CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2015-2016
CDL Core Files
Supplement
Researched by Hanna Nasser, Alix Dahl, Roman Motley, and
David Song
Resolved: The United States federal
government should substantially curtail its
domestic surveillance
S
1
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Core Files Supplement Table of Contents
STINGRAY NEGATIVE - 2NC/1NR HARMS EXTENSIONS
2NC/1NR EXTENSIONS TO HARMS (RACIAL PROFILING)
2NC/1NR EXTENSIONS TO HARMS (DEMOCRACY)
4
5
6
NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS 1AC – SOLVENCY
NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS 1AC – SOLVENCY
8
9
NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS AFFIRMATIVE – 2AC SOLVENCY EXTENSIONS
NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS AFFIRMATIVE – 2AC SOLVENCY EXTENSIONS
11
12
NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS NEGATIVE – 2NC/1NR EXTENSIONS
2NC/1NR EXTENSIONS – HARMS (RACISM)
2NC/1NR EXTENSIONS – HARMS (PRIVACY)
2NC/1NR EXTENSIONS – SOLVENCY
13
14
15
17
CRITICAL SURVEILLANCE AFFIRMATIVE – SAFETY DISADVANTAGE 2AC
CRITICAL SURVEILLANCE AFFIRMATIVE – SAFETY DISADVANTAGE 2AC
18
19
CRITICAL SURVEILLANCE NEG – 2NC/1NR EXTENSIONS
2NC/1NR ON-CASE EXTENSIONS
2NC/1NR ON-CASE EXTENSIONS
2NC/1NR FRAMEWORK EXTENSIONS
2NC/1NR OVERVIEW
2NC/1NR ANSWERS TO: “WE SHOULD LEARN ABOUT CPS SURVEILLANCE”
2NC/1NR ANSWERS TO: “US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ROLE PLAYING BAD”
2NC/1NR EXTENSIONS – SAFETY DISADVANTAGE
2NC/1NR EXTENSIONS – SAFETY DISADVANTAGE
21
22
23
26
27
28
32
35
36
HILLARY DISADVANTAGE UPDATES
37
**ELECTIONS DISADVANTAGE NEGATIVE (UPDATED)
38
1NC HILLARY GOOD
**UNIQUENESS- HILLARY GOOD
UNIQUENESS- HILLARY GOOD- ANSWERS TO: BERNIE SANDERS
2NC/1NR- UNIQUENESS WALL- HILLARY GOOD
**LINKS- HILLARY GOOD
LINK WALL- DRONE AFFIRMATIVE
LINK WALL- STINGRAY AFFIRMATIVE
LINK WALL- SECURITY LETTERS AFFIRMATIVE
2NC/1NR ANSWERS TO: NO LINK – SURVEILLANCE POLICY NOT KEY TO ELECTION
2NC/1NR ANSWER TO: NO LINK – ELECTION TOO FAR OFF
2NC/1NR ANSWER TO: IMPACT TURN – IRAN DEAL
**IMPACTS- HILLARY GOOD
39
42
43
45
47
48
52
53
54
56
57
62
**ELECTIONS DISADVANTAGE AFFIRMATIVE (UPDATED)
68
**2AC BLOCKS
69
S
2
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2AC HILLARY GOOD- LINK TURN STRATEGY
2AC HILLARY GOOD – IMPACT TURN STRATEGY
**A2- HILLARY GOOD- 1AR EXTENSIONS
1AR HILLARY GOOD – NON-UNIQUE: HILLARY LOSES NOW (BERNIE SANDERS)
1AR HILLARY GOOD – NON-UNIQUE: HILLARY LOSES NOW (GENERAL ELECTION)
1AR HILLARY GOOD – NO LINK – SURVEILLANCE DOESN’T SWING VOTES
1AR HILLARY GOOD – LINK TURN – SURVEILLANCE REFORM IS POPULAR
1AR HILLARY GOOD – IMPACT TURN – IRAN DEAL BAD
HILLARY GOOD – IMPACT TURN – OTHER POLICIES (2AC OPTIONS)
70
74
77
78
80
82
83
85
87
FEMINIST KRITIK OF PRIVACY – NEGATIVE
1NC SHELL
LINK-STINGRAY
LINK-NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS
LINK – SCHOOL SURVEILLANCE
LINK – DRONES
2NC/1NR – ANSWERS TO “AFF OUTWEIGHS, KRITIK CAN’T SOLVE”
2NC/1NR – ANSWERS TO “NO ALTERNATIVE”
2NC/1NR ROOT CAUSE
2NC/1NR ANSWERS TO: “PRIVACY GOOD IMPACT TURN”
2NC/1NR ANSWERS TO: PERMUTATION
2NC/1NR IMPACT EXTENSIONS
89
90
94
96
97
98
99
102
105
107
108
110
AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS TO FEMINIST PRIVACY KRITIK
2AC ANSWERS TO FEMINIST PRIVACY KRITIK
1AR EXTENSIONS TO PERMUTATION
1AR EXTENSIONS TO NO ALTERNATIVE
1AR EXTENSIONS TO PRIVACY GOOD - DEMOCRACY
111
112
116
117
118
S
3
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Stingray Negative - 2NC/1NR Harms Extensions
S
4
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Extensions to Harms (Racial Profiling)
Extend our 1NC Stone evidence – they can’t solve for racial profiling because
scientific studies prove that racial profiling will continue to happen
subconsciously by law enforcement. Group their responses.
First, they say that surveillance is racist and unjust, but it’s not a problem they
can solve for with the plan because they can’t change underlying stereotypes.
Second, racist surveillance by the government and corporations is inevitable
and has happened throughout our history – people of color don’t trust or want
the privacy rights the affirmative talks about
Cyril ’15 Cyril, Malkia A.- Malkia Amala Cyril is founder and executive director of the Center for
Media Justice (CMJ) and co-founder of the Media Action Grassroots Network, a national
network of 175 organizations working to ensure media access, rights, and representation for
marginalized communities. April 15 2015 “Black America’s State of Surveillance”
http://www.progressive.org/news/2015/03/188074/black-americas-state-surveillance. July 7,
2015
Today, media reporting on government surveillance is laser-focused on the revelations by
Edward Snowden that millions of Americans were being spied on by the NSA. Yet my mother’s
visit from the FBI reminds me that, from the slave pass system to laws that deputized white
civilians as enforcers of Jim Crow, black people and other people of color have lived for
centuries with surveillance practices aimed at maintaining a racial hierarchy. It’s time for
journalists to tell a new story that does not start the clock when privileged classes learn they are
targets of surveillance. We need to understand that data has historically been overused to
repress dissidence, monitor perceived criminality, and perpetually maintain an impoverished
underclass. In an era of big data, the Internet has increased the speed and secrecy of data
collection. Thanks to new surveillance technologies, law enforcement agencies are now able to
collect massive amounts of indiscriminate data. Yet legal protections and policies have not
caught up to this technological advance. Concerned advocates see mass surveillance as the
problem and protecting privacy as the goal. Targeted surveillance is an obvious answer—it may
be discriminatory, but it helps protect the privacy perceived as an earned privilege of the
inherently innocent. The trouble is, targeted surveillance frequently includes the indiscriminate
collection of the private data of people targeted by race but not involved in any crime. For
targeted communities, there is little to no expectation of privacy from government or
corporate surveillance. Instead, we are watched, either as criminals or as consumers. We do
not expect policies to protect us. Instead, we’ve birthed a complex and coded culture—from
jazz to spoken dialects—in order to navigate a world in which spying, from AT&T and Walmart
to public benefits programs and beat cops on the block, is as much a part of our built
environment as the streets covered in our blood.
Third, extend our 1NC Houston Police Department evidence – this is a better source because
it’s a police department itself admitting examples of the many ways it currently engages in
racial discrimination against minorities unrelated to cell phones.
S
5
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Extensions to Harms (Democracy)
Extend our 1NC Zetter evidence – it’s the only evidence that actually describes
the technology being used and cites an ACLU technology expert (someone who
is an expert in civil liberties), who admits that Stingray devices let go of all data
for innocent civilians in a targeted investigation. Group their responses.
First, there’s no risk of a wide loss of privacy if Stingray devices only affect one
person at a time who are criminal suspects.
Second, National security is more important to democracy than personal
privacy – it’s worth risking our rights to keep us safe
Debatewise No Date (“Privacy vs. Security: Yes Points” Online http://debatewise.org/debates/3040-privacy-vssecurity/#)
The most important job of government is to “secure the general welfare” of its citizens.
Security is a common good that is promised to all Americans, and it must outweigh any
personal concerns about privacy. The word “privacy” is not found in the US Constitution so it
cannot be claimed as a fundamental right. Surveillance is the secret watching of suspects’ private activities. In the past
this usually involved following people, or going through their trash. These days it is mostly electronic, with the police and intelligence
agencies listening into private phone conversations or reading emails (wiretapping). Surveillance can also involve looking at bank
account details to see where money comes and goes. All these are vital tools for tracking the actions of terrorists
when they are planning attacks. The government cannot stand by and wait until criminal acts are
carried out: it must stop attacks before they happen.
S
6
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Third, it’s impossible to make policy decisions about abstract principles like
democracy - the judge should vote for the team whose policy saves the most
amount of lives, this is the most ethical framework for the debate
Cummiskey 1990 David, Professor of Philosophy, Bates, Kantian Consequentialism, Ethics
100.3, p 601-2, p 606, jstor
We must not obscure the issue by characterizing this type of case as the sacrifice of individuals
for some abstract "social entity." It is not a question of some persons having to bear the cost for
some elusive "overall social good." Instead, the question is whether some persons must bear the
inescapable cost for the sake of other persons. Nozick, for example, argues that "to use a person in this way does
not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has."30 Why, however, is
this not equally true of all those that we do not save through our failure to act? By
emphasizing solely the one who
must bear the cost if we act, one fails to sufficiently respect and take account of the many other
separate persons, each with only one life, who will bear the cost of our inaction. In such a situation,
what would a conscientious Kantian agent, an agent motivated by the unconditional value of rational beings, choose? We have a
duty to promote the conditions necessary for the existence of rational beings, but both choosing to act
and choosing not to act will cost the life of a rational being. Since the basis of Kant's principle is "rational nature exists as an end-initself' (GMM, p. 429), the reasonable solution to such a dilemma involves promoting, insofar as one can, the conditions necessary for
rational beings.
If I sacrifice some for the sake of other rational beings, I do not use them arbitrarily
and I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings. Persons may have "dignity, an unconditional and
incomparable value" that transcends any market value (GMM, p. 436), but, as rational beings, persons also have a
fundamental equality which dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others.
The formula of the end-in-itself thus does not support the view that we may never force another to bear some cost in order to
benefit others.
If one focuses on the equal value of all rational beings, then equal consideration
dictates that one sacrifice some to save many. [continues] According to Kant, the objective end of moral action is
the existence of rational beings. Respect for rational beings requires that, in deciding what to do, one give appropriate practical
consideration to the unconditional value of rational beings and to the conditional value of happiness. Since agent-centered
constraints require a non-value-based rationale, the most natural interpretation of the demand that one give equal respect to all
rational beings lead to a consequentialist normative theory. We have seen that there
is no sound Kantian reason for
abandoning this natural consequentialist interpretation. In particular, a consequentialist interpretation does
not require sacrifices which a Kantian ought to consider unreasonable, and it does not involve doing evil so that good may come of
it. It
simply requires an uncompromising commitment to the equal value and equal claims of all
rational beings and a recognition that, in the moral consideration of conduct, one's own
subjective concerns do not have overriding importance
S
7
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
National Security Letters 1AC – Solvency
S
8
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
National Security Letters 1AC – Solvency
Banning national security letters solves immediately – only federal action works
Weigant, 2014 (Chris, Huffington Post contributor,
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/01/16/obama-should-announce-ban-on-national-securityletters)
National security letters are nothing short of an abuse of power. Their use has exploded
since 9/11, with the total issued now in the hundreds of thousands. National security
letters, for those unaware of their definition, are search warrants issued by the executive
branch with no signoff from the judicial branch. The F.B.I. can (and does) write out a
letter demanding certain information (from an Internet Service Provider, for instance, or
a phone company) be turned over to the government. No judge signs off on the order.
They cannot be appealed. In fact, up until very recently, they could not even legally be
talked about by the recipient. There was a "gag order" clause in the letter which stated
that the letter's mere existence was a national secret which could not be disclosed to
anyone, forever.
This, quite obviously, gives law enforcement officers absolute power over searching
anything they felt like, in the sacred name of national security. With no legal recourse
whatsoever. That is tyrannic power, folks. In fact, historically, it is no different than the
abuses of King Louis XVI which led to the French Revolution. Back then, such orders
were called lettres de cachet. But no matter what language you use, such non-judicial
seizure orders issued on the sole say-so of the executive power are laughably
unconstitutional today.
I'm not the only one to make this assertion, either. There have been a number of court
cases where federal judges have banned national security letters from being issued, on
the grounds that they are indeed blatant affronts to the United States Constitution (the
First and Fourth Amendments in particular). The last such judgment was handed down
last year, in fact. But somehow, no matter how many times the federal government loses
such cases in court, national security letters never seem to quite go away. Just last week, the
head of the F.B.I. was arguing against the recommendation that a judge sign off on such
search warrants -- which would be a moot point unless the feds were still in the habit of
issuing such orders, wouldn't it?
Obama's blue-ribbon commission is right. National security letters are nothing short of
an abuse of executive power -- one that the Constitution specifically addresses. There's a
reason why the Fourth Amendment exists, to put this another way, and a big part of that
reason is to forever ban such abuses of power by the executive branch of the government.
If the F.B.I. (or any other federal agency) feels it needs to search any records in any
national security case, then they should have to present their case to a judge and get it
signed off, just like any other court order. Having this check on executive power is a
fundamental part of what this country was founded upon.
President Obama should say so, tomorrow. He should announce he is issuing an executive
order (or rule change or whatever else is necessary) stating that national security letters will no
longer be issued without the signature of a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(who are cleared to handle such national security issues). Even simpler, Obama should
just announce a ban on the use of national security letters altogether, and that in their place
the F.B.I. and all other federal agencies will be issuing national security search warrants
S
9
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
instead. No congressional action should be necessary to achieve this -- Obama should be
able to change this with the stroke of a pen.
I've been calling for the end to national security letters for a long time now, beginning
back when George W. Bush was in office. It's not a partisan issue, for me. I don't care
who is in the Oval Office, such letters are a plain abuse of power and should not be
allowed in the United States of America. President Obama was forced into creating a
commission to study intelligence gathering. His commission recommended doing away
with non-judicial national security letters. Federal judges have pointed out again and
again just how blatantly unconstitutional such power is. So there should be nothing
stopping Barack Obama -- a former constitutional professor himself -- from announcing
tomorrow that national security letters will now all have to be approved by a judge before
they can be issued. It is the right thing to do, and the time to make this change is indeed long
overdue
S 10
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
National Security Letters Affirmative – 2AC
Solvency Extensions
S 11
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
National Security Letters Affirmative – 2AC Solvency Extensions
They say that National Security Letters don’t pose a risk to privacy, but…
1. Their evidence is from the Heritage Foundation, a biased conservative source
that has consistently supported civil liberties violations in the war on terror.
2. Extend our 1AC Weigant evidence – National Security letters give the
government tyrannical power and only banning them solves, immediately.
3. Trying to reform National Security Letters doesn’t work. We need to ban
them because the FBI can’t be trusted to comply with the law
American Bar Association Journal, 2012 (Sept, 1.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/national_security_letters_building_blocks_for_in
vestigations_or_intrusive_t/)
There are also demonstrated problems with how the FBI handles data it receives in response
to an NSL. Rather than using NSLs as an investigative tool, as Congress clearly intended by only
allowing them to be used when the information sought was relevant to an ongoing
investigation, the FBI was using NSLs for mass data collection. The Inspector General found FBI
agents often carelessly uploaded information produced in response to NSLs into FBI databases
without reviewing it to evaluate its importance to the investigation or even to ensure the proper
data was received. As a result, information received in error was improperly retained and
illegally shared throughout the intelligence community.
The Inspector General detailed several incidents where the FBI collected private information
regarding innocent people not relevant to any authorized investigation, entered it into FBI case
files, and/or uploaded it into FBI databases—simply because the FBI agents requested records
for the wrong telephone numbers or for the wrong time periods. In two other incidents,
information for individuals not relevant to FBI investigations was uploaded into FBI databases,
even though the FBI case agent had written on the face of the documents: “Individual account
records not relevant to this matter. New subscriber not related to subject. Don’t upload.”
Similarly, agents consistently failed to report or recognize when they received information from
NSL recipients that was beyond the scope of the NSL request. Agents self-reported the
overproduction of unauthorized information in only four of the 557 instances the Inspector
General identified.
Congress foresaw some of these information-sharing and accuracy problems. In 2006, it voted
to reauthorize other portions of the Patriot Act that were scheduled to expire. That legislation
required the attorney general and director of national intelligence to study whether
minimization requirements were feasible in the context of NSLs. The report was due in February
2007, and to date there is still no public information confirming that this report was ever sent to
Congress, or even written. However, during the Patriot reauthorization efforts of 2009-2011,
members of Congress did state that some sort of internal minimization procedures were
voluntarily adopted. Without public oversight, the effectiveness of these internal procedures
in protecting the rights of innocent Americans remains in doubt. As the NSL saga reveals,
internal controls unchecked by independent oversight are insufficient to prevent abuse.
S 12
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
National Security Letters Negative – 2NC/1NR
Extensions
S 13
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Extensions – Harms (Racism)
Extend our 1NC Debatewise evidence – Privacy isn’t guaranteed by the
Constitution and shouldn’t come before the government’s primary
responsibility to keep us safe. Group their responses.
First, the Constitution doesn’t say that privacy comes before our national
security. We can’t have freedom unless we’re free from violence.
Second, racist surveillance by the government and corporations is inevitable
and has happened throughout our history – people of color don’t trust or want
the privacy rights the affirmative talks about
Cyril ’15 Cyril, Malkia A.- Malkia Amala Cyril is founder and executive director of the Center for
Media Justice (CMJ) and co-founder of the Media Action Grassroots Network, a national
network of 175 organizations working to ensure media access, rights, and representation for
marginalized communities. April 15 2015 “Black America’s State of Surveillance”
http://www.progressive.org/news/2015/03/188074/black-americas-state-surveillance. July 7,
2015
Today, media reporting on government surveillance is laser-focused on the revelations by
Edward Snowden that millions of Americans were being spied on by the NSA. Yet my mother’s
visit from the FBI reminds me that, from the slave pass system to laws that deputized white
civilians as enforcers of Jim Crow, black people and other people of color have lived for
centuries with surveillance practices aimed at maintaining a racial hierarchy. It’s time for
journalists to tell a new story that does not start the clock when privileged classes learn they are
targets of surveillance. We need to understand that data has historically been overused to
repress dissidence, monitor perceived criminality, and perpetually maintain an impoverished
underclass. In an era of big data, the Internet has increased the speed and secrecy of data
collection. Thanks to new surveillance technologies, law enforcement agencies are now able to
collect massive amounts of indiscriminate data. Yet legal protections and policies have not
caught up to this technological advance. Concerned advocates see mass surveillance as the
problem and protecting privacy as the goal. Targeted surveillance is an obvious answer—it may
be discriminatory, but it helps protect the privacy perceived as an earned privilege of the
inherently innocent. The trouble is, targeted surveillance frequently includes the indiscriminate
collection of the private data of people targeted by race but not involved in any crime. For
targeted communities, there is little to no expectation of privacy from government or
corporate surveillance. Instead, we are watched, either as criminals or as consumers. We do
not expect policies to protect us. Instead, we’ve birthed a complex and coded culture—from
jazz to spoken dialects—in order to navigate a world in which spying, from AT&T and Walmart
to public benefits programs and beat cops on the block, is as much a part of our built
environment as the streets covered in our blood.
S 14
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Extensions – Harms (Privacy)
Extend our 1NC Heritage Foundation evidence – National Security letters are
not used abusively. Group their responses
First, there’s no evidence National Security letter are actually being used to
violate citizens’ rights on a wide basis.
Second, without National Security Letters, the director of the FBI says national
security investigations will become too difficult to be effective
New York Times, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/obama-seeks-balance-inplan-for-spy-programs.html?ref=us&_r=3
The challenge was brought into stark relief on Thursday when James B. Comey, who is the
director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and was recently appointed by Mr. Obama,
went public with his objections to a recommendation of a presidential review group. The panel
suggested requiring court review of so-called national security letters compelling businesses,
under a gag order, to turn over records about customer communications and financial
transactions.
“What worries me about their suggestion that we impose a judicial procedure on N.S.L.’s is that
it would actually make it harder for us to do national security investigations than bank fraud
investigations,” Mr. Comey said. He added, “I just don’t know why you would make it harder to
get an N.S.L. than a grand jury subpoena,” calling the letters “a very important tool that is
essential to the work we do.
Third, it’s impossible to make policy decisions about abstract principles like
privacy - the judge should vote for the team whose policy saves the most
amount of lives, this is the most ethical framework for the debate
Cummiskey 1990 David, Professor of Philosophy, Bates, Kantian Consequentialism, Ethics
100.3, p 601-2, p 606, jstor
We must not obscure the issue by characterizing this type of case as the sacrifice of individuals
for some abstract "social entity." It is not a question of some persons having to bear the cost for
some elusive "overall social good." Instead, the question is whether some persons must bear the
inescapable cost for the sake of other persons. Nozick, for example, argues that "to use a person in this way does
not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has."30 Why, however, is
this not equally true of all those that we do not save through our failure to act? By
emphasizing solely the one who
must bear the cost if we act, one fails to sufficiently respect and take account of the many other
separate persons, each with only one life, who will bear the cost of our inaction. In such a situation,
what would a conscientious Kantian agent, an agent motivated by the unconditional value of rational beings, choose? We have a
duty to promote the conditions necessary for the existence of rational beings, but both choosing to act
and choosing not to act will cost the life of a rational being. Since the basis of Kant's principle is "rational nature exists as an end-in-
S 15
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
itself' (GMM, p. 429), the reasonable solution to such a dilemma involves promoting, insofar as one can, the conditions necessary for
rational beings.
If I sacrifice some for the sake of other rational beings, I do not use them arbitrarily
and I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings. Persons may have "dignity, an unconditional and
incomparable value" that transcends any market value (GMM, p. 436), but, as rational beings, persons also have a
fundamental equality which dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others.
The formula of the end-in-itself thus does not support the view that we may never force another to bear some cost in order to
benefit others.
If one focuses on the equal value of all rational beings, then equal consideration
dictates that one sacrifice some to save many. [continues] According to Kant, the objective end of moral action is
the existence of rational beings. Respect for rational beings requires that, in deciding what to do, one give appropriate practical
consideration to the unconditional value of rational beings and to the conditional value of happiness. Since agent-centered
constraints require a non-value-based rationale, the most natural interpretation of the demand that one give equal respect to all
rational beings lead to a consequentialist normative theory. We have seen that there
is no sound Kantian reason for
abandoning this natural consequentialist interpretation. In particular, a consequentialist interpretation does
not require sacrifices which a Kantian ought to consider unreasonable, and it does not involve doing evil so that good may come of
it. It
simply requires an uncompromising commitment to the equal value and equal claims of all
rational beings and a recognition that, in the moral consideration of conduct, one's own
subjective concerns do not have overriding importance
S 16
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Extensions – Solvency
Extend our 1NC Heritage Foundation evidence – National Security Letters are
used carefully and pose little threat to privacy. Group their responses.
First, the scope of National Security letters is narrow and banning them doesn’t
affect privacy very much as a result.
Second, if we banned National Security letters, it would make it too difficult for
the government to work with private companies to get and store data for
investigations
New York Times, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/obama-seeks-balance-inplan-for-spy-programs.html?ref=us&_r=3
Much of the discussion centered on the metadata program. “The critical question at the end of
the day is if the program has some value, how is that weighed against the cost of collecting
millions and millions of domestic call records of the American people?” asked Representative
Adam Schiff, Democrat of California and a member of the Intelligence Committee. Even if Mr.
Obama shifts storage of such data, officials have debated whether each telecommunications
company should keep its own or a single consortium should be created to house all of it. Some
officials complained it would be inefficient if the N.S.A. had to go to individual companies
each time it wanted to search for a number, while critics like Mr. Schiff said creating a
consortium would be pointless because it would be seen as a de facto arm of the N.S.A.
S 17
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Critical Surveillance Affirmative – Safety
Disadvantage 2AC
S 18
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Critical Surveillance Affirmative – Safety Disadvantage 2AC
1. No risk of their link – CPS schools are much safer now. Their evidence is
too old.
DNA Info 2014- Ted Cox, “CPS Has Safest Year Ever, Study Says; 'Nothing to Celebrate':
Critics” http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140702/bronzeville/cps-has-safest-year-everstudy-says-nothing-celebrate-critics
The mayor praised what a study called the
to predict violence in the streets.
safest school year on record, just over a year after school closings led many
"The fears, justifiably raised, did not bear out," Mayor Rahm Emanuel said after a wide-ranging roundtable on
Chicago Public Schools issues Wednesday at Police Headquarters.
