and lots of investment in new technology. All the things the green movement keeps
saying it opposes because they will wreck the planet. The answer to climate change is, and always has
worry now in 2014 about a very small, highly implausible

set of circumstances in 2100 that just might, if climate sensitivity is
much higher than the evidence suggests, produce a marginal damage
to the world economy, makes no sense. Think of all the innovation that happened
been, innovation. To
between 1914 and 2000. Do we really think there will be less in this century? As for how to deal with that
small risk, well there are several possible options. You could encourage innovation and trade. You could put
a modest but growing tax on carbon to nudge innovators in the right direction. You could offer prizes for
low-carbon technologies. All of these might make a little sense. But the one thing you should not do is pour
public subsidy into supporting old-fashioned existing technologies that produce more carbon dioxide per
unit of energy even than coal (bio-energy), or into ones that produce expensive energy (existing solar), or
that have very low energy density and so require huge areas of land (wind). The IPCC produced two reports
last year. One said that the cost of climate change is likely to be less than 2% of GDP by the end of this
century. The other said that the cost of decarbonizing the world economy with renewable energy is likely to
be 4% of GDP. Why do something that you know will do more harm than good?
Warming is slow no risk of an impact

Michaels and Knappenberger 11/19/13, (*Chip Knappenberger is the assistant
director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, and coordinates the scientific and
outreach activities for the Center. He has over 20 years of experience in climate research and public
outreach, including 10 years with the Virginia State Climatology Office and 15 years as the Research
Coordinator for New Hope Environmental Services, Inc, **Patrick J. Michaels is the director of the Center for
the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. Michaels is a past president of the American Association of State
Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American
Meteorological Society. He was a research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for
thirty years. Michaels was a contributing author and is a reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Chanage, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, With or Without a Pause
Climate Models Still Project Too Much Warming, [ http://www.cato.org/blog/or-without-pause-climatemodels-still-project-too-much-warming ] //hss-RJ)
A new paper just hit the scientific literature that argues that the apparent pause in the rise in global average surface
temperatures during the past 16 years was really just a slowdown. As you may imagine, this paper, by Kevin Cowtan and
Robert Way is being hotly discussed in the global warming blogs, with reaction ranging from a warm embrace by the
global-warming-is-going-to-be-bad-for-us crowd to revulsion from the human-activities-have-no-effect-on-the-climate
After
all, the pause as curious as it is/was, is not central to the primary
argument that, yes, human activities are pressuring the planet to
claque. The lukewarmers (a school we take some credit for establishing) seem to be taking the results in stride.
warm, but that the rate of warming is going to be much slower than is
being projected by the collection of global climate models (upon which
mainstream projections of future climate changeand the resulting climate alarm (i.e., calls for emission regulations, etc.)
are based). Under the adjustments to the observed global temperature history put together by Cowtan and Way, the
models fare a bit better than they do with the unadjusted temperature record. That is, the observed temperature trend
over the past 34 years (the period of record analyzed by Cowtan and Way) is a tiny bit closer to the average trend from
the collection of climate models used in the new report from the U.N.s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
than is the old temperature record. Specifically, while the trend in observed global temperatures from 1979-2012 as
calculated by Cowtan and Way is 0.17C/decade, it is 0.16C/decade in the temperature record compiled by the U.K.
Hadley Center (the record that Cowtan and Way adjusted). Because of the sampling errors associated with trend
estimation, these values are not significantly different from one another. Whether the 0.17C/decade is significantly
different from the climate model average simulated trend during that period of 0.23C/decade is discussed extensively
0.01C/decade in the global trend