The mayor and CPS Security Chief Jadine Chou touted a University of Chicago Crime Lab study showing that 2013-14 was what Chou
called "the safest school year since we have started tracking student safety in 2007." According
to the study, out-ofschool suspensions, referrals for expulsions and in-school arrests all declined by more than 30
percent, and 49 fewer CPS students were victims of shootings, with 12 fewer student
homicides than the year before, down from 36 to 24. "Our gains in safety are translating to
gains in the classroom," Chou added, pointing to figures showing that 82 percent of freshmen
are on track to graduate in three more years, and the district graduation rate for seniors rose to
65 percent, up 7 percent since Emanuel took office in 2011. She said there were no major incidents along Safe
Passage routes involving students going to or from school before or immediately after classes.
2. No link: Cameras don’t prevent violence – studies show
Kelsey et al, 2007 (http://iriglobal.com/PDF/School%20Security/07-0101SurveillanceInSchools-UI.pdf, Education students at University of Illinois Curriculum, Technology,
and Educational Reform Program)
Equally important is the question of effectiveness. "'Will it let an administrator know who did what? Sure,' said
William
Behre, an assistant professor at the College of New Jersey's Department of Special Education.
'Will it stop violence in any significant way? I don't think so.' He also noted that Columbine High
School used surveillance cameras" (Oakes, 2000, ¶ 7). Behre was a researcher in a University of
Michigan study that studied violence in Midwestern schools and how the school administration responded.
Opponents to cameras claim that as passive control devices, they won't be as effective in
preventing violence as an adult would be.
3. Turn - Cameras are used for profiling students in a discriminatory way
Kelsey et al, 2007 (http://iriglobal.com/PDF/School%20Security/07-0101SurveillanceInSchools-UI.pdf, Education students at University of Illinois Curriculum, Technology,
and Educational Reform Program)
Another disturbing thought is that adults with access to the surveillance system will use it for
profiling purposes. "What assurances can be made that a student will not be unfairly targeted
for surveillance because of their race, sexual orientation, gender, appearance, or religious
beliefs" (Sanfilippo, 2002, ¶ 10)? Students have the concern they will be individually tracked by
S 19
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
school administration (Security cameras...). In The Four Problems With Public Video Surveillance, the American Civil
Liberties Union urges "a consensus on limits for the capability of public CCTV systems" and "legally enforceable rules for the
operation of such systems" (The four problems, Section 3 subheadings).
We turn their school culture arguments – cameras lead to low student morale and distrust, which hurts learning
Finally, there
is the question of how a surveillance system affects student morale. "When
schools turn to technology as a 'quick fix,' there is a high risk of reinforcing a climate of fear
and distrust, undermining the social ecology of the school, instead of actually having an
impact on the identified problem" (Schneider, 2001, ¶ 33). "What's wrong with the school? Have they lost the trust in
their own students to a point that they have to spy on their lives" (Security cameras..., Con column, ¶ 2)? "There's no
indication that there's a need for this kind of prison-style security. The message it sends to
students is 'We don't trust you, and everybody is a suspect'" (Golden, as quoted in ACLU protests..., ¶ 6).
"The more restrictions schools impose on students, the more alienated students are likely to
feel, and the less involved in the learning process" (ACLU urges..., ¶ 5). "The cameras are teaching
that government can and will invade your private space" (Willis, as quoted in Virginia school..., ¶ 11).
"Heavy-handed school search policies foster distrust between students and administrators . An
encounter pursuant to an expansive school search policy is likely to impress upon a student that he or she is inherently
untrustworthy or that people who have authority may wield it without regard to individual liberties" (McIntyre, as quoted in
Reutter, ¶ 5).
4. This links to our entire 1AC – even if they’re right that surveillance can be safer, students
still feel disempowered and have no ability to become activist intellectuals when they are
subject to schools that are run like prisons
S 20
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Critical Surveillance Neg – 2NC/1NR Extensions
S 21
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR On-Case Extensions
S 22
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR On-Case Extensions
Extend our 1NC Galloway and Eijkman evidence – their affirmative can’t raise
awareness about CPS surveillance because they don’t come to the table with an
idea we can debate about. Group their responses.
First, they can’t solve because their voices will get shut out – history proves
revolutionary points of view only create change if they present a reasonable
point of dialogue for the community to start with. They start out too radical and
reject the idea that the government can do any good.
Second, policy-based debate is key of solving all of the social problems they
identify. They can’t solve without engaging democratic institutions and
working within the language of politics
Lundberg 2010 Christian O. Lundberg Professor of Communications @ University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, “Tradition of Debate in North Carolina” in Navigating Opportunity: Policy
Debate in the 21st Century By Allan D. Louden, p311
The second major problem with the critique that identifies a naivety in articulating debate and democracy is that it presumes that the primary pedagogical
outcome of debate is speech capacities. But the
democratic capacities built by debate are not limited to
speech—as indicated earlier, debate builds capacity for critical thinking , analysis of public claims, informed
decision making, and better public judgment. If the picture of modem political life that underwrites this critique of debate is a
pessimistic view of increasingly labyrinthine and bureaucratic administrative politics, rapid scientific and
technological change outpacing the capacities of the citizenry to comprehend them, and ever-expanding insular special-interest- and money-driven
politics, it
is a puzzling solution , at best, to argue that these conditions warrant giving up on
debate. If democracy is open to rearticulation , it is open to rearticulation precisely because as the challenges of modern
political life proliferate, the citizenry's capacities can change, which is one of the primary reasons that theorists of democracy such as Ocwey in The
Public awl Its Problems place such a high premium on education (Dewey 1988,63, 154).
Debate provides an indispensible
form of education in the modem articulation of democracy because it builds precisely the skills
that allow the citizenry to research and be informed about policy decisions that impact them, to son
rhroueh and evaluate the evidence for and relative merits of arguments for and against a policy in an increasingly infonnation-rich environment, and to
prioritize their time and political energies toward policies that matter the most to them. ¶ The merits of debate as a tool for building democratic capacitybuilding take on a special significance in the context of information literacy. John Larkin (2005, HO) argues that one of the primary failings of modern
colleges and universities is that they have not changed curriculum to match with the challenges of a new information environment. This is a problem for
the course of academic study in our current context, but perhaps more important, argues Larkin, for the future of a citizenry that will need to make
evaluative choices against an increasingly complex and multimediatcd information environment (ibid-). Larkin's study tested the benefits of debate
participation on information-literacy skills and concluded that in-class debate participants reported significantly higher self-efficacy ratings of their ability
to navigate academic search databases and to effectively search and use other Web resources:¶ To analyze the self-report ratings of the instructional and
control group students, we first conducted a multivariate analysis of variance on all of the ratings, looking jointly at the effect of instmction/no instruction
and debate topic . . . that it did not matter which topic students had been assigned . . . students in the Instnictional [debate) group were significantly more
confident in their ability to access information and less likely to feel that they needed help to do so----These findings clearly indicate greater self-efficacy
for online searching among students who participated in (debate).... These results constitute strong support for the effectiveness of the project on students'
self-efficacy for online searching in the academic databases. There was an unintended effect, however: After doing ... the project, instructional group
students also felt more confident than the other students in their ability to get good information from Yahoo and Google. It may be that the library
research experience increased self-efficacy for any searching, not just in academic databases. (Larkin 2005, 144) ¶ Larkin's study substantiates Thomas
Worthcn and Gaylcn Pack's (1992, 3) claim that debate
in the college classroom plays a critical role in
fostering the kind of problem-solving skills demanded by the increasingly rich media and
information environment of modernity. Though their essay was written in 1992 on the cusp of the eventual explosion of the
Internet as a medium, Worthcn and Pack's framing of the issue was prescient: the primary question facing today's student has changed from how to best
S 23
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
research a topic to the crucial question of learning how to best evaluate which arguments to cite and rely upon from an easily accessible and veritable
cornucopia of materials.¶ There are, without a doubt, a number of important criticisms of employing debate as a model for democratic deliberation. But
cumulatively, the
evidence presented here warrants strong support for expanding debate
practice in the classroom as a technology for enhancing democratic deliberative capacities .
The unique combination of critical thinking skills, research and information processing skills,
oral communication skills, and capacities for listening and thoughtful, open engagement
with hotly contested issues argues for debate as a crucial component of a rich and vital
democratic life . In-class debate practice both aids students in achieving the best goals of college and university education, and serves as
an unmatched practice for creating thoughtful, engaged, open-minded and self-critical
students who are open to the possibilities of meaningful political engagement and new articulations of
democratic life. ¶ Expanding this practice is crucial , if only because the more we produce citizens that
can actively and effectively engage the political process , the more likely we are to produce
revisions of democratic life that are necessary if democracy is not only to survive, but to
thrive. Democracy faces a myriad of challenges , including: domestic and international issues of class, gender,
and racial justice; wholesale environmental destruction and the potential for rapid climate change; emerging threats
to international stability in the form of terrorism, intervention and new possibilities for great power conflict; and
increasing challenges of rapid globalization including an increasingly volatile global economic structure. More than any specific policy or proposal, an
informed and active citizenry that deliberates with greater skill and sensitivity provides one
of the best hopes for responsive and effective democratic governance, and by extension, one of the
last best hopes for dealing with the existential challenges to democracy [in an] increasingly
complex world.
Third, activism without a topic that’s agreed upon never works – they’re the
equivalent of a sit-in protest where no one knows what they’re protesting
Shively, Assistant Prof Political Science at Texas A&M, 2K — [Ruth Lessl,
Assistant Prof Political Science at Texas A&M, 2000 “Partisan Politics and Political Theory,” p.
181-2, Accessed on July 5, 2013)
The requirements given thus far are primarily negative. The ambiguists must say "no" to-they
must reject and limit-some ideas and actions. In what follows, we will also find that they must
say "yes" to some things. In particular, they must say "yes" to the idea of rational
persuasion. This means, first, that they must recognize the role of agreement in political
contest, or the basic accord that is necessary to discord. The mistake that the ambiguists
make here is a common one. The mistake is in thinking that agreement marks the end of
contest-that consensus kills debate. But this is true only if the agreement is perfect-if there is
nothing at all left to question or contest. In most cases, however, our agreements are highly
imperfect. We agree on some matters but not on others, on generalities but not on specifics,
on principles but not on their applications, and so on. And this kind of limited agreement is
the starting condition of contest and debate. As John Courtney Murray writes: We hold
certain truths; therefore we can argue about them. It seems to have been one of the
corruptions of intelligence by positivism to assume that argument ends when agreement is
reached. In a basic sense, the reverse is true. There can be no argument except on the
premise, and within a context, of agreement. (Murray 1960, 10) In other words, we cannot
argue about something if we are not communicating: if we cannot agree on the topic and
terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas about what counts as evidence or
good argument. At the very least, we must agree about what it is that is being debated
before we can debate it. For instance, one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with
S 24
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical group. One cannot successfully stage a sit-in if
one's target audience simply thinks everyone is resting or if those doing the sitting have no
complaints. Nor can one demonstrate resistance to a policy if no one knows that it is a
policy. In other words, contest is meaningless if there is a lack of agreement or
communication about what is being contested. Resisters, demonstrators, and debaters must
have some shared ideas about the subject and/or the terms of their disagreements. The
participants and the target of a sit-in must share an understanding of the complaint at hand. And a
demonstrator's audience must know what is being resisted. In short, the contesting of an idea
presumes some agreement about what that idea is and how one might go about intelligibly
contesting it. In other words, contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony.
S 25
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Framework Extensions
S 26
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Overview
Extend our interpretation – the affirmative must defend government action.
We need to debate the resolution as the focal point of the round. Extend our
1NC Steinberg evidence.
Framework is a prior question. Clash is a pre-requisite to debate and
education in the round. Extend our 1NC McClean evidence
First, Fairness is key to participation in the activity and a pre-requisite to
education. Rigorous clash can only happen under predictable limits.
Second, Decision Making skills – we only develop these if we follow a set of
structured principles and a switch-side debate format
The impact outweighs - effective deliberation fosters portable decisionmaking, critical thinking, and advocacy skills
S 27
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Answers to: “We should learn about CPS surveillance”
They say that we can still have clash and learn about surveillance issues
within CPS, but…
First, CPS is not the US Federal Government. Our work and preparation is to
learn about federal surveillance policy – we lose the unique education offered
for understanding our identity and political agency as national citizens.
Second, switch-side debate is more educational – they should have to defend
the US federal government on the affirmative to see both points of view
Muir 1993 (Star, Prof. Comm. – George Mason U., Philosophy and Rhetoric, “A Defense of the
Ethics of Contemporary Debate”, 26(4))
The melding of different areas of knowledge, however, is a particular benefit of debate,
as it addresses topics of considerable importance in a real world setting. Recent college
and high school topics include energy policy, prison reform, care for the elderly, trade
policy, homelessness, and the right to privacy. These topics are notable because they
exceed the knowledge boundaries of particular school subjects, they reach into issues of
everyday life, and they are broad enough to force students to address a variety of value
appeals. The explosion of "squirrels," or small and specific cases, in the 1960s and 1970s has had the effect of opening up
each topic to many different case approaches. National topics are no longer of the one-case variety (as in 1955's "the U.S. should
recognize Red China"). On the privacy topic, for example, cases include search and seizure issues, abortion, sexual privacy,
The multiplicity of
issues pays special dividends for debaters required to defend both sides of many issues
because the value criteria change from round to round and evolve over the year. The
development of flexibility in coping with the intertwining of issues is an essential
component in the interconnection of knowledge, and is a major rationale for switch-side
debate.
tradeoffs with the first amendment, birth control, information privacy, pornography, and obscenity.
Third, switch-side debate encourages critical thinking and advocacy skills
Harrigan 2008 Casey, Associate Director of Debate at UGA, Master’s in Communications –
Wake Forest U., “A Defense of Switch Side Debate”, Master’s thesis at Wake Forest, Department
of Communication, May, pp.6-9
Additionally, there
are social benefits to the practice of requiring students to debate both sides
of controversial issues. Dating back to the Greek rhetorical tradition, great value has been placed on the
benefit of testing each argument relative to all others in the marketplace of ideas. Like those who
argue on behalf of the efficiency-maximizing benefits of free market competition, it is believed that arguments are most rigorously
tested
(and conceivably refined and improved) when
compared to all available alternatives. Even for beliefs that have
seemingly been ingrained in consensus opinion or in cases where the public at-large is unlikely to accept a particular position, it has been argued that they
the greatest benefit of switching
sides, which goes to the heart of contemporary debate, is its inducement of critical
should remain open for public discussion and deliberation (Mill, 1975). Along these lines,
thinking . Defined as "reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do" (Ennis, 1987, p.10), critical
thinking learned through debate teaches students not just how advocate and argue, but
S 28
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
how to decide as well. Each and every student, whether in debate or (more likely) at some later
point in life, will be placed in the position of the decision-maker . Faced with competing
options whose costs and benefits are initially unclear, critical thinking is necessary to assess
all the possible outcomes of each choice, compare their relative merits, and arrive at some
final decision about which is preferable. In some instances, such as choosing whether to eat Chinese or Indian food for dinner,
the importance of making the correct decision is minor. For many other decisions, however, the implications of
choosing an imprudent course of action are potentially grave . As Robert Crawford notes, there are "issues of
unsurpassed important in the daily lives of millions upon millions of people...being decided to a considerable extent by the power of public speaking"
(2003). Although the days of the Cold War are over, and the risk that "The next Pearl Harbor could be 'compounded by hydrogen" (Ehninger and
Brockriede, 1978, p.3) is greatly reduced, the manipulation of public support before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 points to the continuing necessity of
training a well-informed and critically-aware public (Zarefsky, 2007). In
the absence of debate-trained critical thinking,
ignorant but ambitious politicians and persuasive but nefarious leaders would be much
more likely to draw the country, and possibly the world, into conflicts with incalculable losses in
terms of human well-being. Given the myriad threats of global proportions that will require
incisive solutions, including global warming , the spread of pandemic diseases , and the proliferation of
w eapons of m ass d estruction, cultivating a robust and effective society of critical decisionmakers is essential . As Louis Rene Beres writes, "with such learning, we Americans could prepare...not as
immobilized objects of false contentment, but as authentic citizens of an endangered planet" (2003). Thus, it is not
surprising that critical thinking has been called "the highest educational goal of the
activity" (Parcher, 1998). While arguing from conviction can foster limited critical thinking skills, the
element of switching sides is necessary to sharpen debate's critical edge and ensure that
decisions are made in a reasoned manner instead of being driven by ideology. Debaters
trained in SSD are more likely to evaluate both sides of an argument before arriving at a
conclusion and are less likely to dismiss potential arguments based on his or her prior
beliefs (Muir 1993). In addition, debating both sides teaches "conceptual flexibility," where decision-makers are
more likely to reflect upon the beliefs that are held before coming to a final opinion (Muir, 1993, p,290). Exposed to many arguments
on each side of an issue, debaters learn that public policy is characterized by extraordinary
complexity that requires careful consideration before action. Finally, these arguments are
confirmed by preponderance of empirical research demonstrating a link between
competitive SSD and critical thinking (Allen, Berkowitz, Hunt and Louden, 1999; Colbert, 2002, p.82).
Fourth, radical withdrawal from the system doesn’t produce any change – we
become better activists against school conditions if we engage political
institutions
Mouffe 2009 (Chantal Mouffe is Professor of Political Theory at the Centre for the Study of
Democracy, University of Westminster, “The Importance of Engaging the State”, What is Radical
Politics Today?, Edited by Jonathan Pugh, pp. 233-7)
In both Hardt and Negri, and Virno, there is therefore emphasis upon ‘critique as withdrawal’. They all call for
the development of a non-state public sphere. They call for self-organisation, experimentation, non-representative and extraparliamentary politics. They
see forms of traditional representative politics as inherently oppressive.
So they do not seek to engage with them, in order to challenge them. They seek to get rid of
them altogether. This disengagement is, for such influential personalities in radical politics today, the key to every political position
in the world. The Multitude must recognise imperial sovereignty itself as the enemy and discover adequate means of subverting its
power. Whereas in the disciplinary era I spoke about earlier, sabotage was the fundamental form of political resistance, these authors
claim that, today, it should be desertion. It is indeed through desertion, through the evacuation of the places of power, that they think
that battles against Empire might be won. Desertion and exodus are, for these important thinkers, a powerful form of class struggle
against imperial postmodernity. According to Hardt and Negri, and Virno, radical politics in the past was dominated by the notion of
‘the people’. This was, according to them, a unity, acting with one will. And this unity is linked to the existence of the state. The
S 29
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Multitude, on the contrary, shuns political unity. It is not representable because it is an active self-organising agent that can never
achieve the status of a juridical personage. It can never converge in a general will, because the present globalisation of capital and
workers’ struggles will not permit this. It is anti-state and anti-popular. Hardt and Negri claim that the Multitude cannot be conceived
any more in terms of a sovereign authority that is representative of the people. They therefore argue that new forms of politics, which
are non-representative, are needed. They
advocate a withdrawal from existing institutions. This is
of radical politics today. The emphasis is not upon
challenging the state. Radical politics today is often characterised by a mood, a sense and a feeling,
that the state itself is inherently the problem. Critique as engagement I will now turn to presenting the
way I envisage the form of social criticism best suited to radical politics today. I agree with Hardt and
something which characterises much
Negri that it is important to understand the transition from Fordism to post-Fordism. But I consider that the dynamics of this transition
is better apprehended within the framework of the approach outlined in the book Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical
Democratic Politics (Laclau and Mouffe, 2001). What I want to stress is that many factors have contributed to this transition from
Fordism to post-Fordism, and that it is necessary to recognise its complex nature. My problem with Hardt and Negri’s view is that, by
putting so much emphasis on the workers’ struggles, they tend to see this transition as if it was driven by one single logic: the
workers’ resistance to the forces of capitalism in the post-Fordist era. They put too much emphasis upon immaterial labour. In their
view, capitalism can only be reactive and they refuse to accept the creative role played both by capital and by labour. To put it another
way, they
deny the positive role of political struggle. In Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical
use the word ‘hegemony’ to describe the way in which meaning is given to
institutions or practices: for example, the way in which a given institution or practice is
defined as ‘oppressive to women’, ‘racist’ or ‘environmentally destructive’. We also point out that
every hegemonic order is therefore susceptible to being challenged by counter-hegemonic
practices – feminist, anti-racist, environmentalist, for example. This is illustrated by the plethora of
new social movements which presently exist in radical politics today (Christian, anti-war, counter-globalisation, Muslim,
and so on). Clearly not all of these are workers’ struggles. In their various ways they have nevertheless
attempted to influence and have influenced a new hegemonic order. This means that when
we talk about ‘the political’, we do not lose sight of the ever present possibility of
heterogeneity and antagonism within society. There are many different ways of being antagonistic to a dominant
order in a heterogeneous society – it need not only refer to the workers’ struggles. I submit that it is necessary to introduce
this hegemonic dimension when one envisages the transition from Fordism to post-Fordism.
Democratic Politics we
This means abandoning the view that a single logic (workers’ struggles) is at work in the evolution of the work process; as well as
acknowledging the pro-active role played by capital. In order to do this we can find interesting insights in the work of Luc Boltanski
capitalists manage
to use the demands for autonomy of the new movements that developed in the 1960s,
harnessing them in the development of the post-Fordist networked economy and
transforming them into new forms of control. They use the term ‘artistic critique’ to refer to
how the strategies of the counter-culture (the search for authenticity, the ideal of
selfmanagement and the anti-hierarchical exigency) were used to promote the conditions
required by the new mode of capitalist regulation, replacing the disciplinary framework characteristic of the
and Eve Chiapello who, in their book The New Spirit of Capitalism (2005), bring to light the way in which
Fordist period. From my point of view, what is interesting in this approach is that it shows how an important dimension of the
transition from Fordism to post- Fordism involves rearticulating existing discourses and practices in new ways. It allows us to
visualise the transition from Fordism to post- Fordism in terms of a hegemonic intervention. To be sure, Boltanski and Chiapello never
use this vocabulary, but their analysis is a clear example of what Gramsci called ‘hegemony through neutralisation’ or ‘passive
revolution’. This refers to a situation where demands
which challenge the hegemonic order are
recuperated by the existing system, which is achieved by satisfying them in a way that
neutralises their subversive potential. When we apprehend the transition from Fordism to
post- Fordism within such a framework, we can understand it as a hegemonic move by
capital to re-establish its leading role and restore its challenged legitimacy. We did not
witness a revolution, in Marx’s sense of the term. Rather, there have been many different interventions, challenging dominant
hegemonic practices. It is clear that, once we envisage social reality in terms of ‘hegemonic’ and
‘counter-hegemonic’ practices, radical politics is not about withdrawing completely from
existing institutions. Rather, we have no other choice but to engage with hegemonic
practices, in order to challenge them. This is crucial; otherwise we will be faced with a chaotic situation. Moreover,
if we do not engage with and challenge the existing order, if we instead choose to simply
escape the state completely, we leave the door open for others to take control of systems of
authority and regulation. Indeed there are many historical (and not so historical) examples of this. When the Left
S 30
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
shows little interest, Right-wing and authoritarian groups are only too happy to take over
the state. The strategy of exodus could be seen as the reformulation of the idea of communism, as it was found in Marx. There are
many points in common between the two perspectives. To be sure, for Hardt and Negri it is no longer the proletariat, but the Multitude
which is the privileged political subject. But in both cases the
state is seen as a monolithic apparatus of
domination that cannot be transformed. It has to ‘wither away’ in order to leave room for a reconciled
society beyond law, power and sovereignty. In reality, as I’ve already noted, others are often perfectly willing to
take control. If my approach – supporting new social movements and counterhegemonic practices – has been called ‘postMarxist’ by many, it is precisely because I have challenged the very possibility of such a reconciled society. To acknowledge the ever
As far as
politics is concerned, this means the need to envisage it in terms of a hegemonic struggle
between conflicting hegemonic projects attempting to incarnate the universal and to define the symbolic parameters
of social life. A successful hegemony fixes the meaning of institutions and social practices
and defines the ‘common sense’ through which a given conception of reality is established.
However, such a result is always contingent, precarious and susceptible to being challenged by
counter-hegemonic interventions. Politics always takes place in a field criss-crossed by
antagonisms. A properly political intervention is always one that engages with a certain
aspect of the existing hegemony. It can never be merely oppositional or conceived as
desertion, because it aims to challenge the existing order, so that it may reidentify and feel more comfortable
with that order. Another important aspect of a hegemonic politics lies in establishing linkages
between various demands (such as environmentalists, feminists, anti-racist groups), so as to
transform them into claims that will challenge the existing structure of power relations.
This is a further reason why critique involves engagement, rather than disengagement. It is
clear that the different demands that exist in our societies are often in conflict with each other. This is
why they need to be articulated politically, which obviously involves the creation of a
collective will, a ‘we’. This, in turn, requires the determination of a ‘them’. This obvious and simple point is missed by the
present possibility of antagonism to the existing order implies recognising that heterogeneity cannot be eliminated.
various advocates of the Multitude. For they seem to believe that the Multitude possesses a natural unity which does not need political
articulation. Hardt and Negri see ‘the People’ as homogeneous and expressed in a unitary general will, rather than divided by different
political conflicts. Counter-hegemonic
practices, by contrast, do not eliminate differences. Rather,
they are what could be called an ‘ensemble of differences’, all coming together, only at a given
moment, against a common adversary. Such as when different groups from many backgrounds come together to
protest against a war perpetuated by a state, or when environmentalists, feminists, anti-racists and others come together to challenge
dominant models of development and progress. In
these cases, the adversary cannot be defined in broad
general terms like ‘Empire’, or for that matter ‘Capitalism’. It is instead contingent upon the particular
circumstances in question – the specific states, international institutions or governmental practices
that are to be challenged. Put another way, the construction of political demands is dependent
upon the specific relations of power that need to be targeted and transformed, in order to create
the conditions for a new hegemony. This is clearly not an exodus from politics. It is not ‘critique as
withdrawal’, but ‘critique as engagement’. It is a ‘war of position’ that needs to be
launched, often across a range of sites, involving the coming together of a range of interests. This can
only be done by establishing links between social movements, political parties and trade
unions, for example. The aim is to create a common bond and collective will, engaging with
a wide range of sites, and often institutions, with the aim of transforming them. This, in my view, is
how we should conceive the nature of radical politics.
S 31
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Answers to: “US Federal Government Role Playing
Bad”
They say it’s bad to pretend to be the US Federal Government, but…
1. Extend our McClean evidence – without speaking the language of the
powerful now as students, we’ll never be able to advocate effectively when we
have access to real political power
2. Students who learn about government policy issues learn more skills and
become better at influencing real world policy
Esberg & Sagan 2012 Jane Esberg is special assistant to the director at New York
University's Center on. International Cooperation. She was the winner of 2009 Firestone Medal,
AND Scott Sagan is a professor of political science and director of Stanford's Center for
International Security and Cooperation “NEGOTIATING NONPROLIFERATION: Scholarship,
Pedagogy, and Nuclear Weapons Policy,” 2/17 The Nonproliferation Review, 19:1, 95-108
These government or quasi-government think tank simulations often provide very similar lessons
for high-level
players as are learned by students in educational simulations. Government participants learn
about the importance of understanding foreign perspectives , the need to practice internal coordination, and the
necessity to compromise and coordinate with other governments in negotiations and crises. During the Cold War, political scientist Robert Mandel noted
how crisis exercises and war games
forced government officials to overcome ‘‘bureaucratic myopia,’’
moving beyond their normal organizational roles and thinking more creatively about how others
might react in a crisis or conflict.6 The skills of imagination and the subsequent ability to predict foreign
interests and reactions remain critical for real-world foreign policy makers . For example, simulations
of the Iranian nuclear crisis*held in 2009 and 2010 at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center and at Harvard University’s Belfer Center, and involving
former US senior officials and regional experts*highlighted the dangers of misunderstanding foreign governments’ preferences and misinterpreting their
subsequent behavior. In both simulations, the primary criticism of the US negotiating team lay in a failure to predict accurately how other states, both
allies and adversaries, would behave in response to US policy initiatives.7¶ By university
age, students often have a pre-
defined view of international affairs, and the literature on simulations in education has long
emphasized how such exercises force students to challenge their assumptions about how
other governments behave and how their own government works.8 Since simulations became more common
as a teaching tool in the late 1950s, educational literature has expounded on their benefits , from
encouraging engagement by breaking from the typical lecture format, to improving
communication skills, to promoting teamwork.9 More broadly, simulations can deepen
understanding by asking students to link fact and theory, providing a context for facts while
bringing theory into the realm of practice.10 These exercises are particularly valuable in teaching international affairs for
many of the same reasons they are useful for policy makers: they force participants to ‘‘grapple with the issues
arising from a world in flux.’’11 Simulations have been used successfully to teach students about such disparate topics as European
politics, the Kashmir crisis, and US response to the mass killings in Darfur.12 Role-playing exercises certainly encourage
students to learn political and technical facts * but they learn them in a more active style.
Rather than sitting in a classroom and merely receiving knowledge, students actively research
S 32
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
‘‘their’’ government’s positions and actively argue, brief, and negotiate with others.13 Facts can
change quickly; simulations teach students how to contextualize and act on information .14
3. Roleplaying policymakers helps students understand abstract concepts and
learn the specific details of the political process
Shaw, 2004 – Professor and Chair, Political Science Department, Wichita State Department
(Carolyn, “Using Role-Play Scenarios in the IR Classroom: An Examination of Exercises on
Peacekeeping Operations and Foreign Policy Decision Making,” International Studies
Perspectives, Vol. 5, 1-2,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.471.8236&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
Instructors in university
classrooms today face a challenging teaching environment as they work to
impart an understanding of the international system and its many complex issues to
students. In many instances, an introductory college course in international relations (IR) may be the students’ first exposure to
international politics, not having had the opportunity to cover the topic in high school. The challenge of conveying
abstract theoretical IR concepts is great when the students may not even have basic
geographical knowledge, let alone more substantive knowledge of relations between states. In such a
setting, it is critical to be able to actively engage the students and provide hands-on activities to make some
of the abstract concepts come to life. A variety of active learning techniques have been introduced in college classrooms
in recent years in an effort to convey these concepts effectively in an alternative fashion to the traditional lecture format. These
alternative methods include collaborative learning, case teaching, simulations and other ‘‘student-centered’’ approaches (Boyer et al.,
2000:4). Although studies
increasingly indicate the effectiveness of these techniques for the
retention of materials (Stice, 1987; Hertel and Millis, 2002:4–9), it is important to carefully consider the
design and implementation of such active learning exercises and to continue to assess their effectiveness in the
classroom. This paper discusses the potential benefits to using role-play scenarios in the classroom, the steps taken to design two
different exercises, and an assessment of these exercises used in an introduction to international relations course. The first exercise is
on the complexities of ‘‘peacekeeping’’ operations,1 focusing on the interactions between the diplomats, the military peacekeepers,
and the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The context is a three-way civil war set in the fictional, developing country of
Zodora. The second exercise examines the challenges of foreign policy decision making in a crisis. The context is a fabricated
escalation of the situation in Colombia with the government requesting greater American aid to defeat the increasingly threatening
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebel forces. Students
represent a variety of decision
makers, including the U.S. President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, the Drug Enforcement
Agency (DEA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and Senate leaders. Through discussion of my own experiences in planning
and using role play exercises in the classroom, I hope to provide useful information to others as to what has worked well and what has
not, and to reaffirm the value of these exercises as effective teaching techniques. I hope that others might find the exercises that I have
developed useful in their classrooms as well. Learning Objectives The incorporation of active learning exercises into the international
relations classroom allows instructors to achieve several different educational objectives that are beneficial to the students. Although
different instructors will have different goals for
including role-play scenarios in their courses, some common
goals often include providing an alternative presentation of course materials, promoting
student interaction and input, promoting student curiosity and interest, and simply having
fun. Before creating and incorporating a role-play scenario in class, it is important for
instructors to identify what specific objectives they want to achieve by using the exercise
(Kille, 2002). General objectives are discussed in this section, and the specific learning objectives for my two scenarios are discussed
in the exercise design section that follows. Alternative Presentation of Course Materials The use
of role-playing in the
classroom provides an alternative method for presenting course materials in contrast to lecturing.
Although some materials can be conveyed well through an oral presentation, many concepts in international
relations only become less abstract when the student can apply them directly or experience
them personally (Preston, 2000). ‘‘To the extent that [students] engage in constructing new knowledge
or reconstructing given information, rather than simply memorizing it, they gain a deeper
understanding’’ (King, 1994:16). Merryfield and Remy (1995:8) similarly note that ‘‘students master content
not only by being exposed to information through readings and lectures...but also by engaging
S 33
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
in a reflective process in which they make the information their own by evaluating and
using it.’’ Since class trips abroad are beyond the scope of most courses, simulations can be used to place
students in a unique international context or position which they would otherwise be unable to
experience, and give them the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the material.
One challenge that instructors face is the trade-off in terms of coverage of material and the time it takes to conduct an active learning
exercise. Such exercises usually take more time than covering the same materials in lecture format (Boyer et al., 2000:4). The key to
using role-playing effectively without sacrificing too much content is to plan the exercise carefully to provide interactive examples of
the course materials. Frequently this can be done in coordination with a preparatory lecture. The concepts can be introduced prior to
the exercise, and then participation in the exercise provides
the students with concrete examples of
more abstract theories and ideas presented in the lecture. For example, when learning about the
bureaucratic politics model of foreign policy decision making, students are often frustrated
that the government actors involved cannot simply ‘‘reach a consensual agreement and do
what’s best for our country.’’ By actually taking on the roles of the different agencies involved in
foreign policy making, students begin to understand the underlying conflicts between these
actors and the challenge of clearly defining what is in our ‘‘national interest.’’
S 34
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Extensions – Safety Disadvantage
S 35
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Extensions – Safety Disadvantage
Surveillance is key to create a positive school learning culture
Kelsey et al, 2007 (http://iriglobal.com/PDF/School%20Security/07-0101SurveillanceInSchools-UI.pdf, Education students at University of Illinois Curriculum, Technology,
and Educational Reform Program)
One of the advantages that proponents of video surveillance claim is peace of mind for students
and staff (Green, 1999, Why video cameras?). "Security experts and administrators who use the
cameras say students and teachers seem to appreciate the increased sense of security" (Hafner,
¶ 9). Naturally this is one of the most important features of a system that schools use in
response to recent highly-publicized incidents of violence in the schools. Green argues that
although cameras are passive, information about their presence will make its way through the
community. Students and staff feel safer knowing that potential perpetrators will be scared off
by the presence of cameras before committing an offense.
Surveillance prevents theft, vandalism and property damage
Kelsey et al, 2007 (http://iriglobal.com/PDF/School%20Security/07-0101SurveillanceInSchools-UI.pdf, Education students at University of Illinois Curriculum, Technology,
and Educational Reform Program)
Another advantage that can be measured is a reduction in property damages such as vandalism
and theft (Ballenas...) ("The witness"...). "Far too often the administration can only react to
vandalism with time-consuming, seldom successful and often fruitless attempts to identify the
perpetrators" (Ballenas..., ¶ 3). "The costs [of theft] are monetary (no money for replacement)
and inconvenience (educational opportunity loss for our students)" (Ballenas..., ¶ 4). Video
surveillance systems provide a solution for these issues. "Cameras certainly multiply security’s
eyes, helping the administration to apprehend and discipline students caught on camera"
(Sauvain, 2002, ¶ 3). Cameras also provide security in hidden areas of schools that are physically
difficult to monitor (Schneider, 2001).
S 36
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Hillary Disadvantage Updates
S 37
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
**Elections Disadvantage Negative
S 38
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
1NC Hillary Good
A. Hillary Clinton is poised to win the election- she is polling higher than
every other Republican and Democratic contender and wins Latino vote
Poughkeepsie Journal, 2015
(http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/14/marist-poll-clinton-leadstrump/72273596, Sept 14)
When it comes to the general election, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the leading
in the polls among nationally registered voters, according to the most recent Marist Poll.
Clinton leads businessman Donald Trump 53 percent to 40 percent among nationally registered
voters. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, who has local ties as the owner of the Trump National Golf
Club – Hudson Valley, in Stormville, is leading his Republicans rivals with more than 30 percent
of the vote, but has 13 points less than Clinton, according to the poll.
Ted Cruz, comes in third with 33 points and Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush are tied for fourth with
30 points.
Meanwhile, a gap is emerging among Latino voters. Clinton has 69 percent of the Latino vote
compared with Trump who has 22 percent. President Barack Obama won the Latino vote in
2012 over Mitt Romney by 44 points, according to the Marist Poll.
B. Link- recent polls prove the public views domestic surveillance as a
necessary evil-the plan makes Americans feel more vulnerable to
national security issues
Pew Research Center 2013- “Majority Views NSA Phone Tracking as Acceptable Anti-terror
Tactic” http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-asacceptable-anti-terror-tactic/
A majority of Americans – 56% – say the National Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking
the telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to
investigate terrorism , though a substantial minority – 41% – say it is unacceptable. And while the public is more evenly
divided over the government’s monitoring of email and other online activities to prevent possible terrorism, these views are largely
unchanged since 2002, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.¶ The
latest national survey by the Pew Research
Center and The Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults, finds no indications
that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of phone records and internet
data have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff between investigating possible
terrorism and protecting personal privacy.¶ Currently 62% say it is more important for the
federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal
privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to
investigate possible terrorist threats.¶ These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post survey in January
2006. Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: 69%
of Democrats say it is more
important for the government to investigate terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal
privacy, as do 62% of Republicans and 59% of independents.
S 39
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
C. Internal Link- vulnerability means the American public will elect a
republican,
Kuttner 2015- Robert, The American Prospect, co-founder and co-editor of The American
Prospect, and professor at Brandeis University's Heller School
“National Security and the 2016 Election”
http://prospect.org/article/national-security-and-2016-election
So, like it or not, the
2016 presidential election will be about national security. And most Americans
and most voters will be very fearful of the threat that the Islamic State represents and confused
about how we should respond.¶ In its lifetime, the United States has faced countless threats, and it has overreacted to many. Often in
the 20th century, the U.S. government acted as an agent of U.S. corporate interests, wrapping them in the broader rhetoric of the Cold War. And the
Cold War itself led to policies that were often excessive and self-defeating, not the least of which was Vietnam. ¶ That
said, the Islamic
State is a true threat, and one that presents difficult if not impossible choices. It is hydra-headed. Lop off
one leader and 10 others appear.¶ The threat of al-Qaeda and the Taliban was easy compared to this new one. These organizations actually had a
command structure that could be monitored and disrupted. ¶ The Islamic State and kindred groups represent a throwback to barbarism, yet because of
the broad unrest of hundreds of millions of people, their cause has appeal on the ground. And the West has precious few allies in the region that can
plausibly serve as either ideological or military counterweights. ¶ Even if the West had the stomach for ground warfare in a war of civilizations, it is not
clear where the theatres of operation would be. There is potentially a band that stretches all the way from Boko Haram in Northern Nigeria, through
Libya and Somalia, into the region of Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, that is vulnerable to the most brutal sort of Islamist
fundamentalism.¶ There are three broad strands of thinking on how the United States ought to respond. One is basically isolationist. Let them stew in
their own juices. My wife taught me a terrific Polish proverb that translates, "Not my circus, not my monkeys." ¶ There are some conservatives who
espouse this view, such as Rand Paul and the Cato Institute, some lefties like Noam Chomsky who think this retribution is the West's just dessert for its
past sins, as well as such centrist foreign policy scholars as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.¶ I am a little queasy about such views because I find
the prospect of the Islamic State taking over much of the world frightening. Even if you write off the fates of hundreds of millions of people (half them
women by the way), the march of the Islamic State really does increase the chances of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of people who don't
mind blowing up the world, because they are certain that they are bound for glory. ¶ The second strand of thinking might be called Wilsonian. The U.S.,
in this view, has a duty to intervene because of the need to bring true Enlightenment democracy to regions that are otherwise vulnerable to the appeal
of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Well, based on the events of the past 15 years, good luck to that.¶ The third viewpoint we might call realpolitik. It
argues that the West needs to act against the threat of the Islamic State, even if that means getting into bed with some unsavory people -- the very
people whose dominance in the region helped seed the unrest that led to fundamentalist Islam. Are we to say that the Saudi monarchy is the lesser
evil? How about Bashar al-Assad?¶ There have been times in American history when we sided with lesser evils against greater ones, our wartime
alliance with Stalin against Hitler being the epic case. Henry Kissinger, the ultimate foreign policy realist, persuaded Richard Nixon to embrace Red
China as a counterweight to the USSR, back in an era when China really was ferociously communist as well as brutal.¶ The problem is that President
So we will go
into the 2016 election with the electorate feeling very uneasy about our national security, and
with Democrats somewhat on the defensive.¶ Normally, that would help the Republicans. Except that no
Obama has vacillated between wanting to be Wilson and wanting to be Kissinger. Whatever the policy, it needs to be coherent.
Republican first-tier presidential candidate has foreign policy experience. ¶ Let's see. Chris Christie can see the World Trade Center from his window.
Scott Walker led wars -- on unions and on the University of Wisconsin. Marco Rubio sees national security through the prism of immigration and Cuba.
And Jeb Bush has only the proxy foreign policy expertise of his family connections -- which did not perform so well.¶ Which
brings us to
Hillary Clinton. On the plus side, she was Secretary of State. On the minus side, she was
Secretary of State.¶ She is also female, which some retrograde voters associate with weak -- and she
has bent over backwards to be the most hawkish of the Democrats, a posture that could wear better than expected as more threats unfold. But
whatever you think of her views, Clinton does have more national security chops than anyone else in the field.
D. Impact - Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who can preserve Iran deal
Real Clear Politics 2015, “Earnest: Hillary Clinton's Role In Bringing Iranians To Negotiating
Table "A Testament To Her Diplomatic Skill" March 20
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/20/earnest_hillary_clintons_role_in_bringing_
iranians_to_negotiating_table_a_testament_to_her_diplomatic_skill.html
At Friday's White House press briefing, White House
press secretary Josh Earnest praised former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for helping to bring the Iranians to the negotiating table,
calling it a "testament to her diplomatic skill."¶ Earnest was answering a question from FOX News' Ed Henry
S 40
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
regarding what role Secretary Clinton had in getting these negotiations started.¶ JOSH EARNEST: Secretary Clinton
did the
difficult diplomatic work that was required to get some of our allies in the region to cooperate
with the broader international community to prevent the importation, or at least limit the
importation of Iranian oil, and that is what maximized the pressure that has compelled the
Iranians to come to the negotiating table. I think that is a testament to her diplomatic skill that we have reached a
point that we have convened serious negotiations like the ones that are currently taking place.
E. Failure to sustain the Iran deal causes global war through miscalculation
PressTV, 2013 (“Global nuclear conflict between US, Russia, China likely if Iran talks fail,”
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/13/334544/global-nuclear-war-likely-if-iran-talks-fail/)
A global conflict between the US, Russia, and China is likely in the coming months should the
world powers fail to reach a nuclear deal with Iran, an American analyst says.¶ “If the talks fail, if the
agreements being pursued are not successfully carried forward and implemented, then there
would be enormous international pressure to drive towards a conflict with Iran before [US
President Barack] Obama leaves office and that’s a very great danger that no one can
underestimate the importance of,” senior editor at the Executive Intelligence Review Jeff Steinberg told Press TV on
Wednesday. ¶ “The United States could find itself on one side and Russia and China on the other and
those are the kinds of conditions that can lead to miscalculation and general roar,” Steinberg said. ¶
“So the danger in this situation is that if these talks don’t go forward, we could be facing a
global conflict in the coming months and years and that’s got to be avoided at all costs when
you’ve got countries like the United States, Russia, and China with” their arsenals of “nuclear
weapons,” he warned. ¶ The warning came one day after the White House told Congress not to impose new sanctions against
Tehran because failure in talks with Iran could lead to war.
S 41
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
**Uniqueness- Hillary Good
S 42
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Uniqueness- Hillary Good- ANSWERS TO: Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders will not get the democratic nomination- 2016 isn’t 2008 and
he’s no Obama
Washington Post 2015 - “Bernie Sanders isn’t Barack Obama, and 2016 isn’t 2008” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-isntbarack-obama-and-2016-isnt-2008/2015/07/17/5d85377e-2b37-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html, July 17
Hillary Clinton is once again campaigning for president as the prohibitive front-runner, and once
again, she faces a challenge from an insurgent progressive outsider with grass-roots support.
Once again, while Clinton (re)introduces herself to voters in a low-key listening tour of sorts, her challenger is drawing huge
audiences — 10,000 in Madison, Wis., 8,000 in Portland, Maine, 5,000 in Denver and overflow crowds in Iowa’s small towns and
elsewhere.¶ Eight years ago, Clinton led in the polls for most of 2007, only to lose the Iowa caucuses — and, eventually, the
Democratic nomination — to a favorite of the party’s progressive base. It’s feeling a bit like deja vu. “If she doesn’t change the terms
of the race, she’s going to lose. Again,” former Mitt Romney strategist Stuart Stevens warned in the Daily Beast this month.¶ It
may be tempting to compare the race between Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to the
epic race between Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama: Sanders, like Obama, has consolidated a
good portion of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Sanders, like Obama, is raising millions from smalldollar donors on the Internet. Sanders, like Obama, is channeling the anger and frustration of some in the party. Then, it was about
the Iraq war; now, it’s about Wall Street.¶ But
that’s where the similarities end. From the perspective of
someone who worked on his campaign and in his White House, it’s clear that Obama’s race
against Clinton is not a useful example. Understanding the dynamics at play in the 2016 primaries requires looking
further back at history. And unfortunately for Sanders, history shows that there are only two types of
Democratic insurgent candidates: Barack Obama and everyone else.¶ The current system for
selecting nominees in the Democratic Party is less than 50 years old. After the disastrous 1968 campaign
and nominating convention in Chicago, the party abandoned the smoke-filled rooms of yore and shifted to a series of primaries and
caucuses. The 1972 nomination went to the grass-roots favorite, Sen. George McGovern (S.D.), who used the new rules to edge out
establishment picks Hubert Humphrey and Henry “Scoop” Jackson. (McGovern won only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia
in the general election against Richard Nixon.) In
nearly every election since then, an anti-establishment
figure has sought the nomination.
Hillary will win the nomination – history proves endorsements are key
New York Times, 2015
(http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/presidential-candidatesdashboard.html, September 17)
“Since 1980, the single best predictor of a party’s nominee is the number of endorsements
from party elites — elected officials and prominent past party leaders — in the months before
primaries begin,” as the political scientist Lynn Vavreck put it. Why? Political elites have a
better sense of which candidates can endure a long campaign, and they can influence voters
and donors by praising or criticizing candidates. One distinguishing feature of the 2016 cycle is
how few top Republicans have endorsed any candidate so far — Jeb Bush has received
endorsements from 6.6 percent of Republican senators, representatives and governors,
compared with Hillary Clinton’s 59 percent of Democratic officials.
S 43
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
History proves Bernie won’t win because he has little support from black voters
Washington Post 2015 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkeycage/wp/2015/09/17/bernie-sanderss-surge-doesnt-mean-the-democratic-race-is-wide-openheres-why/, Sept 17)
But now, Hillary Clinton’s current popularity with African Americans dramatically exceeds
black support for Bernie Sanders. These data from daily surveys by Gallup in July and August,
indicate that most black people are unfamiliar with Sanders and that he is not particularly
popular among those that recognized his name.
So the challenge for Sanders is clear: a little known Senator, from an almost all-white state,
who has been criticized by black activists for preaching a message of economic equality that
ignores the historic and ongoing circumstances entangling race and class in the United States,
somehow needs to galvanize minority support for his candidacy against an opponent who has
been extremely popular with blacks and Latinos for over two decades.
Early wins by Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire are unlikely to change that, too. Gary Hart,
whose 1984 candidacy is often compared to Sanders’s current campaign, could not translate
his better-than-expected strong showing in the Iowa caucuses and resounding victory in the
New Hampshire primary into a broader coalition beyond his white base. Nor could Barack
Obama’s early-state momentum erode Hillary Clinton’s strong support from Latinos in the 2008
primary.
Bernie can’t win Southern state primaries because he doesn’t have minority
votes
Washington Post 2015 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkeycage/wp/2015/09/17/bernie-sanderss-surge-doesnt-mean-the-democratic-race-is-wide-openheres-why/, Sept 17)
The remaining columns of the display show Hillary Clinton dominating Sanders among nonwhite voters both nationally and in South Carolina. (YouGov did not report percentages by race
in Iowa and New Hampshire because there were so few non-whites in the sample.) As the New
York Times recently reported, the Clinton campaign is looking to such strong support in
southern states with large minority electorates as a firewall against her rivals.
With non-whites comprising almost half of Barack Obama’s electoral coalition in 2012, Bernie
Sanders must make serious inroads with minority voters to have any chance of becoming the
Democratic presidential nominee.
S 44
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR- Uniqueness Wall- Hillary Good
Hillary Clinton will win the Hispanic vote- latest Univision poll proves
The Fiscal Times 2015 “As Trump Surges in the Polls, Hispanic Voters Flock to Hillary
Clinton” http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/17/Trump-Surges-Polls-Hispanic-Voters-FlockHillary-Clinton, July 17
The Washington Post reports that Hillary Clinton’s campaign is thrilled with the contrast
between Trump’s take-no-enemies approach and Clinton’s more seasoned and sober leadership
style and fluency in discussing domestic and foreign policy issues.¶ While Trump has made headlines by
denouncing illegal immigrants from Mexico as rapists, murderers and criminals and vowing to build a wall along the southwest
border to prevent further illegal crossings,
Clinton has spoken on the need for comprehensive immigration
reform, including a pathways to citizenship for many of the more than 11 million illegal
immigrants in the country.¶ Related: Ted Cruz on Donald Trump – I ‘Salute’ Him ¶ More important, though, is that –
whether or not he ultimately wins the GOP nomination—the bombastic Trump may be assuring his party’s failure in trying to woo
Latino voters.
A new Univision News poll shows that seven in ten Hispanic voters have a negative
view of Trump. And in a hypothetical matchup, Clinton beats Trump and other potential GOP
opponents by huge margins among Hispanic voters.¶ The Univision findings are part of a larger
bipartisan polling project conducted by the research firms of Bendixen & Amandi International
and the Tarrance Group to establish a baseline for attitudes of Hispanic voters on a range of
issues and candidates. Roughly 90 percent of Hispanic voters interviewed said they have heard
about Trump’s insulting comments, and when they have read specific remarks, nearly 8 in 10
say they find them offensive.