measured over more than 30 years is pretty small beer and doesnt
give model apologists very much to get happy over. Instead, the
attention is being deflected to The Pausethe leveling off of global
surface temperatures during the past 16 years (give or take). Here, the
new results from Cowtan and Way show that during the period 19972012, instead of a statistically insignificant rise at a rate of
0.05C/decade as is contained in the old temperature record, the rise
becomes a statistically significant 0.12C/decade. The Pause is transformed into The
below. But, suffice it to say that an insignificant difference of
Slowdown and alarmists rejoice because global warming hasnt stopped after all. (If the logic sounds backwards, it does
to us as well, if you were worried about catastrophic global warming, wouldnt you rejoice at findings that indicate that
future climate change was going to be only modest, more so than results to the contrary?) The science behind the new
Cowtan and Way research is still being digested by the community of climate scientists and other interested parties alike .
The main idea is that the existing compilations of the global average
temperature are very data-sparse in the high latitudes. And since the Arctic (more
so than the Antarctic) is warming faster than the global average, the lack of data there may mean that the global average
temperature trend may be underestimated. Cowtan and Way developed a methodology which relied on other limited
sources of temperature information from the Arctic (such as floating buoys and satellite observations) to try to make an
estimate of how the surface temperature was behaving in regions lacking more traditional temperature observations (the
authors released an informative video explaining their research which may better help you understand what they did).
They found that the warming in the data-sparse regions was progressing faster than the global average (especially during
the past couple of years) and that when they included the data that they derived for these regions in the computation of
the global average temperature, they found the global trend was higher than previously reportedjust how much higher
depended on the period over which the trend was calculated. As we showed, the trend more than doubled over the period
from 1997-2012, but barely increased at all over the longer period 1979-2012. Figure 1 shows the impact on the global
average temperature trend for all trend lengths between 10 and 35 years (incorporating our educated guess as to what
the 2013 temperature anomaly will be), and compares that to the distribution of climate model simulations of the same
period. Statistically speaking, instead of there being a clear inconsistency (i.e., the observed trend value falls outside of
the range which encompasses 95% of all modeled trends) between the observations and the climate mode simulations for
lengths ranging generally from 11 to 28 years and a marginal inconsistency (i.e., the observed trend value falls outside of
the range which encompasses 90% of all modeled trends) for most of the other lengths, now the observations track
closely the marginal inconsistency line, although trends of length 17, 19, 20, 21 remain clearly inconsistent with the
Still, throughout the entirely of the 35-yr period

(ending in 2013), the observed trend lies far below the model average
simulated trend (additional information on the impact of the new
Cowtan and Way adjustments on modeled/observed temperature
comparison can be found here). The Cowtan and Way analysis is an
attempt at using additional types of temperature information, or extracting
information from records that have already told their stories, to fill in the missing data in the Arctic. There are
concerns about the appropriateness of both the data sources and the
methodologies applied to them. A major one is in the applicability of
satellite data at such high latitudes. The nature of the satellites orbit
forces it to look sideways in order to sample polar regions. In fact,
collection of modeled trends.
the orbit is such that the highest latitude areas cannot be seen at all.
This is compounded by the fact that cold regions can develop
substantial inversions of near-ground temperature, in which
temperature actually rises with height such that there is not a
straightforward relationship between the surface temperature and the
temperature of the lower atmosphere where the satellites measure the
temperature. If the nature of this complex relationship is not constant
in time, an error is introduced into the Cowtan and Way analysis.
Another unresolved problem comes up when extrapolating land-based
weather station data far into the Arctic Ocean. While land
temperatures can bounce around a lot, the fact that much of the ocean
is partially ice-covered for many months. Under well-mixed
conditions, this forces the near-surface temperature to be constrained
to values near the freezing point of salt water, whether or not the
associated land station is much warmer or colder. You can run this experiment yourself
by filling a glass with a mix of ice and water and then making sure it is well mixed. The water surface temperature must
hover around 33F until all the ice melts. Given that the near-surface temperature is close to the water temperature, the
limitations of land data become obvious. Considering all of the above, we advise caution with regard to Cowtan and Ways
findings. While adding high arctic data should increase the observed trend, the nature of the data means that the amount
of additional rise is subject to further revision. As they themselves note, theres quite a bit more work to be done this area.
In the meantime, their results have tentatively breathed a small hint of life back into the climate models, basically buying
them a bit more timetime for either the observed temperatures to start rising rapidly as current models expect, or, time
for the modelers to try to fix/improve cloud processes, oceanic processes, and other process of variability (both natural
Weve also taken a

look at how sensitive the results are to the length of the ongoing
pause/slowdown. Our educated guess is that the bit of time that the
Cowtan and Way findings bought the models is only a few years long,
and it is a fact, not a guess, that each additional year at the current
rate of lukewarming increases the disconnection between the models
and reality.
and anthropogenic) that lie behind what would be the clearly overheated projections.
Theory
Education Voter
1. The only thing of lasting endurance from a round is
the education we receive. This means that the most
important aspect of our arguments is their
educational qualities. Therefore, you ought to vote
on the most valuable argument in the round, and the
method by which you determine value is education.
2. Most debaters participate in this activity because to
some extent of the funding of their schools. This is
money that otherwise would have been spent on
these students education, so it is only logical that
these rounds are educational because they are
providing something the institution of education is
paying for. This means that you should vote on
education because that is the fundamental purpose
of these rounds and the debater who is most
educational should win.
3. The only reason the resolution is chosen for debate is
because the panel of coaches, of educators, feels
that it would be worth the countless hours their
students would spend researching and writing cases
discussing its salient features. Thus, the value of
arguments lies in their educational merits and that
should be the method by which we determine which
argument to prefer in round.
4. When people run educational arguments that discuss
interesting issues it engenders interest in other
debaters about that issue. Interest is important
because the more interest there is in debate the
more people join debate and continue debating
which creates a larger pool of competitors and
ensures better tournaments because there is better
competition. The best way to ensure this trend
continues is by giving preference to arguments that
provide for the better education.
5. Debate rounds have a unique structure, which allows