Hillary will win because of the strong economy
The Week, 2015 (http://theweek.com/articles/559639/why-economy-almost-guarantees-hillary-
win-almost, June 10)
If Mitt Romney couldn't beat President Obama in 2012 when the jobless rate was almost 8
percent, how can the next Republican nominee beat Hillary Clinton in 2016 when the
unemployment rate could be under 5 percent?
That's the big question Republican presidential candidates must ask themselves. And the
unpleasant political possibility for the GOP's White House hopefuls is that the improving U.S.
economy is, well, "likeable enough" for voters to give Democrats four more years in the Oval
Office. At the very least, the economy might be such a strong tailwind for Democrats that Jeb
Bush, Marco Rubio, or whoever else the GOP puts up would need to run a near-flawless
campaign to win.
Now, there are no economic guarantees here. Maybe the Yellen Fed will start reading too much
Austrian economics, freak out about inflation, and crank up interest rates so high that it causes a
recession. Of course, that's unlikely. The more likely scenario is more of the same, and the
slow-but-steady Obama-era recovery keeps chugging along.
Sure, the Fed probably will raise rates sometime this year. With inflation low, however, the pace
of tightening should be gradual. And even if economic growth doesn't accelerate much, it seems
good enough to keep generating gobs of jobs and a much lower unemployment rate. In a new
analysis, for instance, Goldman Sachs says the U.S. economy will add another 3.5 million net
S 45
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
new jobs over the next year and half — on top of the 12 million created since the recovery
began — bringing the jobless rate to 4.8 percent by Election Day 2016. Compare that to the
Great Recession peak of 10 percent. Even a wooden politician like Clinton should be able to run
a successful "stay the course" campaign on those numbers.
Hillary will win because of white women voters, especially on security issues
The Week, 2015 (April 13, http://theweek.com/articles/549305/hillary-coalition-why-whitewomen-play-kingmaker-2016)
Democrats can win without white women, but they will win much easier with them,
particularly if they swing just a few percent of the vote among college-educated white women
in states like Wisconsin, Indiana, and North Carolina.
How? If the election hinges on foreign policy, Clinton can pick off women who want a stable
world and a strong leader who can make sense of the chaos. If there's a turn towards the
economy, the substance of her proposals will matter. But her general appeal has surprising
strengths, too.
In 2014, 58 percent of white women said they'd vote for Clinton a matchup with named
Republicans. And among voters without college degrees, the split between men and women
was profound, which, as The Washington Post noted, is striking because non-college whites of
both genders tend to oppose Democrats. Being female — or being Hillary — confers a real
advantage.
These numbers will fluctuate. And they will drop, inevitably. But Clinton's ceiling is surprisingly
high among a particular group of voters who haven't chosen a Democratic presidential
candidate in recent memory. White women are why Clinton is in such strong shape now. They
will be the key to her eventual success or defeat.
Scandals don’t matter – people vote for Hillary whether or not they believe her
HNGN, 2015
http://www.hngn.com/articles/96445/20150529/americans-hillary-clinton-dishonestuntrustworthy-still-strong-leader.htm, May 29
While only 39 percent said Clinton is honest and trustworthy, most voters still think she would
be a strong leader.
Sixty percent of respondents said Clinton has strong leadership qualities, while 37 percent
disagreed. Voters were divided 48 to 47 on whether Clinton cares about their needs and
problems. Among Democratic voters, 84 percent said they think Clinton cares about their
problems, while 42 percent of independents said the same.
If the Democratic primary were held today, Clinton would win by a long shot. Fifty-seven
percent said they would vote for Clinton, while 15 percent preferred Vermont Sen. Bernie
Sanders and 9 percent said they would vote for Vice President Joe Biden.
Clinton also leads when matched up head-to-head against nearly every Republican presidential
potential. Clinton leads Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky by 4 points, 46 percent to 42 percent, and
leads Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida by 4 points, 45 percent to 41 percent.
"Can you get low marks on honesty and still be a strong leader? Sure you can," said Tim
Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. "Hillary Clinton crushes her
democratic rivals and keeps the GOP hoard at arm's length."
S 46
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
**
Links- Hillary good
S 47
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Link Wall- Drone Affirmative
The drone lobby is massively influential and will backlash against Democrats
because of the plan and fund the GOP
Martin and Viveca 2012 (Gary Martin and Viveca Novak, “Drones: Despite Problems, A Push
to Expand Domestic Use”, http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/11/drones-despiteproblems-a-push-to-e/, November 27, 2012)
WASHINGTON – Are unmanned aircraft, known to have difficulty avoiding collisions, safe to use
in America’s crowded airspace? And would their widespread use for surveillance result in
unconstitutional invasions of privacy? Experts say neither question has been answered
satisfactorily. Yet the federal government is rushing to open America’s skies to tens of
thousands of the drones – pushed to do so by a law championed by manufacturers of the
unmanned aircraft. The drone makers have sought congressional help to speed their entry into
a domestic market valued in the billions. The 60-member House of Representatives’ “drone
caucus” _ officially, the House Unmanned Systems Caucus – has helped push that agenda.
And over the last four years, caucus members have drawn nearly $8 million in drone-related
campaign contributions , an investigation by Hearst Newspapers and the Center for Responsive
Politics shows. The Federal Aviation Administration has been flooded with applications from
police departments, universities and private corporations, all seeking to use drones that range
from devices the size of a hummingbird to full-sized aircraft like those used by the U.S. military
to target al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and elsewhere. PATROLLING THE BORDER Domestic
use of drones began with limited aerial patrols of the nation’s borders by Customs and Border
Patrol authorities. But the industry and its allies pushed for more , leading to provisions in the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act, signed into law on Feb. 14 of this year. cuellar.jpgThe law
requires the FAA to fully integrate the unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, into national airspace
by September 2015. And it contains a series of interim deadlines leading up to that one: This
month, the agency was supposed to produce a comprehensive plan for the integration, and in
August it was required to have a plan for testing at six different sites in the U.S. Neither plan has
been issued. “These timelines are very aggressive,” said Heidi Williams, a vice president of the
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, one of the stakeholders taking part in a working group
put together by the FAA to help develop a regulatory plan. “These issues are very complex, and
we have a long way to go.” Many potential uses for unmanned aircraft, which are cheaper to
operate than piloted planes or helicopters, have been identified. Among them: monitoring
pipelines and power lines, finding lost hikers, surveying crops, and assessing environmental
threats and damage from natural disasters. The FAA has predicted that 30,000 drones could be
flying in the United States in less than 20 years, sharing space with commercial, military and
general aviation. An FAA official, who spoke on background, said “one of the main safety issues”
with drones is lack of ability to “sense and avoid other aircraft.” A September report by the
Government Accountability Office identified the same concern: “Obstacles include the inability .
. . to sense and avoid other airborne objects in a manner similar to manned aircraft.” In addition,
the GAO report said, “Concerns about national security, privacy and interference with Global
Positioning System signals have not been resolved.” FAA Administrator Michael Huerta told a
conference on drones earlier this year in Las Vegas that the agency is making progress working
S 48
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
through the issues. FAA is working with “collision avoidance experts” from the Defense
Department, NASA and private firms to determine what standards and requirements should be
set. SOURCES OF FUNDS House members from California, Texas, Virginia and New York on the
bipartisan “drone caucus” received the lion’s share of the funds channeled to lawmakers from
dozens of firms that are members of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International, Hearst and CRP found. Eleven drone caucus lawmakers from California, where
many aviation firms are located, received more than $2.4 million from manufacturers’ political
action committees and employees during the 2012 and 2010 election cycles, according to CRP
tabulation of Federal Election Commission reports. Eight Texas House members in the caucus
received more than $746,000. And four caucus members from New York got more than
$185,000 from companies connected to the business of unmanned vehicles. Rep. Henry Cuellar,
D-Laredo, said drone manufacturers contribute just as other interest groups do. “We get
contributions from media PACs, from teachers, from doctors and from a whole lot of companies
that produce drones,” Cuellar said. EDUCATING LAWMAKERS The House “drone caucus” was
established three years ago. Senate lawmakers followed suit this fall. Sen. Joe Manchin, DW.Va., co-chairman of the fledgling Senate drone caucus, said the caucus would help frame
future legislation because the use of drones “carries great potential – and great risk.” The
Senate caucus has only eight members, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. Gillibrand did
not return a request for comment. Cuellar also said the purpose of the House caucus is to
educate other members on the need for and uses of drones for public safety, border
enforcement, search-and-rescue and commercial uses. mckeon.jpgThe global market for drones
is expected to double in the next decade, from $6.6 billion to $11.4 billion, and could top $2.4
billion in the U.S. alone, said Philip Finnegan, director of corporate analysis with the Teal Group,
an independent research group which studies the industry. Growth in UAV technology and
operations is encouraged by AUVSI, which represents drone and systems manufacturers. AUVSI
firms have been far more generous to Republicans than Democrats when it comes to campaign
donations. According to CRP analysis, GOP drone caucus members received 74 percent of the
group’s donations. In the House, the top recipient was Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif.,
chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He received $833,650 in drone-related
campaign contributions. McKeon and Cuellar are co-chairmen of the caucus. Other Republican
California lawmakers – Reps. Darrell Issa, Jerry Lewis, Duncan Hunter and Ken Calvert – each
received more than $200,000 from drone firms. And in Texas, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-El Paso, a
former U.S. Border Patrol sector chief who lost his seat in the Democratic primary, received
$310,000. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, chairman of the House Homeland Security
subcommittee on oversight, received $100,000, and Cuellar received almost $77,000. The two
have pushed for drone surveillance of the U.S.-Mexico border. CRP’s analysis also showed that
companies with drone aircraft currently used by the military , but with potential civilian
applications, were among the largest donors to caucus members. Those firms include BAE
Systems, which makes the Mantis and Taranis drones; Boeing Co., maker of the hydrogenfueled Phantom Eye; Honeywell International, RQ-16 T-Hawk; Lockheed Martin , RQ-170
Sentinel; Raytheon Co., Cobra; and General Atomics, Pred ator. PRIVACY CONCERNS
mccaul.jpgSome lawmakers remain skeptical. Along with civil rights advocates, they worry over
government eavesdropping, surveillance photography and other potential privacy violations.
“The drones are coming,” shouted Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, earlier this year from the House
floor, as he warned of encroachment by government into the rights of citizens. A North Dakota
court upheld the arrest of a Lakota, N.D., farmer by a police SWAT team using information from
S 49
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
a Customs and Border Protection Predator drone over the northern U.S.-Canadian border. The
June 2011 incident began when several cows found their way to Rodney Bossart’s 3,000-acre
farm. He claimed ownership of the wayward bovines and allegedly brandished firearms at law
enforcement officials. During the ensuing standoff, a SWAT team received surveillance
information from Customs and Border Protection, gathered from a high-flying Predator drone.
That information was used to locate and arrest the farmer. The Bossart case was apparently the
first use of national security surveillance to aid the arrest of a U.S. citizen on non-terror-related
charges. More such cases should be expected, said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the
American Civil Liberties Union. “Based on current trends, technology development, law
enforcement interest, political and industry pressure, and the lack of legal safeguards – it is clear
that drones pose a looming threat to Americans’ privacy,” Stanley said. Law enforcement
agencies say drones will better protect the safety of officers and the public in dangerous
situations, and can be used for search and rescue during natural disasters. They have joined
drone manufacturers in pressuring Congress to relax limitations.
Americans support drones usage
U.S. News, 7-17-2015, "Poll: Americans OK with some domestic drones," NBC News,
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/13/12205763-poll-americans-ok-withsome-domestic-drones-but-not-to-catch-speeders?lite)//GV
This undated photo provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection shows an unmanned drone used to patrol the U.S.-Canadian border.
The planes, which are based out of North Dakota, venture as far as Eastern Washington on their patrols. Americans
overwhelmingly support the use of drones for patrolling U.S. borders, tracking
down criminals and aiding search-and-rescue missions, but they don’t want the unmanned craft used to issue speeding tickets, according to
a poll. The Monmouth University Polling Institute of New Jersey said it tested the four scenarios in anticipation of a national push that,
according to estimates from the Federal Aviation Administration, could see up to 30,000
drones patrolling U.S. skies within a decade.
The FAA, under orders from Congress in a bill signed into law Feb. 14 by
President Barack Obama, is expediting the expansion of domestic drone use.
And that’s OK with most Americans, the
poll found. “Americans clearly support using drone technology in special circumstances,
but they are a bit leery of more routine use by local law enforcement agencies,” Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University
Polling Institute, said in a statement. The FAA issued 61 drone authorizations between November 2006 and June 30, 2011, including 13 for
local police agencies and one for a state police agency. About 20 went to colleges and universities and others went to federal agencies.
Survey: World's opinion of US, Obama slips The Department of Homeland Security, through the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
in 2012 offered about $830 million in grants to states and cities for emergency preparedness. Drones could be funded under several of its
programs. The Monmouth University poll of 1,708 people called June 4-6 has a margin of error of 2.4 percent, the Institute said. Its chief
findings: More
than half of Americans, 56 percent, had read “some” or a “great
deal” about the U.S. military use of drones. The rest, about 44 percent, read “just a little or none at all.”
About two out of three Americans, or 67 percent, oppose the use of drones to issue speeding tickets. About 23 percent support it. 64
percent support the use of drones to control illegal immigration on the
nation’s borders. 80 percent support the use of drones to help with search
and rescue missions. 67 percent support the use of drones to track down
runaway criminals. 64 percent are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about their privacy if U.S. law enforcement
uses drones with high-tech cameras.
Americans support the US of drones for policing- outweighs
privacy concerns
Steve Watson, 9-28-2012, "Almost Half Of All Americans Support Domestic
Surveillance Drones," http://www.infowars.com/almost-half-of-all-americans-supportdomestic-surveillance-drones/)//GV
Close to half of Americans say they are in favour of police departments deploying surveillance drones domestically. According to
a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The National Constitution Center, 44
percent support the idea of police using unmanned aerial vehicles to track
S 50
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
suspects and carry out investigations. Only 36 percent said that they
“strongly oppose” or “somewhat oppose” police use of drones, according to
the survey. The poll also found that only one third of Americans say they are significantly concerned about their privacy being
eroded by the adoption of drones by police forces throughout the country. Thrity-five percent of respondents said they were “extremely
concerned” or “very concerned” when asked if they believed that police departments’ use of drones for surveillance would impact their
privacy. Almost exactly the same number,
36 percent, noted that they were “not too concerned” or “not
concerned at all”, while twenty-four percent were neutral on the issue, saying they were only
“somewhat concerned” about a potential loss of privacy.
David Eisner, president and CEO of the constitution
center in Philadelphia, told the AP that he was somewhat baffled by the response to the poll:
US public generally supports domestic drones
Mike Davin, 8-19-2013, "Poll shows Americans support multiple domestic drone
uses," No Publication, http://thebusinessofrobotics.com/law-policy/poll-showsamericans-support-multiple-domestic-drone-uses/)//GV
A poll conducted by Monmouth University last month shows that the U.S. public supports certain
domestic uses of unmanned aerial vehicles, particularly applications related to search and rescue.
However, most Americans haven’t heard a lot about the use of UAVs by law enforcement within the U.S. and harbor some privacy concerns.
Of the individuals surveyed, 60 percent had heard “a great deal” or “some” about the use of UAVs by the U.S. military overseas. In contrast,
less than half (47 percent) could say the same about the use of UAVs by law enforcement agencies within the United States. Nevertheless,
respondents were not closed off to the idea of using UAVs domestically . While the vast majority were
unenthusiastic about being issued a speeding ticket by a UAV,
83 percent supported their use for search and
rescue missions and 62 percent supported their use to control illegal immigration. These attitudes
mirror those seen in a similar survey conducted by the university last year. With regard to weaponized UAVs
within U.S. borders, a slight majority (52 percent) supported their use by
law enforcement in hostage situations. Fewer (44 percent) supported using armed drones to patrol U.S.
borders. When asked about privacy concerns associated with law enforcement using unmanned systems, 49 percent said they were “very
concerned” while 20 percent were “somewhat concerned.” Responses also showed some skepticism about whether federal and state law
enforcement would use UAVs appropriately, with only 11 percent “very confident” in federal agencies and 12 percent in local police
departments.
S 51
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Link Wall- Stingray Affirmative
The public is increasingly willing to allow law enforcement to spy on them if it
keeps them safer
NEW YORK TIMES 2013- New York Times, 5/01, “U.S. poll finds-strong-acceptance-forpublic-surveillance” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/us/poll-finds-strong-acceptance-forpublic-surveillance.html
Americans overwhelmingly favor installing video surveillance cameras in public places, judging
the infringement on their privacy as an acceptable trade-off for greater security from terrorist
attacks, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.¶ A week after the Boston Marathon attack, which was unraveled
after the release of video footage of the two suspects flushed them out of hiding, 78 percent of people said surveillance cameras
were a good idea, the poll found.¶ The receptiveness to cameras on street corners reflects a public that regards terrorism as a fact
of life in the United States — 9 out of 10 people polled said Americans would always have to live with the risk —
but also a
threat that many believe the government can combat effectively through rigorous law
enforcement and proper regulation.¶ For all that confidence, there are lingering questions about the role of the
nation’s intelligence agencies before the attacks, with people divided about whether they had collected information that could have
prevented them (41 percent said they had; 45 percent said they had not).¶ The murkiness of the case — the Tsarnaev brothers’ ties
to the Caucasus; the warnings from Russian intelligence about potential extremist sympathies — has clearly left an impression on
the public. A majority, 53 percent, said the suspects had links to a larger terrorist group, while 32 percent said they had acted
alone.¶ President Obama, in a White House news conference on Tuesday, defended the performance of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security, saying the agencies had done their job, while acknowledging, “This is hard
stuff.Ӧ The
poll suggested that Americans are willing to tolerate further tough measures to foil
future attacks. Sixty-six percent said information about how to make explosives should not be allowed on the Internet, where
it would be available to aspiring terrorists, even if some would view that as a form of censorship. Thirty percent
said it should be permitted in the interest of free expression.
Millennials like the NSA
Santos, Red Alert Politics staff writer, 2015
(Maria, “Poll: The NSA is more popular among millennials than any other generation”, 3-4,
http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/03/04/poll-nsa-popular-among-millennials-generation/)
Pew’s new poll on public views of various government agencies finds that a lot of agencies are
viewed favorably by the majority of Americans—including the NSA, CDC, CIA, and VA. The IRS,
however, is the one agency with a favorable-view percentage below 50 percent—no surprise here. Some of the most interesting
numbers come from views of the NSA. Overall, 51 percent view the agency favorably, and 37
percent unfavorably. Democrats are bigger fans than Republicans—58 to 47 percent. (The CIA
is the only agency that Republicans favor more than Democrats—64 to 46 percent.) And
millennials—generally thought to distrust institutions—have more favorable views of the
NSA than any other generation. 61 percent of 18-29 years view the NSA favorably. That
number dwindles down to 55 percent within the 30-49 age group, and down further, to 40
percent, among those 65 and older.
S 52
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Link Wall- Security Letters Affirmative
Americans fear terrorism more than the loss of civil liberties
Gao, 5/29 (George, Pew Research, 2015, http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2015/05/29/what-americans-think-about-nsa-surveillance-national-security-and-privacy/)
Overall, Americans hold
nuanced views on the issue: A majority is against the government
collecting bulk data on its citizens, and most believe there are not adequate limits on the types of data collected. But
Americans do generally support monitoring the communications activity of suspected
terrorists. The expiring Section 215 of the Patriot Act enables the government to collect phone metadata, with authority from a
secret national security court known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – details that former National Security Agency
contractor Edward Snowden leaked to news organizations two years ago. Also expiring are the law’s “lone wolf” and “roving
wiretap” provisions, which, respectively, enable the government to collect data on non-U.S. suspects who are not linked to foreign
governments or terrorist groups, and enable officials to monitor certain suspects on multiple communication devices rather than a
single one. Pew Research Center has been studying various dimensions of Americans’ views about national security, surveillance and
privacy. Here are some key takeaways: 1Americans' Views of NSA SurveillanceA majority of Americans (54%) disapprove of the U.S.
government’s collection of telephone and internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts, while 42% approve of the program.
Democrats are divided on the program, while Republicans and independents are more likely to disapprove than approve, according
to a survey we conducted last spring. 2More broadly, most Americans don’t see a need to sacrifice civil liberties to be safe from
terrorism: In spring 2014, 74% said they should not give up privacy and freedom for the sake of safety, while just 22% said the
opposite. This view had hardened since December 2004, when 60% said they should not have to give up more privacy and freedom
to be safe from terrorism. While
they have concerns about government surveillance, Americans also
say anti-terrorism policies have not gone far enough to adequately protect them. More (49%)
say this is their bigger concern than say they are concerned that policies have gone too far in
restricting the average person’s civil liberties (37%), according to a January survey. While Americans held this view between
2004 and 2010, they briefly held the opposite view in July 2013, shortly after the Snowden leaks.
Most voters support surveillance, including Democrats
Agiesta, 6/1 (Jennifer, “Poll: 6 in 10 back renewal of NSA data collection,” CNN, 2015,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/poll-nsa-data-collection-cnn-orc/)
Washington (CNN) Americans overwhelmingly want to see Congress renew the law enabling the
government to collect data on the public's telephone calls in bulk, though they are split on whether
allowing that law to expire increases the risk of terrorism in the U.S. With the provisions of the Patriot Act which
allow the National Security Administration to collect data on Americans' phone calls newly
expired, a new CNN/ORC poll finds 61% of Americans think the law ought to be renewed,
including majorities across party lines, while 36% say it should not be reinstated. Republican leaders in the Senate are
working to pass a bill to reinstate the law, after delays led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), whose presidential campaign has been
noted for its appeal to independent voters and younger Republicans, and other surveillance opponents led to the law's expiration at
12:01 a.m. Monday. But Paul's stance on the issue is unlikely to bring him many fans within his own party. Support for renewal peaks
among Republicans, 73% of whom back the law. Democrats
largely agree, with 63% saying the law should be
renewed. Independents are least apt to back it, with 55% saying renew it and 42% let it expire. Liberals, regardless of partisan
affiliation, are most likely to say the law should not be renewed, 50% say so while 48% want to see it renewed. About half of
Americans, 52%, say that if the law is not renewed, the risk of terrorism here in the U.S. would remain about the same. Still, a
sizable 44% minority feel that without the law, the risk of terrorism will rise. Just 3% feel it would
decrease. The sense that the risk will rise is greatest among Republicans, 61% of whom say the risk
of terrorism will climb if the NSA is unable to collect this data. Among Democrats and independents, less than
half feel the risk of terrorism would increase if the program ended. The poll reveals a steep generational divide on the data
collection program. Among those under age 35, just 25% say the risk of terrorism would increase without NSA data collection. That
more than doubles to 60% among those age 65 or older. Those under age 35 are also split on whether the law should be renewed at
all, 50% say it should be renewed while 49% say it should not. Among those age 35 or older,
65% back renewal of the law.
S 53
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Answers to: No Link – Surveillance Policy Not Key to
Election
National Security outweighs any economic considerations for 2016 for voters
Kraushaar and Roarty 15 [Josh Krushaar and Alex Roarty, political editor for National Journal, and pens the weekly
"Against the Grain" column. Kraushaar has held several positions since joining Atlantic Media in 2010, including as managing editor
for politics at National Journal, Alex is the chief political correspondent for National Journal Hotline. “GOP Poll: Foreign Policy, Not
Economy, Voters’ Top Concern”, http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/gop-poll-foreign-policy-not-economy-voters-top-concern20150414, April 14th, 2015//Rahul]
GOP poll is reinforcing Republican strategists' conviction that foreign policy will be a major
issue in 2016—one the party believes it can wield to its advantage against Democratic congressional candidates and Hillary
Clinton. The internal survey, conducted by the GOP firm OnMessage, found that security issues ranked first on a list
of top priorities for voters, ahead of economic growth, fiscal responsibility , and moral issues, among
others. A 22 percent plurality of all respondents ranked it as the top issue, compared with 13 percent who listed economic growth as
their top concern. (14 percent listed "fiscal responsibility" at the head of their list.) The
poll was conducted March 23
to 25 for the Republican super PAC American Action Network, the John Boehner-linked third party group
that spent tens of millions of dollars last election aiding House Republican campaigns. The poll surveyed 1,400 people and has a
margin of error of 2.6 percent. The
findings confirm other surveys showing national security has spiked
as a leading issue in the upcoming elections. In January, the Pew Research Center found that, for the first time in
five years, an equal share of voters rated defending the U.S. against terrorism (76 percent) as important a policy priority as the
economy (75 percent). Foreign
policy moved down the list of public concerns following the 2008
financial crisis, but the polls are a sign the issue has returned with vigor to the public
consciousness. And Republicans see the surveys as a sign that the issue is poised to help their candidates in an important way
for the first time since public opinion turned against the Iraq War after the 2004 election. "It really started before the [2014]
election, as ISIS
and their conquest really took center stage … probably about midsummer, we
started noticing that concerns about foreign affairs and defense were popping up," said Wes
Anderson, a Republican pollster who conducted the survey. "Honestly, we haven't seen that since 2004 in any real
significance. [It was present] in 2006, but obviously in a very negative way for Republicans."