for honest debate about certain issues. It is
important that we use this opportunity to discuss
issues of educational import because those will be
the most beneficial to us as citizens
Education Outweighs
1. Education outweighs because it is the long term
benefit to debate. Whereas fairness only helps us in
the span of a tournament, education benefits us our
entire lives. Moreover, fairness is only valuable in
this hypothetical debate setting, while education is
universally valuable.
2. Education is a prerequisite since schools wouldnt
fund debate if it wasnt educational.
3. If debates werent educational nobody would
compete, if we wanted to just compete we could play
soccer but the unique educational value of debate
lets us keep on competing. Additionally, everyone
always thinks that they unfairly lost whether they
actually did or not. Thus, someone losing unfairly
is non-unique.
4. Fairness is only a baseline looking to claims of
inequality justify races to the bottom of being the
most fair like giving students the exact same
coaches, or making them go to the same camp or
tournaments. These races arent intrinsically
valuable, whereas if education did race to the
bottom, it still creates a net good.
5. The resolution is structured in a way that both sides
have inherent advantages and disadvantages.
Arguments that provide one side with structural
advantages over another are just an intrinsic result
of debating asymmetric resolutions.
6. All arguments are unfair because they try and make
one debater win the round. So theres no bright line
for fairness, but any bright line will be skewed
because they are trying to win the round themselves.
However, maximizing education can still be weighed
to see who is more educational.
7. As we become more educated we better understand
how things interact and thus can come to better
conclusions about what is fair, making it a key
internal link to fairness.
Other Cards

Muslim Informants Version 4 - Ashok - Madeline

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Muslim Informants Version 4 - Ashok - Madeline

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: Muslim Informants

3. The United States will no longer threaten deportation of Muslim

both Congress and the Department of Justicethe FBIs

The use of informants in terrorism investigations differs

FBI has generally recruited

The FBIs Top

After 9/11, the FBI drastically

Informants have become the number one tool for

preventing terrorist acts.

cases aggressively instigated the defendants participation in the plot.

Recruiting informants who lack ties to terrorist organizations may

always fulfilling the promises made to informants.

Due to the vast number of terrorism informants

the secrecy underlying the

Because of increased confidentiality surrounding national security issues,

more oversight over the FBIs

Notably, some limits on the

B. Post 9/11 United States Federal Governments lust

Using the threat of immigration consequences like

Informants recruited in this manner who also lack

legitimate ties to foreign terrorist organizations have an

The threat of false intelligence is grave. In addition to the possibility of

false intelligence may

chill free speech,23 and waste finite intelligence resources.

there is greater incentive for informants

Furthermore, due to the latitude afforded to the executive branch in national

C. Section 6 Visa program has limited application in the

immigration benefits to informants in exchange for their

As part of the Violent Crime Control

The fifty allotted S-6 visas per year34 do not match up

has long used immigration law as an incentive to compel

it has little motivation to use a

stringent eligibility requirements to obtain an S-6 visa explain its ongoing

D. Current Congressional oversight is dysfunctional and

dysfunction was to consolidate authorization and appropriations in a single committee.

E. The United States uses Otherization and the concept

An alternative explanation focuses on racial motivations.

been popularly constructed as an irrational,

racialization of Muslims and Arabs stems from the

a legacy of the history of race relations in this country. Likewise,

Otherness is determined is through a

In addition to eroding the First Amendments free speech rights of Muslims

federal government views Muslims and Middle Eastern

greatly increases the chances that alleged suspects fit the

entrapment defense has never been successfully used in terrorism

To the FBI it was never meant to be actual surveillance,

They said, if it would enhance the intelligence, go

was involved in one of the most

Such actions have led Muslim civil rights groups to wonder if

But Monteilh has regrets now about his involvement in

Monteilh said the FBI should

was tasked with befriending Muslims and blanket recording their

and any concerns over civil rights

Monteilh ended up traumatising the

Monteilh was instead reported to the FBI as a

What is not in doubt is

Structural racism is a controlling impact that shapes how

Structural Racism in the U.S. is

The limitations imposed on people of color by poverty, subservience, and

the walls of racism

and worldwide conquest and colonialism, of military buildups and violent

For the sake of the world and