Voters worry about terrorism more than the economy
Ariel Edwards, Huffington post reporter-Levy Become A Fan, 3-5-2015, "Americans Expect The
2016 Elections To Focus On Foreign Policy," Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/2016-foreign-policy-poll_n_6811176.html)//GV
Overall, Americans
are about equally likely to say the economy has gotten better over the past year as they
contrast, by a 50-point margin, they say the
threat of terrorism is increasing, as opposed to decreasing. And while the gulf between the parties in perceptions
of the economy are wide, the gap on terrorism is even wider. Republicans are 20 points more likely than Democrats to say the economy is
getting worse, but 35 points more likely to say terrorism is increasing.
are to say it has gotten worse, a more positive outlook than last year. By
S 54
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Unpopular move by Obama would kill Hillary’s campaign – we’re at the tipping
point
Judis, 2014 (John B., “History Shows That Hillary Clinton Is Unlikely to Win in 2016,” New
Republic, November 17, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120303/democrats-hillaryclinton-could-lose-2016-presidential-election)
The chief obstacle that any Democratic nominee will face is public resistance to installing a
president from the same party in the White House for three terms in a row. If you look at the presidents since
World War II, when the same party occupied the White House for two terms in a row, that party’s candidate lost in the next election
six out of seven times. The one exception was George H.W. Bush's 1988 victory after two terms of Ronald Reagan, but Bush, who
was seventeen points behind Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis at the Republican convention, was only able to win because his
campaign manager Lee Atwater ran a brilliant campaign against an extraordinarily weak opponent. (Democrats might also insist that
Al Gore really won in 2000, but even if he had, he would have done so very narrowly with unemployment at 4.0 percent.) There are
three reasons why the three-term obstacle has prevailed. The first and most obvious has been because the
incumbent has
become unpopular during his second term, and his unpopularity has carried over to the
nominee. That was certainly the case with Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson in 1952, Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey in
1968, Gerald Ford (who had succeeded Richard Nixon) in 1976, and George W. Bush and John McCain in 2008. The second reason
has to do with an
accumulation over eight years of small or medium-sized grievances that, while not
affecting the incumbent’s overall popularity, still weighed down the candidate who hoped to succeed him.
Dwight Eisenhower remained highly popular in 1960, but some voters worried about repeated recessions during his presidency, or
about his support for school integration; Bill Clinton remained popular, and unemployment low, in 2000, but his second term had
been marred by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and coal-state voters worried about Democrats’ support for Kyoto while white
Southern voters worried about the administration’s support for African American causes. The third reason
has to do with
the voters’ blaming party gridlock between the president and congress partly on the president
and his party. That was a factor in 1960—James McGregor Burns was inspired to write The
Deadlock of Democracy by the Eisenhower years—and it was also a factor in the 2000 elections. In the 2016 election, not
just one, but all three of these factors will be in play and will jeopardize the Democratic nominee.
Obama and his administration are likely to remain unpopular among voters. There is already an
accretion of grievances among Obama and the Democrats that will carry over to the nominee.
These include the Affordable Care Act, which, whatever benefits it has brought to many Americans, has alienated many senior
citizens (who see the bill as undermining Medicare), small business owners and employees, and union leaders and workers whose
benefits will now be taxed. Add to these the grievances around the administration’s stands on coal, immigration, guns, and civil
rights, including most recently its support for the protestors in Ferguson. There are, of course, many
voters who would
vote for a Republican regardless of who had been in office, but there are many voters in the
middle (especially in presidential years) whose vote, or failure to vote at all, will be swayed by a
particular grievance. That certainly hurt Al Gore in 2000, McCain in 2008, and could hurt the Democratic nominee in 2016.
It’s a very rough measure, but you can look at the shift in the independent vote in 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, and 2008 to see how the
accretion of grievances can sway voters in the middle. There are, of course, mitigating factors that could help a Democrat to succeed
in 2016. Demography and turnout are important, although not decisive. (A Democrat still has to win over 40 percent of the white
vote to succeed, as well as nearly 70 percent of the Hispanic vote.) The quality of the candidate is also important. If the opposition
party nominates candidates who are ineffective, as Dukakis was, or are incapable of moving to the center (either temperamentally
or because of party pressures), then the candidate of the party in the White House can win. Equally, if the party in the White House
nominates someone who is greatly admired (as Herbert Hoover was in 1928), or runs a terrific campaign (as Bush-Atwater did in
1988), they can win. Can the Democrats overcome the third-term hitch in 2016? If the
nominee is Hillary Clinton, as
now appears likely, she should be able to command significant support among women and minorities—two key Democratic
constituencies. Her experience gives her credibility as a candidate (the dynastic factor is primarily of interest to the press). And she is
not positioned too far to the left. But in her 2008 run, neither she nor her campaign managers displayed the political skill of the last
presidential victors. And she
will have difficulty dissociating herself from the voters’ disapproval of
Obama’s administration.
S 55
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Answer to: No Link – Election Too Far Off
Presidential election is decided based on perceptions made now
Sosnik 2015 [Doug Sosnik, senior adviser to President Clinton and co-wrote a New York Times best-seller. “The End of the 2016
Election Is Closer Than You Think”, 7/12 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/the-end-of-the-2016-election-is-closerthan-you-think-119947_Page2.html#.VaUvsflVhBc
The end of the 2016 presidential election is actually much closer than you might think. In every
game there are decisive moments that determine the ultimate outcome. We like to think that presidential
elections are dramatic fall campaigns pitting party against party, but the truth is that the most
decisive moments often occur long before the general election kicks off. If history is any guide, the
outcome of next year’s presidential campaign will likely be determined before the Republican
Party has even selected their nominee. That uncomfortable fact means that the longer and more divisive the
Republican primary, the less likely the party will be to win back the White House in 2016. In eight out of the last nine
presidential elections these decisive periods of time can all be traced back to the run up to the
general election—not the fall campaign. With the exception of the 2000 election—which was an outlier on every
front—voters locked in their attitudes about the direction of the country, the state of their own well-being and the presidential
candidates—and their political party—prior to the start of the general election. Once voters’ views solidified, subsequent campaign
events or activities simply served to reinforce their initial perceptions about the candidate and party best prepared to lead the
country. In general, the job
approval ratings of the incumbent president, regardless of whether they are running
as a proxy for the electorate’s mood and have historically been the most
accurate predictor of election outcomes. And the public’s view of the state of the economy and its expectations for
for reelection, serve
the future are the strongest drivers of the job approval ratings of the sitting president. Since 1980 there have been five presidential
elections where the incumbent had a job approval rating near or above 50 percent prior to the start of the general election. In each
of these elections, the incumbent’s party won the election. In the three instances when the incumbent president’s job approval fell
below 40 percent prior to the start of the general election, their party lost each time. Conventional wisdom has it that the 1980
presidential election was an exception to this rule, but in truth that race only bolsters the pattern. The lore from the race had Jimmy
Carter headed to re-election before his support disintegrated in the final two weeks of the election, leading to a massive defeat at
the hands of Ronald Reagan. But that analysis ignored the most significant factors that ultimately determined the outcome of the
election. It’s true that Carter led in the polls in the three-way race until the middle of October. However, by mid-May his job
approval rating had dropped to 38 percent; it remained under 40 percent for the rest of the campaign. Despite the fact that he led in
the polls until mid-October, Carter’s job approval numbers reflected the fact that the country had decided six months before the
election that they had had enough of him. By the end of October the anti-incumbent vote had consolidated around Reagan, with
Carter’s final 41 percent vote reflecting his low approval ratings throughout the year. Since
Reagan’s 1980 victory, the
media have continued to over-emphasize the significance of the general election in
presidential races. Rather than reporting on the fundamentals that will ultimately determine
election outcomes, the media continue to place a relentless focus on the daily tracking polls—despite the fact that they have
proven increasingly inaccurate over the last 20 years. The last presidential race is a good example. In 2012, reporters who followed
the ups and downs of the tracking polls concluded that Romney had surged following the first presidential debate. But in reality
Obama had already put the election away long before the Republicans had selected their
nominee. Obama’s final 51 percent of the vote closely tracked his job approval numbers that remained steady and well within
that range during the last year of his first term. It’s not just history that suggests that the significance of the general election has
diminished. There has also been a steady increase in voters casting ballots long before Election Day, with 33 states plus the District
of Columbia allowing some form of early voting. Today, every state west of the Mississippi allows early voting. In three of those
states—Colorado, Oregon and Washington—all votes are cast by mail before Election Day. In the 2012 election, nationwide 32
percent of all ballots were cast early, with an increasing number of states allowing voting to begin 45 days before Election Day. In
these states ballots are being cast prior to the fall presidential debates. There is every indication that past trends will continue to
hold in 2016 and that the outcome of the presidential election will come into focus well before the general election. During this
period when voters are beginning to seriously contemplate the type of person they want to lead the country, the Republicans will
likely be in the middle of a prolonged and messy internecine intra-party fight—a fight that the unique attributes of the 2016 election
will likely make more vocal, extreme and prolonged than the party will wish. This period
of primaries and caucuses
will be marked by a relentless barrage of negative ads by the candidates designed to drive
down the image of their opponents. At the same time, Republicans will be focused on locking down the hearts
and minds of their right-wing base voters rather than appealing for mainstream support. If these challenges aren’t enough, there are
a series of factors—when taken together—during this critical period that that will further complicate Republicans’ attempts to take
back the White House.
S 56
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Answer to: Impact Turn – Iran Deal
The deal imposes new restrictions and monitoring solve that are key to prevent
Iranian Proliferation
Cirincione 7/14 (Joe, president of Ploughshares Fund and author of Nuclear Nightmares:
Securing the World Before It Is Too Late, former director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, “A Huge Deal; This agreement will shrink wrap Iran’s
nuclear program for a generation,” Slate, 7/14/2015,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/07/iran_and_united_states_
nuclear_deal_why_this_historical_deal_is_what_we.1.html)//duncan
The deal just struck by Iran, the United States, and five other world powers in Vienna is a
major victory for U.S. national security. It shrinks Iran’s nuclear complex down to a token
capability and wraps it in a permanent inspection and monitoring regime.¶ The new agreement doesn’t
overthrow the clerical regime ruling Iran. It doesn’t change Iran’s policies toward Israel or its Arab neighbors. And it doesn’t force Iran to end the
repression of its own people.¶
The agreement
forged between Iran and the world’s powers does only one thing, but it is a big one:
It
reverses and contains what most experts consider the greatest nuclear proliferation
challenge in the world. Whatever else Iran may do in the world, it will not do it backed with
the threat of a nuclear weapon.¶ U.S. negotiators went into the Iran talks with three key objectives: cut off all of Iran’s pathways to
a nuclear bomb, put in place a monitoring system to catch any Iranian cheating, and keep together the global coalition that can snap back sanctions if
Iran breaks the deal. After 22 months of hard bargaining they have emerged with that and more. This
detailed 100-plus-page
agreement dismantles much of Iran’s nuclear program, freezes it, and puts a camera on it.¶
The deal eliminates the three ways Iran could build a bomb.¶ First, without the deal, Iran could
use its centrifuges to purify enough uranium for one or more bombs within weeks. These high-tech
machines are the size and shape of water heaters but made of specialized metal alloys. They spin uranium gas at supersonic speeds, cascading the gas
through assemblies of thousands of machines. When it reaches a purity level of about 5 percent, the gas can be turned into a powder form used to
make fuel rods for nuclear reactors.¶ Iran
says that is all it wants to do—make fuel. The problem is that the
same machines in the same facilities can keep going until the uranium is enriched to 90
percent purity. Then the gas can be turned into the metal core of a weapon.¶ This deal blocks
that path. Iran has agreed to rip out over two-thirds of the 19,000 centrifuges it has installed.
Just over 5,000 centrifuges will be allowed to continue enriching uranium. All will be located at
one facility at Natanz. The deep underground facility at Fordow that so worried Israeli planners (since it could not be
destroyed with their weapons) will be shrunk to a couple of hundred operating centrifuges—and these are prohibited from doing
any uranium enrichment. They will be used to purify other elements and be closely monitored. ¶ Furthermore,
Iran must shrink its stored stockpile of uranium gas from some 10,000 kilograms to just 300
kilograms—and cannot enrich any uranium above 3.67 percent. This limit lasts for 15 years. ¶
Together, these cuts mean that even if Iran tried to renege on the agreement, it would take it at least a
year to make enough uranium for one bomb —more than enough time to detect the effort and
take economic, diplomatic, or military steps to stop it.¶ Uranium path, blocked.¶ Without the deal there
is a second way Iran could make a bomb—with plutonium. The bomb at Hiroshima was made of uranium; the bomb
at Nagasaki was made of plutonium. Unlike uranium, plutonium does not exist in nature. It is made inside nuclear reactors, as part of the fission
process, and then extracted from the spent fuel rods. Iran
is constructing a research reactor at Arak that would
have produced about 8 kilograms of plutonium each year, or enough theoretically for about
two bombs.¶ Under the new deal, Iran has agreed to completely reconfigure the Arak reactor so that it
will produce less than 1 kilogram a year. The old core will be shipped out of the country. Further,
Iran has agreed to never build facilities that could reprocess fuel rods and all spent fuel will be
S 57
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
shipped out the country.¶ Plutonium path, blocked.¶ Finally, without the deal Iran could try to build a
covert facility where it could secretly enrich uranium. The verification and monitoring system
required by this deal makes that all but impossible.¶ Inspectors will now track Iran’s uranium
from the time it comes out of the ground to the time it ends up as gas stored in cylinders. There
will be state-of-the-art fiber-optic seals, sensors, and cameras at every facility, inventories of all equipment, tracking of scientists and nuclear workers,
and 24/7 inspections. Inspectors
will also monitor the manufacture of all centrifuges and related
machinery. A special “procurement channel” will be set up through which all of Iran’s
imported nuclear-related equipment must go.¶ This makes it extraordinarily difficult for Iran
to cheat. Iran might want to set up a covert enrichment plant, but where would it get the
uranium? Or the centrifuges? Or the scientists? If a 100 scientists suddenly don’t show up for
work at Natanz, it will be noticed. If the uranium in the gas doesn’t equal the uranium mined,
it will be noticed. If the parts made for centrifuges don’t end up in new centrifuges, it will be
noticed. Iran might be able to evade one level of monitoring but the chance that it could
evade all the overlapping levels will be remote.¶
Covert path, blocked.¶ This agreement, however, does leave Iran with
significant capabilities. It would be better if the entire nuclear complex was razed to the ground and the earth salted so it could never be rebuilt.¶ But
we are not Rome and Iran is not Carthage. Such
a deal was the preferred option of most nonproliferation
experts, including myself, 12 years ago when Iran’s enrichment program was first disclosed. But the Bush administration rejected talks with Iran,
when it had only a few dozen centrifuges. “We don’t negotiate with evil,” said Vice President Dick Cheney, “we defeat it.” That strategy failed. Iran’s
talks with the European Union collapsed; Iran had 6,000 centrifuges by the end of the Bush administration, and even as sanctions against it increased,
Iran built thousands more.¶ The interim agreement reached in November of 2013 froze that progress, and rolled back some of the most dangerous
parts, including the stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned with his cartoon bomb diagram at
the U.N. could lead to an Iranian bomb “within weeks.”¶ This final comprehensive agreement goes much further. It is cleverly crafted so that all sides
can claim victory. Iran can say with pride that its rights have been recognized, that sanctions will be lifted, and that it will not destroy a single nuclear
facility.¶ And they will be correct. The
beauty of this agreement is that Iran gets to keep its buildings and
we get to take out all the furniture.¶ Centrifuges cut by two-thirds, research and new facilities
limited for 10 years.¶ Uranium gas stockpile cut by 97 percent, no new enrichment above 4
percent and no new facilities for 15 years.¶ Plutonium production in new reactor cut 90
percent, no new reactors for 15 years.¶ Monitoring of all centrifuge manufacturing for 20
years.¶ Confinement of all purchases to monitored procurement channel for 25 years.¶
Monitoring of all uranium mines for 25 years.¶ Permanent ban on any nuclear weapons
research or activities.¶ Permanent ban on reprocessing of fuel to extract plutonium.¶
Permanent intrusive inspections.¶ These terms effectively freeze the program for longer than
it has been in full operation. It will shrink and confine Iran’s nuclear work for a generation.
The Deal creates cooperation and barriers that solve proliferation
Slavin 7/14 (Barbara, Washington correspondent for Al-Monitor, a senior fellow at the
Atlantic Council and author of "Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the US and the Twisted Path
to Confrontation,” been to Iran 9 times, “Iran nuclear deal shifts tectonic plates in the Middle
East,” Al Jazeera, 7/14/2015, http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/14/iran-nucleardeal-shifts-mideast-tectonic-plates.html)//duncan
Iran and a U.S.-led consortium of the world’s top powers have achieved a historic agreement
that should keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons for at least a decade and could lay the
basis for broader cooperation on the multiple crises roiling the Middle East.¶ U.S. officials were quick
to underline that other differences with Iran remain — over its support for groups on the State Department’s terrorism list, its
human rights abuses and its challenge of Israel’s right to exist. But there was no disguising the sense that the
tectonic plates
of international relations are shifting in promising if, for many old U.S. regional allies, unsettling ways.¶
Exhausted diplomats from Iran, the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Russia and China (the P5+1) as well as the European Union
S 58
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
finalized a 159-page joint comprehensive plan of action in the middle of the night in Vienna as the last piece of what negotiators
have called a Rubik’s Cube locked into place. This was a disagreement over how long restrictions should be maintained over Iran’s
conventional arms trade even as other sanctions imposed because of its nuclear activities are lifted several months from now.¶
Economic impact of Iranian sanctions being lifted 3:00¶ President Barack
Obama, addressing Americans at the
unusually early hour of 7 a.m., said the deal “meets every single one of the bottom lines we
established” to block four pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapon. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani,
speaking to his nation shortly afterward, declared the agreement a “win-win situation for both parties” that preserves Iranian honor
and scientific achievements while ending crippling [devastating] economic sanctions.¶ What follows is a complicated process of
implementation that will certainly be challenged by opponents in several countries but that could be viewed as an achievement as
historic as the U.S. opening to China and U.S.-Soviet détente in the 1970s.¶ Obama alluded to an earlier era of arms talks when he
quoted President John F. Kennedy, saying, “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.”¶ The essence of
the agreement has been known since April 2, when negotiators accepted parameters for a final accord. Their arduous task since
then has been to flesh out those parameters, expanding a one-page Iran–European Union statement into a 30,000-word tome that
includes five technical annexes.¶ The
heart of the trade-off is an Iranian promise to substantially restrict
its nuclear program for more than a decade in return for relief from European and United Nations
sanctions and a waiver of U.S. secondary sanctions that impede other countries from doing business with Iran.¶ Among the
surprises is relief of U.S. sanctions on selling commercial airplanes to Iran — a provision that should delight both U.S. companies
such as Boeing and beleaguered Iranians who risk their lives by flying on antiquated jets.¶ According
deal will restrict four potential paths to nuclear weapons:¶ First,
to U.S. officials, the
it will reduce by two-thirds the
number of centrifuges Iran currently has installed — from 19,000 to 6,000 — of which only
5,060 will be allowed to enrich uranium for the next decade at a facility at Natanz that is
vulnerable to military attack.¶ Of the remaining centrifuges, a few hundred will be allowed to operate
at an underground plant at Fordow but will not be allowed to enrich uranium. Excess centrifuges will
be dismantled and stored under constant electronic surveillance.¶ Second, Iran will cap enrichment at Natanz at
3.67 percent of the isotope U-235 (far below weapons grade) for 15 years and reduce its
stockpile of 10,000 to 12,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium by 98 percent, to 300 kilograms —
a quarter of what would be required for a single nuclear weapon if it were further refined to weapons
grade.¶ Third, a heavy-water reactor under construction at Arak will be modified so that it will
produce only a tiny amount of plutonium, another potential fuel for weapons. Iran will not build a facility to
reprocess the spent fuel, which will be exported.¶ These steps are intended to extend the amount of time it
would take Iran to enrich sufficient material for a nuclear weapon from three months at
present to 12 to 14 months for the next decade. Other restrictions on research and development of more
advanced centrifuges are meant to keep Iran from rapidly ramping up uranium enrichment capacity from 2026 to 2030.¶ The
fourth pathway to a bomb — the so-called sneakout — is addressed by intensified
monitoring and verification, including the resolution of questions about past military
dimensions of the Iranian program. According to an agreement with the I nternational A tomic
E nergy A gency, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, Iran will allow the agency to visit sites where
military-related nuclear activity is believed to have taken place, including Parchin, a military base that Iran
has paved over three times to elude detection of suspected prior weapons research.¶ Iran will implement the
additional protocol of the Nuclear N on- P roliferation T reaty and provide access to inspectors “where
necessary and when necessary,” in the words of Obama, if Iran is suspected of illicit activity. A joint commission will be
set up to supervise implementation and resolve the inevitable disputes.
Nuclear Deal prevents Iranian Proliferation
Tabatabai 7/13 (Ariane, visiting assistant professor in the Security Studies Program at the
Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, and an associate in the Belfer Center's
S 59
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
International Security Program and Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University, “After
a historic nuclear agreement, challenges ahead for Iran,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,
7/13/2015, http://thebulletin.org/after-historic-nuclear-agreement-challenges-aheadiran8504)//duncan
After months of intense negotiations and several extensions, Iran
and six world powers finally reached a
comprehensive nuclear deal on Tuesday in Vienna. The historic agreement accomplishes several
things that benefit the non-proliferation regime and international security. It curbs Iran’s
nuclear activities and allows the international community to verify that Tehran’s program is
peaceful. In doing so, the deal stops a 10th country from developing nuclear weapons. It also allows
Iran to take steps toward normalizing its political and economic relationship with the rest of the world. In short, both sides have
reason to celebrate. As global attention moves on, though, Iran still faces major challenges ahead.¶ What was accomplished. While
many back home on both sides have been pushing their negotiators to do better, it's important to remember that a deal can only be
sustainable if both parties walk away feeling like they gained more than they conceded. Advocates of zero enrichment for Iran have
missed this point all along, pushing for a full Iranian capitulation. Even if such a deal had been concluded—which wouldn’t have
happened—it wouldn't have lasted. ¶ The
P5+1—China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States—can
now leave the negotiating table with the assurance that they have effectively checked
sensitive Iranian nuclear activities. They have essentially closed off any possibility of Iran
getting the Bomb using plutonium , by getting it to agree to redesign the Arak heavy water
reactor, a virtually irreversible step, and formalizing Tehran’s pledge not to reprocess
plutonium. The agreement also scales back Iran’s uranium enrichment program , limiting the
activity to a single facility, Natanz, and reducing its capacity by two thirds. The Fordow plant,
meanwhile, which was a key proliferation concern, is being repurposed as a research and
development site. This step lengthens Iran’s breakout time, or the amount of time it would
take between choosing to build a nuclear weapon and accumulating enough fissile material
to do so.¶
The agreement, furthermore, includes a permitted procurement channel, so that Iran can continue working on its
nuclear program without resorting to black market equipment. This means that Iran will get state-of-the-art technology, and ensures
the international community will know what Iran is doing and how it is doing it. Last but
not least, the prospects of a so-called “sneak out” have been minimized: The Iranian nuclear
program will be heavily monitored at all stages, from milling and mining all the way through
to enrichment. The International Atomic Energy Agency will do the monitoring to ensure that Tehran complies with its
that
obligations under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and the Additional Protocol. (Iran is voluntarily implementing the latter
under the deal, pending its formal ratification through the legislative process.)¶ With this level of scrutiny,
community can make sure that Iran's nuclear program remains peaceful.
the international
It can also pat itself on the
back for bringing a country back into compliance through a negotiated process, rather than yet another military solution. Even critics
of the deal who were in favor of military intervention admitted that their option wouldn’t have been a lasting solution; some said
the United States would have kept having to "mow the lawn," with all the costs that would have entailed. Instead, the
United
States and its negotiating partners walk away with what looks like a durable and effective
solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis and a step forward for the non-proliferation regime.
The Iran deal sets parameters that prevent proliferation
Logan and Glaser 7/14 (Justin, director of foreign policy studies at the Cata institute, John,
graduate student in International Security at George Mason University, “Iran nuclear deal a clear
success,” CNN, 7/14/2015, http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/opinions/glaser-logan-irannuclear-deal-positive/)//duncan
S 60
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
(CNN)The
deal just struck between the U.S., world powers, and Iran is an historic achievement
that decreases the likelihood of an Iranian nuclear weapon and forestalls the risk of another
costly U.S. war in the Middle East.¶
But while the diplomats in Vienna are finished wrangling over the final details, the
Obama administration is by no means finished fighting for the agreement's survival. Congress has 60 days with which to review the
deal for final approval, and while Republicans may not have a veto-proof majority, they -- along with some Democrats -- remain
vehemently opposed to any plausible peaceful resolution.¶ The debate over Iran diplomacy was really two debates, in which each
side was arguing over something different. On
the one side was a strikingly broad consensus of nearly the
entire arms control community, which recognizes what the deal can achieve in terms of
nonproliferation and regional stability. On the opposing side is the Iran hawk community, which focused less on the
nuclear issue than on finding ways to isolate and ultimately destroy Iran's clerical regime, by military force if necessary, nuclear
program or not.¶ The
near-consensus among arms controllers is due to the deal's strong
nonproliferation features. Under the deal, Iran would reduce its stockpile of centrifuges by
two-thirds and dismantle about 97% of its low-enriched uranium. For 15 years, the Iranians
will be prohibited from enriching any uranium at their Fordow site and the Arak reactor for
plutonium production would be permanently disabled.¶ Throughout, Iran would be subject to
one of the most robust and intrusive inspection regimes in the world , with continuous video
monitoring of its uranium mines for the next 25 years and monitoring of centrifuge production
facilities for 20 years. Expanded inspections under the Additional Protocol are permanent.¶ As 30
nonproliferation experts attested to in a statement in April, "the agreement reduces the
likelihood of destabilizing nuclear weapons competition in the Middle East, and strengthens
global efforts to prevent proliferation , including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty."¶ Under
breakout time -- the amount of time it would take to produce one bombs-worth
of highly enriched uranium if it decided to do so -- would be extended to roughly one year, up
from roughly three months at the interim agreement's inception.¶ To review these technical parameters and
feverishly warn that the deal "paves the way for a nuclear Iran," as Sen. David Perdue, R-Georgia, and
others recently have is bizarre. Similarly, to declare as Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, recently did that the deal would produce "a
the deal, Iran's
cascade of proliferation" in the region relies on an array of interlocking dubious assumptions.¶ What these wildly divergent
assessments seem to indicate is that the sides were arguing over different problems. For
the arms control community,
the problem was an Iranian nuclear weapons capability. For them, given the one-two punch of
political reality and the terms of the agreement, the deal was a good thing. It significantly
reduced the probability of an Iranian nuclear weapon and could meet both sides' minimum
standard of necessity.¶ For neoconservatives and interventionist Democrats, the nuclear
program was but one piece of a much larger problem: a looming Persian menace that threatened to
dominate the Middle East. This explains the specious nonproliferation arguments offered in
opposition to the deal, as well as the increased warnings of Iranian "regional hegemony" heard in the run-up to the deal.¶
These sorts of arguments are tendentious in the extreme, because on their own terms they
fall short. The nuclear agreement is indeed helpful from the point of view of nonproliferation,
and Iran has no path to regional hegemony in the policy-relevant future. Instead, these claims seem to be part of a
larger strategy under which everything that happens tied to Iran is treated as a threat.¶ But the question in the context
of nuclear diplomacy was never a choice between a neutered, Israel-recognizing liberal Iran or
an empowered nuclear theocracy. It was between a nasty but weak regional power with little
power-projection capability, closer or further away from a nuclear weapons capability. And on
these terms, the agreement must be viewed as a clear success.
S 61
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
**Impacts- Hillary Good
S 62
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Clinton key to stop all global wars and problems
Hodes and Emerson 15 [Paul Hodes and Peter Emerson, Paul W. Hodes of Concord is a former U.S. representative. Peter V.
Emerson grew up in Hanover and is a member of a family that has maintained an active farm in Candia for more than 300 years. “My
Turn: Who else but Hillary can manage world’s problems?”, http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/politicalmonitor/1572281695/my-turn-who-else-but-hillary-can-manage-worlds-problems, February 22nd, 2015//Rahul]
The world is becoming increasingly unstable and unpredictable, and therefore often far more
threatening and dangerous to America and to American citizens at home and abroad. Looking but a few
years down the road; there will be less food, less potable water and fewer basic human
necessities for most of the world’s exponentially expanding population. Consequently, there will
be more violence, civil strive and war. Unfortunately, many Americans are geographically and
geopolitically challenged. Many still believe that America dominates the world and that we are
neither dependent upon the international community nor subject to events occurring outside
our borders. In short, many still hold opinions based on a world order long ago dismantled. We
are now interconnected and interdependent upon every region of the world. Thus international
stability and our continued prosperity are under attack in our shrinking world: ∎ The continued
advance of the Islamic State has already further destabilized an already precarious order in the
unstable Middle East ∎ The escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate with almost daily
outbreaks of killings and retaliation. ∎ Iran’s continued nuclear program ∎ The slowing of the
Chinese economy and the potential head-on conflict over the Diaoyu Islands in China and the
Senkaku islands in Japan. ∎ The postponement of the election in Africa’s largest democracy,
Nigeria, a success for Boko Haram ∎ Greece’s possible default on its debt and the impact on the
European Union ∎ North Korea’s continued militaristic posture and nuclear capabilities
∎ Declining crop production in critical areas around the world And the list goes on and on and
on. So what do these events mean to a waitress in New Hampshire, a farmer in Iowa, a rancher
in Montana, an avocado grower in California, a high-tech entrepreneur in Massachusetts, a
fisherman in Maine, a single mother in Harlem, a pensioner in Phoenix, a widower in
Washington, our neighbors, family and friends? It means that events in other countries, often
far away, spill into and through our borders. Americans are part of a new global order – or too
frequently global disorder – that challenges our traditional notions of American exceptionalism
and leadership. International crises that emerge anew each day directly affect the prices of our
food, gas, health care, etc. – our domestic tranquility and our national security. All these events
affect the bottom-line of all American households. So when we cut through the clutter of lies
and gross distortions of the facts – all meant to create fear – to weigh and examine who’s
capable of making a dent in these seemingly intractable problems and challenges, there is only
one person who is capable of managing them. Please note that we did not say solve these
intractable problems because that would be impossible. But managing problems and challenges,
that’s possible. Although we promised not to join the chorus of those asking Secretary Clinton to
run for president, we have taken a sober look at the world’s condition, the prognosis for the
future and America’s position in the world, and Hillary Clinton is the only one who can
manage the problems that others see as unmanageable.
But given our pledge, we are reluctant to ask her to
run for president, so we urge her to look around the world and within this extraordinary country of ours and ask herself, “Who else
can accomplish what I can accomplish?”
S 63
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Clinton key to solve global warming
Sargent 14 [Greg Sargent, writer for the Washington Post. “This one Hillary quote about climate change is very, very important”,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/12/04/this-one-hillary-quote-about-climate-change-is-very-veryimportant/, December 4th, 2014
Clinton isn’t simply praising Obama’s environmental record. She is also saying that protecting
and implementing his policies for years into the future is an urgent priority — which is to say, an
urgent priority for the next president. There is a great deal riding on the successful implementation of those policies — long after
Obama leaves office. As Coral Davenport explained the other day, Obama is currently using the 1970 Clean Air Act to put in place a
far-reaching environmental legacy that, most prominently, includes ambitious new regulations on existing power plants.
Implementation of these regulations will reach years into the future, with the eventual goal of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions
from U.S. power plants by 25 percent into the next decade, and by 30 percent by 2013. The
question of whether the
U.S. successfully reduces emissions over time has important long term international
ramifications. The success of the recently announced deal between the United States and China to cap or reduce emissions will
turn in part on whether the U.S. meets its own goals, and as Philip Bump noted recently, this could be complicated if a Republican
president takes over in 2017. Indeed, Republicans have
pledged to do everything possible to roll back
Obama’s environmental regulations, and they essentially received the news of the China deal with a big shrug. What’s
more, the 2016 GOP candidates might dig in even harder against Obama’s regs. After all, once Obama announced his executive
action to defer deportations, that immediately supplanted Obamacare as the leading Enemy Of Freedom for the Tea Party. Next
year, Obama will likely be talking about climate change a good deal more, as negotiations for
a global climate treaty get underway — hopes for which were boosted by news of the U.S.-China deal. There will
likely be court challenges to the new regs, which means more attention to them. They, too, could become another Tea Party
preoccupation — which means
the 2016 GOP presidential candidates may be expected to pledge to
eradicate them once elected president. As Ron Brownstein noted recently, climate is a key area in which Hillary will
embrace Obama’s legacy, even as Republicans line up to campaign for president by vowing to unwind it. Clinton has now confirmed
this, on her side, by vowing to protect Obama’s initiatives “at all cost.” The
battle may shape up as one over
whether the U.S. should participate in global efforts to reduce carbon emissions, and embrace
all the difficult domestic policy trade-offs that will entail, or retreat from them. Perhaps for Clinton, such promises
are little more than checking a box for an important Democratic constituency (the environmental movement). Perhaps her
consultants will want her to shy away from discussing climate out of fear of alienating blue collar whites in swing states. But the key
architect of Obama’s climate agenda, John Podesta, is expected to play a major role on Clinton’s campaign. The
Democratic
coalition in national elections is less and less reliant on culturally conservative downscale whites,
and Democrats are increasingly organized around the priorities — climate included — of its
emerging coalition of millennials, minorities, and socially liberal college educated whites. In the end Obama can probably increase
the chances that climate change will be a real issue in 2016 simply by talking about it as much as possible. This is something he
appears determined to do. And
on this issue, in rhetorical terms, at least, Clinton is laying down her marker.
Global warming leads to extinction without action on global warming
Griffin 2015 (David Ray Griffin is Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Emeritus,
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University (1973-2004); Co-Director,
Center for Process Studies. He edited the SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought
(1987-2004), which published 31 volumes. He has written 28 books, edited 13 books, and
authored 248 articles and chapters. “The climate is ruined. So can civilization even survive?”
4/14/15, http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/14/opinion/co2-crisis-griffin/), April 4
(CNN) Although most of us worry about other things, climate
scientists have become increasingly worried
about the survival of civilization. For example, Lonnie Thompson, who received the U.S. National
Medal of Science in 2010, said that virtually all climatologists "are now convinced that global
warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization."¶ Informed journalists share this concern. The
S 64
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
climate crisis " threatens the survival of our civilization ," said Pulitzer Prize-winner Ross
Gelbspan. Mark Hertsgaard agrees, saying that the continuation of global warming "would create
planetary conditions all but certain to end civilization as we know it."¶ These scientists and journalists,
moreover, are worried not only about the distant future but about the condition of the planet for their own children and
grandchildren. James Hansen, often considered the world's leading climate scientist, entitled his book "Storms of My
Grandchildren."¶ The
threat to civilization comes primarily from the increase of the level of carbon dioxide
(CO2) in the atmosphere, due largely to the burning of fossil fuels. Before the rise of the industrial age, CO2
constituted only 275 ppm (parts per million) of the atmosphere. But it is now above 400 and rising about 2.5 ppm per year.¶ Because
of the CO2 increase, the planet's average temperature has increased 0.85 degrees Celsius (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit). Although this
increase may not seem much, it has already brought about serious changes.¶ The idea that we will be safe from "dangerous climate
change" if we do not exceed a temperature rise of 2C (3.6F) has been widely accepted. But many informed people have rejected this
assumption. In the opinion of journalist-turned-activist Bill McKibben, "the one degree we've raised the temperature already has
melted the Arctic, so we're fools to find out what two will do."¶ His warning is supported by James Hansen, who declared that "a
target of two degrees (Celsius) is actually a prescription for long-term disaster."¶ The burning of coal, oil, and natural gas has made
the planet warmer than it had been since the rise of civilization 10,000 years ago. Civilization
was made possible by the
emergence about 12,000 years ago of the "Holocene" epoch, which turned out to be the
Goldilocks zone - not too hot, not too cold. But now, says physicist Stefan Rahmstorf, "We are
catapulting ourselves way out of the Holocene."¶ This catapult is dangerous, because we have
no evidence civilization can long survive with significantly higher temperatures. And yet, the world
is on a trajectory that would lead to an increase of 4C (7F) in this century. In the opinion of many scientists and the
World Bank, this could happen as early as the 2060s.¶ What would "a 4C world" be like? According to Kevin
Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (at the University of East Anglia), "during New York's summer heat
waves the warmest days would be around 10-12C (18-21.6F) hotter [than today's]." Moreover, he has said, above an increase of 4C
only about 10% of the human population will survive.¶ Believe it or not, some scientists consider Anderson overly optimistic.¶ The
main reason
for pessimism is the fear that the planet's temperature may be close to a tipping
point that would initiate a "low-end runaway greenhouse," involving "out-of-control
amplifying feedbacks." This condition would result, says Hansen, if all fossil fuels are burned (which is the
intention of all fossil-fuel corporations and many governments). This result "would make most of the planet
uninhabitable by humans."¶ Moreover, many scientists believe that runaway global warming could occur
much more quickly, because the rising temperature caused by CO2 could release massive
amounts of methane (CH4), which is, during its first 20 years, 86 times more powerful than CO2. Warmer
weather induces this release from carbon that has been stored in methane hydrates, in which enormous amounts of carbon -- four
times as much as that emitted from fossil fuels since 1850 -- has been frozen in the Arctic's permafrost. And yet now the Arctic's
temperature is warmer than it had been for 120,000 years -- in other words, more than 10 times longer than civilization has
existed.¶ According to Joe Romm, a physicist who created the Climate Progress website, methane
release from thawing
permafrost in the Arctic "is the most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon
cycle." The amplifying feedback works like this: The warmer temperature releases millions of tons of methane, which then further
raise the temperature, which in turn releases more methane.¶ The resulting threat of runaway global warming
may not be merely theoretical. Scientists have long been convinced that methane was central to the fastest period of
global warming in geological history, which occurred 55 million years ago. Now a group of scientists have accumulated
evidence that methane was also central to the greatest extinction of life thus far: the end-Permian
extinction about 252 million years ago.¶ Worse yet, whereas it was previously thought that significant amounts of permafrost would
not melt, releasing its methane, until the planet's temperature has risen several degrees Celsius, recent studies indicate that a rise of
1.5 degrees would be enough to start the melting.¶ What can be done then? Given the failure of political leaders to deal with the
CO2 problem, it is now too late to prevent terrible developments.¶ But it
may -- just may -- be possible to keep global
warming from bringing about the destruction of civilization. To have a chance, we must, as
Hansen says, do everything possible to "keep climate close to the Holocene range" -- which
means, mobilize the whole world to replace dirty energy with clean as soon as possible.
S 65
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Clinton’s family benefit programs spark growth in the economy
Jordan Weissmann, 7-13-2015, "Hillary Clinton Wants to Help More Women Go to Work. This
Graph Shows Why That’s So Crucial.," Slate Magazine,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/07/13/hillary_clinton_s_economic_plan_she_wa
nts_to_put_more_women_to_work.html
It's been obvious for a while that Hillary
Clinton's policy platform would focus heavily on supporting working
women and parents with initiatives like affordable child care and paid leave. But on Monday, during a big
speech on economics in New York, she made a strong case for why we should think of those issues as keys to growth,
rather than just matters of gender equity. Namely, the United States has fallen far behind much of
the developed world when it comes to women's labor-force participation. Here's the key section of her
remarks:¶ The movement of women into the workforce over the past forty years was responsible
for more than three and a half trillion dollars in economic growth .¶ But that progress has
stalled. The United States used to rank 7th out of 24 advanced countries in women’s labor force participation. By 2013, we had dropped to 19th.
That represents a lot of unused potential for our economy and for American families.¶ Studies show that nearly a third of this decline
relative to other countries is because they’re expanding family-friendly policies like paid leave
and we are not. ¶ We should be making it easier for Americans to be both good workers and good parents and caregivers. Women who want
to work should be able to do so without worrying every day about how they’re going to take care of their children or what will happen if a family
member gets sick. ¶ This is a theme that the White House also touched on in the most recent Economic Report of the President. Labor-force
participation for American women in their prime working years peaked in the mid-1990s, then started a gradual decline. We've been surpassed by
France, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom. And economists Lawrence Kahn and Francine Blau have found that far more
of our
women would likely be working if our social policies looked a little more European. If you
want to increase growth in the long term, getting more people into the labor force is one of
the most straightforward ways to do it. (Rule of thumb: An economy's total potential to expand equals workforce growth plus
productivity growth.) And given that we have specific evidence of how we could get more women onto the job market, reversing the attrition we've
seen over the past couple decades should be low-hanging fruit. That's not to say our aim should be to increase participation or work hours at all costs—
Obamacare, for instance, probably decreases full-time work a bit by letting some people obtain insurance without it, which is probably a worthwhile
trade-off. But it should be a major policy focus for any incoming president, and it's
a way to tie what might seem like slightly fuzzy, familyfriendly policies into the question of how the U.S. can get back into economic shape.¶ As Clinton put
it today: "It’s time to recognize that quality, affordable child care is not a luxury—it’s a growth strategy." Indeed.
Republican in 2016 causes extinction—warming and great power wars
Klare, Five Colleges Prof of Peace and World Security Studies @ Hampshire College, 2/13/2015
Michael, “A Republican Neo-Imperial Vision for 2016”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/keystone_xl_cold_war_20_and_the_gop_vision_for_201
6_20150213
This approach has been embraced by other senior Republican figures who see increased North American hydrocarbon output as the
ideal response to Russian assertiveness. In other words, the two pillars of a new energy North Americanism—enhanced
collaboration with the big oil companies across the continent and reinvigorated Cold Warism—are now
being folded into a single Republican grand strategy. Nothing will prepare the West better to fight Russia or just
about any other hostile power on the planet than the conversion of North America into a bastion of fossil fuel abundance. This
strange, chilling vision of an American (and global) future was succinctly described by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in
a remarkable Washington Post op-ed in March 2014. She essentially called for North America to flood the global energy market,
causing a plunge in oil prices and bankrupting the Russians. “Putin is playing for the long haul, cleverly exploiting every opening he
sees,” she wrote, but “Moscow is not immune from pressure.” Putin and Co. require high oil and gas prices to finance their
aggressive activities, “and soon, North America’s bounty of oil and gas will swamp Moscow’s capacity.” By “authorizing the Keystone
XL pipeline and championing natural gas exports,” she asserted, Washington would signal “that we intend to do exactly that.” So
now you know: approval of the Keystone XL pipeline isn’t actually about jobs and the economy; it’s about battling Vladimir Putin, the
Iranian mullahs, and America’s other adversaries. “One of the ways we fight back, one of the ways we push back is we take control
of our own energy destiny,” said Senator Hoeven on January 7th, when introducing legislation to authorize construction of that
pipeline. And that, it turns out, is just the beginning of the “benefits” that North Americanism will supposedly bring. Ultimately, the
S 66
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
goals of this strategy are to perpetuate the dominance of fossil fuels in North America’s energy mix and to enlist Canada and Mexico
in a U.S.-led drive to ensure the continued dominance of the West in key regions of the world. Stay tuned: you’ll
be hearing a
lot more about this ambitious strategy as the Republican presidential hopefuls begin making
their campaign rounds. Keep in mind, though, that this is potentially dangerous stuff at every level—from
the urge to ratchet up a conflict with Russia to the desire to produce and consume ever more
North American fossil fuels (not exactly a surprising impulse given the Republicans’ heavy reliance on campaign
contributions from Big Energy). In the coming months, the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton’s camp will, of course,
attempt to counter this drive. Their efforts will, however, be undermined by their sympathy for many of its components.
Obama, for instance, has boasted more than once of his success in increasing U.S. oil and gas production, while Clinton has
repeatedly called for a more combative foreign policy. Nor has either of them yet come up with a grand strategy as seemingly broad
and attractive as Republican North Americanism. If that plan is to be taken on seriously as the dangerous contrivance it is, it
evidently will fall to others to do so. This Republican
vision, after all, rests on the desire of giant oil
companies to eliminate government regulation and bring the energy industries of Canada and
Mexico under their corporate sway. Were this to happen, it would sabotage efforts to curb carbon
emissions from fossil fuels in a major way, while undermining the sovereignty of Canada and Mexico. In the process, the
natural environment would suffer horribly as regulatory constraints against hazardous drilling practices
would be eroded in all three countries. Stepped-up drilling, hydrofracking, and tar sands production would also result in the
increased diversion of water to energy production, reducing supplies for farming while increasing the risk that leaking drilling fluids
will contaminate drinking water and aquifers. No less worrisome, the
Republican strategy would result in a far
more polarized and dangerous international environment, in which hopes for achieving any
kind of peace in Ukraine, Syria, or elsewhere would disappear. The urge to convert North
America into a unified garrison state under U.S. (energy) command would undoubtedly prompt
similar initiatives abroad, with China moving ever closer to Russia and other blocs forming
elsewhere. In addition, those who seek to use energy as a tool of coercion should not be surprised to discover
that they are inviting its use by hostile parties—and in such conflicts the U.S. and its allies would
not emerge unscathed. In other words, the shining Republican vision of a North American energy fortress will,
in reality, prove to be a nightmare of environmental degradation and global conflict. Unfortunately,
this may not be obvious by election season 2016, so watch out.
S 67
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
**Elections Disadvantage Affirmative
S 68
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
**2AC Blocks
S 69
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2AC Hillary Good- Link Turn Strategy
1. Non-Unique: Hillary won’t win
A) She’s behind Bernie Sanders in the primary
Christian Today, 2015
(http://www.christiantoday.com/article/hillary.clinton.loses.lead.in.democratic.race.as.bernie.sanders.soars.in.latest.poll/64240.ht
m, Sept 8)
Hillary Clinton has lost her status as the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic
presidential candidate, a new poll revealed.
A survey conducted by NBC News/Marist showed that Clinton has lost her lead to fellow
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, who now holds a commanding ninepoint lead over the former Secretary of State.
In July, a similar poll showed Clinton leading over Sanders by as much as 10 percentage points.
Clinton recently figured in a controversy for using a private email server during her time as
Secretary of State, leading to accusations that she might have caused the leakage of top-secret
intelligence information.
The same survey also showed that Sanders is already gaining ground on Clinton in Iowa,
considered as one of the areas whose primaries more often than not indicate the results of
the White House race.
Sanders managed to chip away Clinton's lead among possible Democratic voters in Iowa by only
13 percentage points, according to the survey. Clinton got the nod of 38 percent of the
respondents, while Sanders got the approval of 27 percent.
In New Hampshire, another area where primaries are considered crucial, Clinton
is only a distant second to Sanders, garnering only 32-percent from the respondents. The
Vermont senator got support from 41 percent of the state's likely Democratic voters.
B) Multiple polls show Hillary will lose to GOP candidates next November
Red Alert Politics, 2015
(http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/09/11/hillary-clinton-loses-edge-republicans-general-election, Sept 11)
If the polls in early September are any inclination, it’s going to be an unbearable month for
the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
A CNN/ORC poll conducted from Sept. 4-8 found Clinton losing or tied with the three major
GOP frontrunners – Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
Clinton’s numbers fell the most drastically against Trump, her lead fell by 24 points from
June to September where they are now tied at 48 percent.
Carson leads the Democratic frontrunner by 51 to 46 percent and Bush leads her more
narrowly by 49 to 47 percent.
This isn’t the first poll that had Clinton falling behind Republican challengers.
A Survey USA poll released last week had Trump beating her by 5 points, a Public Policy
Polling report from Sept. 3 showed her tied with Carson, and a Fox News Poll from midAugust had Bush beating the Democratic frontrunner by 44 to 42 percent.
S 70
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2. Link Turn – Voters, especially independents, hate surveillance – plan helps
Hillary
Ackerman and Siddiqui, 5/18 (Spencer and Sabrina, “NSA surveillance opposed by American voters from all
parties, poll finds,” The Guardian, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/18/us-voters-broadly-opposed-nsasurveillance)
With five days in the legislative calendar remaining before a pivotal aspect of the Patriot Act expires, a new
poll shows
widespread antipathy to mass surveillance, a sense of where the debate over the National Security Agency’s
powers stands outside of Washington. Commissioned by the American Civil Liberties Union and carried out by the Global Strategy
Group and G2 Public Strategies, the
poll of 1,001 likely voters found broad opposition to government
surveillance across partisan, ideological, age and gender divides. Sixty percent of likely voters
believe the Patriot Act ought to be modified, against 34% that favor its retention in its current form. The NSA uses
Section 215 of the Patriot Act as the legal basis for its daily collection of all Americans’ phone data, as the Guardian revealed in June
2013 thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden, a practice that a federal appeals court deemed illegal on 7 May. Opposition to
reauthorizing the Patriot Act without modification cuts against a bill by the GOP Senate leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. The
poll found 58% of Republicans favor modification, the subject of a rival bipartisan bill that recently passed the House,
with only 36% of them favoring retention. Self-identified “very conservative” voters favor modification by a 59% to 34% margin.
The margins for Democrats are similar to those for Republicans. Independent voters, however,
are even less enthusiastic about mass domestic surveillance: 71% want the Patriot Act
modified, versus 22% who favor keeping it as it is, which pollster Greg Strimple called “intense”. More
than three-quarters of likely voters the poll interviewed opposed related aspects of current
surveillance authorities and operations. Eighty-two percent are “concerned” about
government collection and retention of their personal data. Eighty-three percent are concerned about
government access to data stored by businesses without judicial orders, and 84% want the same judicial protections on their virtual
data as exist for physical records on their property. The same percentage is concerned about government use of that data for noncounter-terrorism purposes. “Consensus
on this issue is bipartisan,” said Strimple.
3. No link - Surveillance policy won’t swing votes in the election
Kelly, 2014 Erin, USA Today, “Government snooping proves weak campaign issue.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/14/nsa-spying-privacy-congressional-election/17216313/
Government spying on American citizens has sparked public outrage, but it has not caught fire
as a major issue in this year's congressional election. "Politicians don't see a lot of votes in the
privacy issue because it's something that divides the American people," said Darrell West,
founding director of the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution. "There
are people who are angry about government surveillance, but there are others who believe the
government needs to keep doing it to protect the country from terrorists." In June, a poll by the
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press said 54% of Americans said they disapproved
of the National Security Agency's mass collection of millions of Americans' phone records, and
42% said they approved. The mass-data collection was revealed in June 2013 by former NSA
contractor Edward Snowden. It's difficult for congressional candidates to use the issue against
their opponents in some of the states with the most hotly contested elections, said Julian
Sanchez, a senior fellow and privacy expert at the Cato Institute. "In a lot of purple states,
there's a libertarian streak that cuts across party lines," Sanchez said. "You can find Democratic
and Republican candidates who are equally likely to be opposed to government surveillance."
The issue has been overshadowed in most races by concerns about jobs, the economy and the
battle to stop the Islamic State, West said. "There are certainly people who are worried about
privacy, but it's a smaller circle than those worried about Syria or the economy," he said.
S 71
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
4 Backing out of Iran deal won’t cause war – neither Iran nor Israel want to fight
Miller 2015 – (vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, July 24,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/24/why-war-isnt-inevitable-if-congress-rejects-iran-nuclear-deal/)
Last week Secretary of State John Kerry said bluntly about the Iran deal: “This is a choice
between a diplomatic solution and war.” But is that really the case?
Much of the Obama administration’s efforts to sell this accord have involved shackling the
public and congressional debate with this binary choice and the horrific consequences should
Congress reject the accord and overturn a presidential veto.
The administration’s logic goes something like this: Congress takes the hit for sinking the accord;
Iran reaps a huge propaganda victory and divides the world powers with which it has been
negotiating for months (the “P5 +1,” or the five permanent members of the U.N. Security
Council and Germany); the sanctions regime collapses; Iran then accelerates its nuclear
program; Israel threatens war and attacks if Iran achieves “break out” or nuclear weapon
threshold. By this thinking, the U.S. is invariably drawn into war because Iran gets close to a
weapon or because we have to support Israel. And if Iran goes to produce an actual weapon, the
U.S. could strike Iran directly.
A congressional override of the president’s veto would make it impossible for the president to
waive critical oil and banking sanctions against Iran. But would the July 14 deal then be scuttled,
with our allies jumping ship on sanctions and Iran then breaking out? War isn’t necessarily
what follows from all this. Yes, the odds of resuming negotiations to get a better deal seem
unlikely. But so does the prospect of inexorable confrontation. Consider:
Politics and propaganda: With Congress taking the major hit for scuttling the accord, Iran would
immediately intensify its propaganda war and seek to reap political and financial benefits. No
doubt, those would be considerable. But the fact that the Obama administration rushed to pass
a U.N. Security Council resolution serves to avert the horrific scenario Mr. Kerry and President
Barack Obama have laid out. Just because the U.S. can’t lift congressionally imposed sanctions
doesn’t mean that other elements of the resolution couldn’t kick in. Hardliners might argue for
walking away. But Iran is too clever to walk away from the prospect of trying to divide the
P5+1–and it stands to gain a lot from getting the International Atomic Energy Agency to certify
that Tehran held up its part of the commitments to be eligible for considerable sanctions relief.
So while U.S. sanctions, particularly those dealing with international banking, would still bite the
Iranian economy, Tehran could still benefit enormously . For commercial reasons alone–
because opening Iran would bring huge business opportunities to Moscow and Beijing–the
Russians and Chinese , and possibly the Germans , are likely to support an Iranian campaign
for partial relief from U.N. sanctions. A German trade delegation is already in Iran.
Why go to war? The theory that conflict with Iran is inevitable rests on several highly arguable
contentions . First is the assumption that Iran is willing to accelerate its nuclear program and to
either break out or sneak out to a weapon and thus court a military response from Israel or
the United States. The second big assumption is that Israel is just itching for an opportunity to
unilaterally strike Iran with or without Washington’s approval. In the wake of a no vote by
Congress, neither of these developments are certainties . Israel is implacably opposed to the
deal, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is pretty risk-averse ; he would have to think long
S 72
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
and hard about launching strike in which Israel is operating at the margins of its capacity,
particularly without a reason that would justify the severe international consequences.
And why would Iran want to provide such a reason as long as it could play the Security Council
card and pocket the political and economic benefits that would flow from being cooperative?
For Tehran, the smarter option in the wake of Congress blocking the accord would be to exploit
the appetite for international investment and pick up as many chits as possible on the global
stage by blaming the failure and missed opportunity on Washington. This isn’t a perfect
outcome, but it’s a more compelling choice for Iran’s leadership than a headlong plunge into
war . That course stands to bring Iran few benefits and many risks. Tehran is also aware that its
ally Hezbollah is bogged down in Syria as part of Iran’s campaign to support Bashar al-Assad,
which limits Tehran’s regional assets to use against Israel in the event of a military strike. If
Congress blocks the nuclear agreement, the mullahs will take their time and consider all of Iran’s
options. Courting a major strike from Israel and the U.S. isn’t necessarily one of them.
5. No Link – Voters aren’t even paying attention yet to the election
Jackson, 2015 (Natalie, senior data scientist for Huffington Post)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2016-election-polls-value_55f83910e4b09ecde1d9b328,
September 15th
But another way of viewing the data is that even with these anomalies, only 27 percent of
Americans are paying close attention to the 2016 presidential race -- meaning more than 7 in
10 are not. There are, after all, still four months to go before the first primary votes are cast,
and 14 months before the general election. Most Americans just don't live and breathe
politics even when Trump is involved.
Focusing on the great majority of Americans who aren't yet following the race very closely
provides a reality check on how much stock we place in the current polling. Every week brings
new polls showing Trump leading the Republicans and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) gaining on his
Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, and those new polls trigger the writing of thousands of words
about what it all means. But if 73 percent of Americans aren't really paying attention, what do
these horserace polls actually show?
For national primary polls, the answer is probably not much. All the candidates are focusing
their efforts on New Hampshire, Iowa and sometimes South Carolina because these states vote
first. But the three states make up only about 3 percent of the nation's population. The other 97
percent probably haven't had much exposure to the candidates and -- with the exception of
those few paying close attention -- are likely responding to the poll question with not much
information.
S 73
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2AC Hillary Good – Impact Turn Strategy
1. Non-Unique: Hillary won’t win
A. She’s behind Bernie Sanders in the primary
Christian Today, 2015
(http://www.christiantoday.com/article/hillary.clinton.loses.lead.in.democratic.race.as.bernie.sanders.soars.in.latest.poll/64240.ht
m, Sept 8)
Hillary Clinton has lost her status as the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic
presidential candidate, a new poll revealed.
A survey conducted by NBC News/Marist showed that Clinton has lost her lead to fellow
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, who now holds a commanding ninepoint lead over the former Secretary of State.
In July, a similar poll showed Clinton leading over Sanders by as much as 10 percentage points.
Clinton recently figured in a controversy for using a private email server during her time as
Secretary of State, leading to accusations that she might have caused the leakage of top-secret
intelligence information.
The same survey also showed that Sanders is already gaining ground on Clinton in Iowa,
considered as one of the areas whose primaries more often than not indicate the results of
the White House race.
Sanders managed to chip away Clinton's lead among possible Democratic voters in Iowa by only
13 percentage points, according to the survey. Clinton got the nod of 38 percent of the
respondents, while Sanders got the approval of 27 percent.
In New Hampshire, another area where primaries are considered crucial, Clinton
is only a distant second to Sanders, garnering only 32-percent from the respondents. The
Vermont senator got support from 41 percent of the state's likely Democratic voters.
B. Multiple polls show Hillary will lose to GOP candidates next November
Red Alert Politics, 2015
(http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/09/11/hillary-clinton-loses-edge-republicans-generalelection, Sept 11)
If the polls in early September are any inclination, it’s going to be an unbearable month for
the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
A CNN/ORC poll conducted from Sept. 4-8 found Clinton losing or tied with the three major
GOP frontrunners – Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
Clinton’s numbers fell the most drastically against Trump, her lead fell by 24 points from
June to September where they are now tied at 48 percent.
Carson leads the Democratic frontrunner by 51 to 46 percent and Bush leads her more
narrowly by 49 to 47 percent.
This isn’t the first poll that had Clinton falling behind Republican challengers.
A Survey USA poll released last week had Trump beating her by 5 points, a Public Policy
Polling report from Sept. 3 showed her tied with Carson, and a Fox News Poll from midAugust had Bush beating the Democratic frontrunner by 44 to 42 percent.
S 74
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2. No link - Surveillance policy won’t swing votes in the election
Kelly, 2014 Erin, USA Today, “Government snooping proves weak campaign issue.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/14/nsa-spying-privacy-congressional-election/17216313/
Government spying on American citizens has sparked public outrage, but it has not caught fire
as a major issue in this year's congressional election. "Politicians don't see a lot of votes in the
privacy issue because it's something that divides the American people," said Darrell West,
founding director of the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution. "There
are people who are angry about government surveillance, but there are others who believe the
government needs to keep doing it to protect the country from terrorists." In June, a poll by the
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press said 54% of Americans said they disapproved
of the National Security Agency's mass collection of millions of Americans' phone records, and
42% said they approved. The mass-data collection was revealed in June 2013 by former NSA
contractor Edward Snowden. It's difficult for congressional candidates to use the issue against
their opponents in some of the states with the most hotly contested elections, said Julian
Sanchez, a senior fellow and privacy expert at the Cato Institute. "In a lot of purple states,
there's a libertarian streak that cuts across party lines," Sanchez said. "You can find Democratic
and Republican candidates who are equally likely to be opposed to government surveillance."
The issue has been overshadowed in most races by concerns about jobs, the economy and the
battle to stop the Islamic State, West said. "There are certainly people who are worried about
privacy, but it's a smaller circle than those worried about Syria or the economy," he said.
3
Hillary will maintain the Iran deal, which leads to nuclear war
Podhoretz, 2015
Norman, http://www.wsj.com/articles/israels-choice-conventional-war-now-or-nuclear-war-later-1438125451, July 28th
For our negotiating partners, the new goal was to open the way to lucrative business contracts,
but for Mr. Obama it was to remove the biggest obstacle to his long-standing dream of a U.S.
détente with Iran. To realize this dream, he was ready to concede just about anything the
Iranians wanted—without, of course, admitting that this was tantamount to acquiescence in
an Iran armed with nuclear weapons and the rockets to deliver them.
To repeat, then, what cannot be stressed too often: If the purpose were still to prevent Iran
from getting the bomb, no deal that Iran would conceivably agree to sign could do the trick,
leaving war as the only alternative. To that extent, Mr. Obama is also right. But there is an
additional wrinkle. For in allowing Iran to get the bomb, he is not averting war. What he is
doing is setting the stage for a nuclear war between Iran and Israel.
The reason stems from the fact that, with hardly an exception, all of Israel believes that the
Iranians are deadly serious when they proclaim that they are bound and determined to wipe the
Jewish state off the map. It follows that once Iran acquires the means to make good on this
genocidal commitment, each side will be faced with only two choices: either to rely on the fear
of a retaliatory strike to deter the other from striking first, or to launch a pre-emptive strike of
its own.
Yet when even a famous Iranian “moderate” like the former President Hashemi Rafsanjani has
said—as he did in 2001, contemplating a nuclear exchange—that “the use of even one nuclear
bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is
not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality,” how can deterrence work?
S 75
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
4 No Link – Voters aren’t even paying attention yet to the election
Jackson, 2015 (Natalie, senior data scientist for Huffington Post)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2016-election-polls-value_55f83910e4b09ecde1d9b328,
September 15th
But another way of viewing the data is that even with these anomalies, only 27 percent of
Americans are paying close attention to the 2016 presidential race -- meaning more than 7 in
10 are not. There are, after all, still four months to go before the first primary votes are cast,
and 14 months before the general election. Most Americans just don't live and breathe
politics even when Trump is involved.
Focusing on the great majority of Americans who aren't yet following the race very closely
provides a reality check on how much stock we place in the current polling. Every week brings
new polls showing Trump leading the Republicans and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) gaining on his
Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, and those new polls trigger the writing of thousands of words
about what it all means. But if 73 percent of Americans aren't really paying attention, what do
these horserace polls actually show?
For national primary polls, the answer is probably not much. All the candidates are focusing
their efforts on New Hampshire, Iowa and sometimes South Carolina because these states vote
first. But the three states make up only about 3 percent of the nation's population. The other 97
percent probably haven't had much exposure to the candidates and -- with the exception of
those few paying close attention -- are likely responding to the poll question with not much
information.
S 76
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
**A2- Hillary Good- 1AR Extensions
S 77
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
1AR Hillary Good – Non-Unique: Hillary Loses Now (Bernie
Sanders)
Bernie is beating Hillary across all Democratic groups, including women and
young voters
Breitbart, 2015 (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/13/poll-berniesanders-surging-hillary-clinton-cratering, Sept 13)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has opened a 22-point lead over Democrat frontrunner Hillary
Clinton in New Hampshire, home of the nation’s first primary.
The new poll, from YouGov/CBS News Battleground, finds Sanders with 52 percent support
among Democrats in the Granite State, far ahead of Clinton’s 30 percent support. Vice President
Joe Biden, who is not yet a candidate, trails with 9 percent support.
In Iowa, the first caucus state to vote, Sanders has a solid 10 point lead over Clinton. Sanders
has 43 percent, Clinton 33 percent and Biden has the support of 10 percent of Democrats.
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, whose campaign has struggled to gain attention, has 5
percent.
In New Hampshire, Sanders beats Clinton in every age demographic. Among the youngest
voters, though, he has a 62-point advantage over Clinton. Hillary Clinton does best among voters
aged 45-64, but she still loses that group by 2 points.
Surprisingly, Sanders also best Clinton among women in New Hampshire. He leads Clinton by 11
points among female voters, long assumed to be an important foundation of support for
Clinton. Among male voters, Sanders leads by 38 points.
Sanders also leads Clinton among women in Iowa. He leads Clinton by 52-points among the
youngest voters, while Clinton beats him by 17 points among the oldest voters in the Hawkeye
State.
Joe Biden leads both Clinton and Sanders as the preferred “second-choice” for voters in New
Hampshire. Almost one-third of Democrats rank him as their second-choice, while 23 percent
say Clinton and 12 percent name Sanders. This suggests that if Biden were to formally enter the
race, there would be another reshuffling of the poll results. It is possible that Hillary Clinton
would run third in New Hampshire.
There is more bad news for Hillary Clinton, though. Only 24 percent of Democrats said Clinton’s
growing email scandal has affected their vote. In other words, there are other factors underlying
the Democrat voter surge to Sanders. It is possible that the voter move to Sanders isn’t simply
due to questions over Hillary Clinton, but rather enthusiasm for Sanders and his economic
populist message. That suggests Hillary will have to shift much further to the left to quell the
Sanders’ rebellion.
Hillary Clinton can no longer just assume that her difficulties are due to questions about her
email use as Secretary of State. Even if those questions were magically put to rest this week, she
is going to have to confront the rising Sanders more directly. He is soundly beating her across all
Democrat groups.
Bernie is ahead and has momentum
S 78
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
New York Post, 2015 (Sept 13, http://nypost.com/2015/09/13/bernie-is-wiping-thefloor-with-hillary-in-latest-polls)
Sen. Bernie Sanders is generating enthusiasm — and Hillary Rodham Clinton anything but,
according to new polls released Sunday.
Sanders is leading Clinton by 10 points in Iowa and 22 points in New Hampshire, according to
the CBS/YouGov surveys.
The polls found the Vermont independent is thumping Clinton, 43 percent to 33 percent,
among Iowa Democrats and 52 to 30 percent in New Hampshire, but Clinton leads in South
Carolina 46 to 23.
But the biggest difference, the pollsters found, is enthusiasm — Sanders is generating it and
Clinton is not.
The Democratic base prefers Bernie Sanders
The Daily Beast 2015- “This Is How Hillary Loses the Primary” July 9
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/09/this-is-how-hillary-loses-the-primary.html
Something remarkable is happening in American politics. For the first time in our history, a
socialist is running a close second and gaining ground on the front-runner in a presidential
race.¶ Anyway you look at it, Senator Bernie Sanders is making history and may very well play a
deciding role in who will be the next president. How real is the Sanders movement? Well, at this point in his
campaign in 2007, Barack Obama had 180,000 donors on his way to setting records with lowdonor contributions; Bernie Sanders has 250,000.¶ How’s he doing with voters in early states? “The next time
Hillary Rodham Clinton visits New Hampshire, she need not look over her shoulder to find Bernie Sanders; the Vermont
Senator is running right alongside her in a statistical dead heat for the 2016 Democratic
presidential nomination, according to a CNN/WMUR poll,” wrote The New York Times on June 25.¶ But lest the Sanders
surge in New Hampshire be dismissed as neighboring state advantage, the Clinton campaign seems even more worried about losing
Iowa. In a carefully orchestrated bit of expectation lowering, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook recently said, “the caucuses
are always such a tough proving ground” and Clinton campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmeri said, “We are worried about
[Sanders].”¶ Here’s what we know has happened so far in the Democratic primary for president. Since
Hillary Clinton
started spending money, hiring staff and campaigning, she has lost votes. In Iowa and New Hampshire,
she was doing better in the polls in January than she is today. Heck, she had more votes last month than she has today.¶ Politics is
about trends and the one thing we know is that trends escalate in speed as elections near. Even starting out with the huge lead that
she did, Clinton can’t allow Sanders to keep gaining votes while she loses votes in the hope that the bleeding won’t be fatal in the
long run.¶ Thinking that little tricks like getting an “organizer” to introduce the candidate at a rally will change an image built over
four decades in politics is like McDonald’s thinking they can take on Starbucks because they now sell espresso.¶ So
far Clinton’s
approach has been to try to demonstrate to the element of the party that finds Sanders so
appealing that she is really one of them. This seems like an extremely flawed strategy that plays
directly to Sanders’s strengths. If the contest is going to come down to who can be the most pure liberal, the best bet is
on the guy who actually is a socialist. Particularly when running against someone with Hillary Clinton’s long
record of being everything that the current left of her party hates.¶ The truth is, Hillary Clinton has
supported every U.S. war since Vietnam. She supported not only DOMA, which her husband signed, but a
travel ban on those who were HIV positive. She supported welfare cuts (remember her husband’s efforts toward “ending
welfare as we know it”?). She supports the death penalty and campaigned in her husband’s place during the 1992 New
Hampshire primary when he left to oversee the execution of an African-American man whose suicide attempt left him brain
damaged.
S 79
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
1AR Hillary Good – Non-Unique: Hillary Loses Now (General Election)
Hillary will lose key swing states to GOP candidates
The Hill, 2015
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/250836-poll-finds-clinton-losing-to-fourrepublicans-in-iowa, August 11
Other polls show Clinton well ahead in Iowa of her rivals for the Democratic nomination, but the
new survey is likely to add to the sense that Clinton could be vulnerable in a general election
battle.
A recent survey by Quinnipiac showed Clinton trailing GOP candidates in the swing states of
Iowa, Colorado and Virginia. Other polls have suggested voters don’t trust Clinton.
Hillary has lost the support of white women, her base
Washington Examiner, 2015
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/msnbc-clinton-losing-the-white-womanvote/article/2572134, Sept 16
Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton is hemorrhaging support from white female voters, as
this once supposedly locked-down voting bloc is now considering other candidates, MSNBC's
Andrea Mitchell warned Tuesday.
"Hillary Clinton is reaching out to that group that she had always counted on, white women
voters, who are now abandoning her in droves during the last two months," the cable news
anchor reported Tuesday.
This supposed mass exodus has left Clinton's campaign scrambling to find a way to win back a
group that she has "always counted on."
"This after seeing her support among white women in one new poll go from 71 percent in July
to just 42 percent now, a 29 percent drop in only eight weeks as Clinton has been hammered
with questions about her private emails," Mitchell said.
Democrats will lose General but Economic growth could be Black Swan
Fair 5/27 (Ray Fair, professor of economics at Yale University, has predicted 7
out of 9 elections, author of ‘Predicting Presidential Elections and Other Things’,
5/27/15, ‘In 2016's presidential race, the winner will be ...’,
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0527-fair-election-prediction20150527-story.html, 7/1/15, ACC)
Since 1978, based on data going back to 1916, I've documented how four conditions affect
voting patterns. The first is whether the president is running again. If so, this has a positive
effect on votes for the president. The second is how long a party has controlled the White
House . Voters like change; when a party has been in power for two or more consecutive
terms, this has a negative effect on votes for that party's candidate. The third is the slight but
persistent bias in favor of the Republican Party. Finally, the state of the economy : A good
economy at the time of the election has a positive effect on votes for the incumbent party
candidate . The economic variables that matter are the rate of inflation and output (GDP)
growth. Of particular importance is GDP growth in the first three quarters of the election year.
S 80
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
These first three conditions are working against the Democrats in 2016. The president is not
running; the Democrats have been in power for two terms; there is that lingering Republican
bias. According to the equation behind my work, then, the economy has to be very strong
between now and the election for the Democrats to have a good chance of winning . Most
economists believe the economy will grow at about a 3% annual rate between now and
November 2016 . If that happens, my equation predicts the Democrats will win about 46% of
the vote in a two-party contest. In order for them to win more than 50%, the economy would
need to grow at about 4% , and even in that case their predicted vote share would climb only
slightly above the halfway mark. My equation's average prediction error over the 25 elections
since 1916 is between 2.5 and 3.5 percentage points. Assuming the economy does indeed
grow at 3%, the probability that the Democrats will win is low, between about 5% and 13%.
Republicans have cause for confidence. My analysis is, of course, based on the assumption that
the future will be like the past. What if voters start caring more about income inequality than
economic growth, and perceive the Republicans to be poor on that issue? Or what if the GOP
nominates someone further from the mainstream than ever before? Shifts in priorities can
never be ruled out, but the best I can say is that the conditions that sway voters appear to
have been fairly stable for 100 years — and my equation has a fairly good track record. In
seven of the nine contests between 1980 and 2012, my equation correctly predicted which
party would win the popular vote . It was wrong in 1992, when it predicted that Clinton would
lose. (There was a strong third-party candidate that year, Ross Perot, which may have been a
problem.) And it was wrong in 2012, when it predicted President Obama would win only 49% of
the vote and he got 52%. All along, however, I said the prediction fell within the margin of error.
A prediction of the sort I have just made is different from predictions using polls. Although
polls can at times be fairly accurate, at least near the time of the election, they are not
causal. The theory behind my analysis is that the economy and the other conditions have a
causal effect on voting behavior . Given an economic forecast, I can make a prediction at any
time — I don't even need to know who's running. I made my first prediction for the 2016
election in November, at which time I predicted, as now, that the Republicans would win if the
economy turned out as currently expected . If a more robust economy does not materialize, it
is likely that after 18 months of essentially nonstop campaigning, the Democratic nominee
will lose — through no fault of her own.
S 81
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
1AR Hillary Good – No Link – Surveillance doesn’t swing votes
No link- both candidates share the same surveillance policy
Anderson, 2015 Jake, Global Research, June 19. “Ten Ways Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush Are
Basically the Same Presidential Candidate.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/10-ways-hillary-clinton-and-jeb-bush-are-basically-the-samepresidential-candidate/5456953
3. They both support the Patriot Act and NSA mass surveillance Both Clinton and Bush
supported the Patriot Act from the day it was secretly drafted, only days after 9/11. They both
voted for its reauthorization in 2006. This unconstitutional bill granted the government
unprecedented powers of civilian detainment, as well as access to private data. When the FISA
laws were updated by the Patriot Act, programs like PRISM enabled the NSA to collect millions
of phone records from Americans with no suspected ties to terrorism. Hillary Clinton has
expressed concern over privacy issues, but when she has had the chance to take a real stand
on them, she has consistently avoided doing so. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush applauded President
Obama’s expansion of NSA surveillance, proclaiming: “I would say the best part of the Obama
administration would be his continuance of the protections of the homeland using the big
metadata programs, the NSA being enhanced.” Fret no more, cynics of the American political
system. When it comes to the erosion of civil liberties, bipartisanship is still possible.
S 82
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
1AR Hillary Good – Link Turn – Surveillance reform is popular
Surveillance reform is popular among most Americans – plan helps Hillary
Page, 2014 (Susan, “Poll: Most Americans now oppose the NSA program,” USA Today, January
20, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/20/poll-nsa-surveillance/4638551/)
WASHINGTON -- Most
Americans now disapprove of the NSA's sweeping collection of phone
metadata, a new USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll finds, and they're inclined to think there
aren't adequate limits in place to what the government can collect. President Obama's announcement
Friday of changes in the surveillance programs has done little to allay those concerns: By 73%-21%, those who paid attention to the
speech say his proposals won't make much difference in protecting people's privacy. The poll of 1,504 adults, taken Wednesday
through Sunday, shows a public that is
more receptive than before to the arguments made by former
NSA contractor Edward Snowden. His leak of intelligence documents since last spring has fueled a global debate over
the National Security Agency's surveillance of Americans and spying on foreign leaders. Those surveyed now split, 45%-43%, on
whether Snowden's disclosures have helped or harmed the public interest. The snapshot of public opinion comes as the White
House, the intelligence agencies and Congress weigh significant changes in the way the programs are run. In his address, Obama
insisted no illegalities had been exposed but proposed steps to reassure Americans that proper safeguards were in place. By
nearly 3-1, 70%-26%, Americans say they shouldn't have to give up privacy and freedom in order
to be safe from terrorism. That may reflect the increasing distance from the Sept. 11 attacks more than a decade ago that
prompted some more of the more aggressive surveillance procedures. "In trading off between civil liberty and national security, the
American public decisively favors national security when it feels the threat acutely and imminently but tilts in the other direction
when the threats seem more remote," says Peter Feaver, a National Security Council aide for presidents George W. Bush and Bill
Clinton. Among those who paid attention to Obama's speech, only
13% say his proposals to rein in the
surveillance programs would make it more difficult for the government to fight terrorism. Only half of
those surveyed said they had paid even a little attention to the speech, however. The president called for a third party rather than
the government to hold the massive stores of phone metadata, and he said intelligence analysts would need a court order to search
it except in emergencies. He proposed establishing a panel of independent lawyers who could argue in some cases before the supersecret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. And he said the United States would stop eavesdropping on friendly foreign
leaders. Attitudes
toward the surveillance program have turned more negative since last June
and July, when the Snowden revelations were new. In polls in June and July 2013, more Americans approved of
the program than disapproved. Now, by 53%-40%, a majority disapproves.
Link Turn- the public is weary of surveillance- recent polls prove Americans are
more worried about government surveillance than terrorism
The Guardian 2013- July 29, “Major opinion shifts, in the US and Congress, on NSA
surveillance and privacy” http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/29/poll-nsasurveillance-privacy-pew
Numerous polls taken since our reporting on previously secret NSA activities first began have
strongly suggested major public opinion shifts in how NSA surveillance and privacy are viewed.
But a new comprehensive poll released over the weekend weekend by Pew Research provides the most
compelling evidence yet of how stark the shift is.¶ Among other things, Pew finds that "a majority of
Americans – 56% – say that federal courts fail to provide adequate limits on the telephone and
internet data the government is collecting as part of its anti-terrorism efforts." And "an even
larger percentage (70%) believes that the government uses this data for purposes other than
investigating terrorism." Moreover, "63% think the government is also gathering information
about the content of communications." That demonstrates a decisive rejection of the US
S 83
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
government's three primary defenses of its secret programs: there is adequate oversight; we're not listening
to the content of communication; and the spying is only used to Keep You Safe™.¶ But the most striking finding is this
one:¶ "Overall, 47% say their greater concern about government anti-terrorism policies is that
they have gone too far in restricting the average person's civil liberties, while 35% say they are more
concerned that policies have not gone far enough to protect the country. This is the first time in Pew Research
polling that more have expressed concern over civil liberties than protection from terrorism
since the question was first asked in 2004."¶ For anyone who spent the post-9/11 years
defending core liberties against assaults relentlessly perpetrated in the name of terrorism, polling data like that is nothing
short of shocking. This Pew visual underscores what a radical shift has occurred from these recent NSA disclosures:
S 84
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
1AR Hillary Good – Impact Turn – Iran Deal Bad
Their impact has it backwards – Iran deal hurts US hegemony and leads to war by
pushing allies toward Russia and China
Washington Free Beacon, 2015
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/retired-air-force-general-iran-nuclear-deal-couldencourage-allies-to-align-with-russia-china, September 9th
The chair of a council of prominent military leaders argued in testimony on Capitol Hill Wednesday that
the Iranian nuclear deal could encourage U.S. allies in the Middle East to align themselves with other
world powers such as Russia or China.
Retired Air Force Gen. Chuck Wald, who co-chairs the Iran Strategy Council at the Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs, testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on the implications of
the nuclear agreement being pushed by the Obama administration.
Wald, who served as deputy commander of United States European Command, explained that the
agreement “undermines U.S. credibility” from the perspective of both allies and enemies in the Middle
East by making U.S. commitment to alliances appear “weakened.”
This in turn, Wald said, could prompt allies to “seek protection elsewhere” and enemies to “feel
emboldened” against the United States.
“Some U.S. allies have made clear they believe this deal will not prevent a nuclear Iran and, that by
proceeding with the [agreement], the United States is disrupting the regional balance of power and
endangering them,” Wald said. “Other regional partners have noted that the deal empowers Iran to
redouble its destabilizing regional activities, making the Middle East a more dangerous place. ”
“There is anger—even a sense of betrayal—among U.S. allies in the region,” the retired general added,
pointing to expressions of concern about the deal from Israel and other allies.
Wald said that giving the impression that the United States was faltering in its commitment was
“dangerous,” suggesting that it could encourage America’s allies to act alone against Iran or to seek help
from Russia or China.
“This could mean taking matters into their own hands, as Israel previously has done or Saudi Arabia
decided to do earlier this year by unilaterally launching an air campaign against Iranian-backed rebels in
Yemen. Such actions, if not backed by the overwhelming force of the U.S. military, could spark reprisals
that spiral into wider regional conflict,” Wald told House lawmakers.
“Alternatively, our regional allies might seek other guarantors of their security,” he continued. “Whether
this means accepting Iranian hegemony or allying with other powers—such as Russia or China—the result
would be detrimental to U.S. influence and interests in the region.”
Wald said that allies could decide to terminate cooperation with the United States, making it
impossible for the United States to “project power in the Middle East.”
“Basing and overflight rights are critical to maintaining and deploying a deterrent force,” Wald said. “The
perception that we are no longer committed to our allies’ security could risk the revocation of those rights
and spark a vicious cycle of destabilization.”
The Iran deal leads to terrorism and nuclear war
Duncan 2015 – on the Foreign Affairs; the Homeland Security; and the Natural Resources committees, author of the Countering Iran in
the Western Hemisphere Act (Jeff, The Obama Doctrine: A path to conflict,, July 25 http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/249131the-obama-doctrine-a-path-to-conflict)//JJ
The deal the P5+1 struck with Iran shatters American and Israeli security , potentially placing our great
country and our strategic allies in harm’s way. In essence, this deal legitimizes Iran as a nuclear
threshold state , unfortunately bringing the United States closer to a deadly military confrontation with
the zealous Shiite theocracy.
S 85
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
If Congress fails to block this deal and sanctions against Iran are lifted, then America will essentially
subsidize the world’s largest state-sponsor of terrorism with a $ 150 billion payday. The mullahs will
use this money to support terrorism around the globe and further their imperialistic ambitions
through their proxies across the Middle East . This payday will help the ayatollah’s consolidate its hold
on power. It will not help the United States or our allies ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear
weapons capability. I suspect American capitulation will only make the Orwellian chants of “death to
America” and “death to Israel” louder.
To allege that the only alternative to this current deal is military action is specious. It is the essence of
naiveté to believe that rewarding the Iranian regime – who seeks the “annihilation” of Israel and
complete hegemony over the Middle East – will lead to anything other than armed conflict. The truth is
that the Obama administration not only rewarded Iranian intransigence by caving at the negotiating
table, but will permit the West to subsidize it .
This deal greatly reduces the strength of American deterrence against Iran. After 5 years, they may
reengage in the global conventional arms trade, while after 8, attain ballistic missiles. These arms will
surely go to terrorist proxy groups who currently kill Americans and our allies.
The Administration may say we retain the “military option” in case Iran makes a mad dash to the bomb.
But this ignores how the deal weakens American deterrence. For example, Russia has already
confirmed plans to ship state of the art S-300 surface-to-air missiles to the Iranians making control of
the air more difficult . Iran will be allowed to grow their military and emboldened to confront
American power .
Supporters of this agreement argue that it is the only way to prevent armed conflict with Iran.
Perversely, this agreement actually makes war with Iran more likely . The deal lifts virtually all major
restrictions against Iran in about 10-15 years, gearing up the ayatollahs to have the ability to break out
in days , not months or weeks. Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure is left in place with the ayatollahs
retaining the ability to “weaponize” quickly. In just a few years down the road, restrictions on Iran’s
centrifuges and limitations on its nuclear facilities, including the number of heavy water reactors, will
be abandoned .
Furthermore, without adequate provisions in place to inspect Iran’s nuclear programs and sites, or
effective compliance measures to efficiently implement snapback sanctions, Iranian centrifuges will
spin .
Congress has a moral duty to restore clarity and rationale to America’s diplomacy efforts by voting
against this absurdly irrational foreign policy strategy. We must return to a rational strategy aimed to
protect us and our allies from the Iranian nuclear threat.
Iran will emerge as a nuclear threshold state with the international community’s stamp of legitimacy .
This is precisely why Iran’s vociferous political leaders and ayatollahs have been rejoicing since the
deal was announced.
If there was ever a quintessential issue that could so easily unite Democrats and Republicans alike, it’s
this one. When it comes to matters of national security and deterrence against enemies, party politics
should take a back seat.
A pivotal moment for Congress is upon us. When the time comes to vote on the Iranian nuclear accord,
I intend to vote against the deal, and strongly encourage my esteemed colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to do the same. We are fortunate to know Iranian ambitions: Death to Israel, Death to America.
History will record this fatal error. I hope Congress will not be complicit in ushering in a policy that will
surely lead to a future – and more difficult – conflict .
S 86
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Hillary Good – Impact Turn – Other Policies (2AC Options)
Hillary win collapses our foreign policy causing multiple hotspots for
catastrophic global instability
Sowell, 2015 Thomas, Rapid City Journal, 6/25 “Hillary not the right woman for the top job.”
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/columnists/national/thomas-sowell/sowell-hillarynot-the-right-woman-for-the-top-job/article_152e1f55-0ea5-5396-9fa2-bfa0d933e3e0.html
There are no sure things in politics, but Hillary Clinton is the closest thing to a sure thing to
become the Democrats' candidate for president in 2016. This is one of the painful but
inescapable signs of our time. There is nothing in her history that would qualify her for the
presidency and much that should disqualify her. What is even more painful is that none of that
matters politically. Many people simply want "a woman" to be president, and Hillary is the bestknown woman in politics, though by no means the best qualified. What is Hillary's history? In
the most important job she has ever held — Secretary of State — American foreign policy has
had one setback after another, punctuated by disasters. U.S. intervention in Libya and Egypt,
undermining governments that were no threat to American interests, led to Islamic extremists
taking over in Egypt and terrorist chaos in Libya, where the American ambassador was killed,
along with three other Americans. Fortunately, the Egyptian military has gotten rid of that
country's extremist government that was persecuting Christians, threatening Israel and aligning
itself with our enemies. But that was in spite of American foreign policy. In Europe, as in the
Middle East, our foreign policy during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State was to
undermine our friends and cater to our enemies. The famous "reset" in our foreign policy with
Russia began with the Obama administration reneging on a pre-existing American commitment
to supply defensive technology to shield Poland and the Czech Republic from missile attacks.
This left both countries vulnerable to pressures and threats from Russia — and left other
countries elsewhere wondering how much they could rely on American promises. Even after
Russia invaded Ukraine, the Obama administration refused to let the Ukrainians have weapons
with which to defend themselves. President Obama, like other presidents, has made his own
foreign policy. But Hillary Clinton, like other Secretaries of State, had the option of resigning if
she did not agree with it. In reality, she shared the same flawed vision of the world as Obama's
when they were both in the Senate. Both of them opposed the military "surge" in Iraq, under
General David Petraeus, that defeated the terrorists there. Even after the surge succeeded,
Hillary Clinton was among those who fiercely denied initially that it had succeeded, and sought
to discredit General Petraeus, though eventually the evidence of the surge's success became
undeniable, even among those who had opposed it. The truly historic catastrophe of American
foreign policy — not only failing to stop Iran from going nuclear, but making it more difficult
for Israel to stop them — was also something that happened on Hillary Clinton's watch as
Secretary of State. What the administration's protracted and repeatedly extended negotiations
with Iran accomplished was to allow Iran time to multiply, bury and reinforce its nuclear
facilities, to the point where it was uncertain whether Israel still had the military capacity to
destroy those facilities. There are no offsetting foreign policy triumphs under Secretary of State
Clinton. Syria, China and North Korea are other scenes of similar setbacks. The fact that many
people are still prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton to be President of the United States, in times
made incredibly dangerous by the foreign policy disasters on her watch as Secretary of State,
S 87
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
raises painful questions about this country. A President of the United States — any president —
has the lives of more than 300 million Americans in his or her hands, and the future of Western
civilization. If the debacles and disasters of the Obama administration have still not
demonstrated the irresponsibility of choosing a president on the basis of demographic
characteristics, it is hard to imagine what could. With our enemies around the world arming
while we are disarming, such self-indulgent choices for president can leave our children and
grandchildren a future that will be grim, if not catastrophic.
Hillary will go to war with Russia – far more aggressive than Bush
Miller 2015 S.A. Miller (reports from Capitol Hill on politics, policy and political campaigns for The Washington Times) - The
Washington Times - Tuesday, June 9, 2015. “Hillary Clinton’s hawkish position on Russia troubles both sides of aisle”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/9/hillary-clintons-hawkish-position-on-russia-troubl/?page=all, June 9
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton has pivoted left on domestic
issues but stands out on foreign policy as more hawkish than some of her GOP rivals, even
stoking fears that she’s ready to put the U.S. on a warpath with Russia.¶ Mrs. Clinton is poised
to make her foreign policy experience as senator and secretary of state a central argument for her
White House run. It’s a record that includes supporting military intervention in Iraq and Libya,
positions that put her at odds with her party’s liberal base.¶ And since leaving the State
Department in 2013, her harsh rhetoric about Russia raised eyebrows among hawks and doves
alike.¶ At a California fundraiser last year, she reportedly compared Russian President Vladimir
Putin to Adolf Hitler. At a meeting earlier this year with London Mayor Boris Johnson, he said
she faulted European leaders for being “too wimpy” about challenging Mr. Putin.¶ Conservative
commentator Paul Craig Roberts, an economist who served as assistant secretary of treasury
under President Reagan, warned that Mrs. Clinton will have a difficulty backing down from a
confrontation with Mr. Putin after calling him Hitler.¶ “When you go that far out on a limb, you
really kind of have to go the rest of the way,” he said in an interview at Infowars.com. “I don’t’
think there is any candidate that we can end up with as president that would be more likely to
go to war with Russia than Hillary.”¶ Mrs. Clinton isn’t the only candidate to take a tough stand
on Russia’s annexation of Crimea and ongoing involvement in the warfare in eastern Ukraine.
But she brings more heat to the discourse than any other Democrat or most Republicans.¶
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who is expected to announce his presidential run next week, gave
a speech Wednesday in Berlin in which he said the West should “push back” against Russian
aggression.¶ Mr. Bush described Mr. Putin as a bully who “will push until someone pushes
back.Ӧ But he warned against being reactionary and pushing away the Russian people, as
occurred during the Cold War.¶ “I don’t think we should be reacting to bad behavior. By being
clear of what the consequences of that bad behavior is in advance, I think we will deter the kind
of aggression we fear from Russia,” he said. “But always reacting and giving the sense we’re
reacting in a tepid fashion only enables the bad behavior of Putin.Ӧ
S 88
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Feminist Kritik of Privacy – Negative
S 89
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
1NC Shell
A. Link - Privacy rights reinforce inequality and pretend everyone is equally
free, preventing effective state action to change injustice. This turns their case
and means they can’t solve their Harms, while increasing oppression of women
Lever 97 - Associate Professor of Normative Political Theory in the Department of Political
Science and International Relations of the University of Geneva, Switzerland. (Annabelle; “A
Democratic perception of Privacy”;
http://alever.net/DOCS/A%20Democratic%20Conception%20of%20Privacy.pdf)
MacKinnon’s first objection to the right to privacy is that privacy is the right to be let alone, or to
be free from state action. Because privacy gives individuals rights to be let alone by the state,
she argues, it leaves the powerful free to oppress the vulnerable without fear of state scrutiny
and accountability. Though the right to privacy limits the concerted use of state power to crush any particular individual, she
believes, it promotes individualized forms of oppression which are incompatible with the
freedom and equality of individuals. Putting her thesis in succinct polemical form, she claims
that the right to privacy enables men to oppress women one by one. MacKinnon notes that liberals
believe that the right to privacy is necessary to protect the freedom and equality of individuals. Liberals claim that privacy protects
the legitimate differences between individuals because it gives them the right to be let alone by the state. In this way, liberals
believe, the autonomy of individuals is secured, and individuals are, then, free to cooperate together as equals, despite their
differences. MacKinnon,
however, believes that the case for a right to privacy rests on a basic
error. It presupposes, she argues, that state action is the primary threat to the freedom and
equality of individuals and ignores the fact that state action may be necessary to secure
these.20 We only ensure the freedom and equality of individuals by leaving them alone, if they
are already free and equal to begin with. So, the right to privacy only protects the freedom
and equality of individuals if they are already free and equal . If not, state action might be necessary to
secure these goods and so individuals would have no right to be let alone by the state. This possibility is wrongly precluded by liberal
justifications of privacy, MacKinnon believes.21 As a result, she argues, the
right to privacy protects the coercion
and subordination of some individuals to others, while claiming to protect the freedom and
equality of all.
MacKinnon, then, believes that
liberals are wrong to imagine that state action is the
only obstacle to individual rights . According to MacKinnon, poverty, different bodily
powers and the legacy of past inequality can all provide more potent obstacles to individual
autonomy than state action, and state action could remove or substantially alleviate these.22 For example, women may
principal or
be unable to prevent conception and pregnancy though the state does not prohibit contraceptive use, because they are ignorant of
the relevant biological facts or of their right to use contraceptives. They may be prevented by poverty, youth, geographical location
and the opposition of others, from using contraceptives even if they want to. They may be discouraged from using contraceptives
though they want to prevent pregnancy, because contraceptive use has a social meaning which women “did not create” - namely,
that one is “loose”, has no moral standards, is willing to have sexual intercourse with any man. Because women cannot control these
interpretations of contraceptive use, and these make it more difficult for women successfully to refuse sex with men, MacKinnon
notes that women may be unwilling to use contraceptives, though otherwise they would do so. Hence, MacKinnon maintains that
the right to privacy justifies inequality because it assumes that individuals are free and equal
when they are not. She uses the Hyde Amendment and Harris v. McRae to illustrate and support these claims. The Hyde
Amendment, which has passed Congress each year since 1976, limits the use of Federal Funds to reimburse the costs of abortions
under the Medicaid program of health care for the poor. Initially, it allowed Federal funding for abortions following from incest and
rape as well as for life-threatening pregnancies.23 MacKinnon believes that the Hyde Amendment supposed that women could be
held responsible for becoming pregnant, because they could refuse to have sex with men, and could use contraceptives to prevent
pregnancy. Thus, it allowed state funding only in “exceptional” circumstances: in cases of rape, or in life-threatening emergencies.24
S 90
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Similarly, Harris, in holding the Hyde Amendment constitutional, assumed that poor women can be held responsible for their
poverty, that they could have chosen not to be poor. Both, in short, ignored the structural causes of pregnancy and poverty which
women face, through no fault of their own, and which they cannot avoid or change without state aid. “It is not inconsistent, then,
that framed as a privacy right, a woman’s decision to abort would have no claim on public support and would genuinely not be seen
as burdened by that deprivation”, MacKinnon concludes. Recognizing that the state cannot wholly prevent pregnancy from rape or
contraceptive failure, and that it cannot ensure that men as well as women can become pregnant, MacKinnon assumes that the
state can, nonetheless, prevent a woman’s sexual capacities from becoming the source of particular disadvantage and indignity. The
state can shape the circumstances in which women conceive, bear children and have abortions, so that these do not, as they now
do, disadvantage women because of their sex. But
this, she believes, the right to privacy prevents, by wishing
away sexual inequality and coercion. Because it sets the limits to legitimate state action, the
right to privacy allows social differences which undermine the freedom and equality of
individuals. Far from protecting the legitimate differences between individuals, as liberals
claim, MacKinnon concludes, the right to privacy protects illegitimate differences between
individuals and so justifies the exploitation and intimidation of women by men. As MacKinnon
puts it, the right to privacy means that “women with privileges get rights ”.
B. Impact and Alternative - Privacy rights separate the personal from the
political in a way that serves the interests of the powerful that control the
government and blames the powerless for their own oppression. We should
reject privacy rights as a rigged game and reclaim our power in the fight for
freedom and equality
Lever 97 - Associate Professor of Normative Political Theory in the Department of Political
Science and International Relations of the University of Geneva, Switzerland. (Annabelle; “A Democratic
perception of Privacy”; http://alever.net/DOCS/A%20Democratic%20Conception%20of%20Privacy.pdf)//KM
MacKinnon’s third reason for believing that privacy is incompatible with equality is that privacy
rights endorse and maintain the public/private distinction, or the distinction between the
political and personal. But this distinction, she claims, is precisely what feminists have had to
“explode” in order to press their claims for sexual justice. The public/private distinction
distinguishes the political from the personal in ways that privilege the interests, voices and
persons of men, over those of women. Hence, feminists have insisted, the personal is political,
in order to show the connection between individual acts of sexual violence and exploitation and
the way that our society creates and distributes political power. In liberal thought the right to
privacy is meant to ensure that the uses of state power are determined by impersonal or
neutral means. This, it is thought, is necessary if state power is to be justified and compatible
with the freedom and equality of individuals.34 By requiring individuals to distinguish between
the personal and the political, the right to privacy is supposed to ensure that the uses of state
power are determined by the common interest of citizens rather than by the whims, caprice
and prejudice of the powerful. By protecting the personal interests of citizens from political
decision-making, the public/private distinction is supposed to encourage fearless participation
in public life even by the relatively powerless or the socially unpopular.35 Protection for the
right to privacy and the public/private distinction, then, are meant to be evidence of a state’s
commitment to impartiality between the competing interests of citizens and to the freedom
and equality of individuals in public and private life. In this way, liberals believe, the
public/private distinction can secure the foundations of constitutional democracy and avert the
evils of absolute government. According to MacKinnon, there are two main difficulties with
this picture of the public/private distinction. First, it presupposes that the private is not already
S 91
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
political. Second, it presumes that the personal/political distinction is, itself, neutral and
impersonal. Neither, she claims, is the case. So, far from promoting freedom and equality, she
thinks, the public/private distinction perpetuates sexual inequality and places precisely those
beliefs, practices and institutions which most contribute to sexual inequality, beyond
democratic accountability and redress. The public/private distinction “is at once an
ideological division that lies about women's shared experience and that mystifies the unity
among the spheres of women’s violation. It is a very material division that keeps the private
beyond public redress and depoliticizes women's subjection within it”. The private is political,
MacKinnon argues, because its existence depends on support from government, without which
there would be no legal protection of privacy.36 Moreover, government’s maintenance of
privacy rights is no more politically neutral than its other acts – for example, raising and
spending taxes, or regulating the press and communications media.37 In each case, the state
distributes political power – or the ability to determine how the state is governed – by its grant
of rights. In each case, it does so for reasons that are at least as likely to be influenced by
political calculation – or calculations of what will be advantageous to those with power – as
by convictions about the justice or goodness of one course of action rather than another. 38
So, if open and accountable, governments are meant to protect citizens from the abuse of
state power by those who have it, we should abandon privacy rights in the interests of
democratic government. Absent the belief that the private is not political, MacKinnon argues,
the rationale for privacy rights advanced by liberals collapses, and privacy can be seen for
what it is: a threat to the freedom and equality of citizens. Moreover, MacKinnon believes, it
is untrue that the personal/political distinction is neutral between the interests of persons and
provides, therefore, an impersonal guide to resolving conflicts between them. What is
considered personal is, therefore, considered unsuitable for political discussion and for
collective action.39 But this means that sexual inequality and injustice can be dismissed as a
personal matter, as not appropriately political.40 Thus, the public/private distinction, according
to MacKinnon, depoliticizes sexual injustice and inequality, leaving its victims without effective
means for enlisting the help of others in defense of their rights. According to MacKinnon, the
public/private distinction licenses two different, but related, results. First, it implies that social
inequality is a personal matter – that it is the nature of particular individuals or social groups,
not their circumstances and the behavior of others, which are responsible for their
disadvantaged social position. Second, it implies that, though in the public realm the state
must aggressively combat prejudice against individuals, in private individuals may join sexist
or racist associations if they so want, or read pornography though this is illegal in public. In
each case, by supposing that our personalities can be more or less unaffected by our
circumstances, the state allows prejudice to flourish and, with it, the coercion and
subordination of individuals. Harris and Bowers v. Hardwick, MacKinnon believes, support
these claims. In Harris the Supreme Court held that the government was not responsible for
the poverty of poor women who wanted abortions – and took this to be so self-evident that it
did not bother to cite any supporting evidence.41 Yet this claim was essential to their reasons
for denying poor women Medicaid funding for abortions. For, the Court held, were the
government responsible for the poverty of poor women, it would have a duty to remove
poverty-caused obstacles to the exercise of the right to abortion, a duty to fund abortions for
poor women. In Bowers v. Hardwick the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy does not
cover consensual homosexual sodomy between adults, even though this occurs in the home,
where others need not witness it. The Court cited in its support, the condemnation of
homosexuality in the Old Testament, in medieval law and in the law of many States in the
Union. It argued that, in the face of abiding and deep-seated prejudice against homosexuality,
S 92
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
it was “facetious” to claim that there was a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, found
in the constitutional right to privacy and guarantees of procedural due process.42 Yet, Bowers
provided no evidence that consensual adult homosexual sodomy harms anyone, or interferes
with the rights of individuals and should be banned. Rather, it supposed, the mere fact that
people were prejudiced against such sex acts provided warrant for the state to prohibit them.
In each case, MacKinnon argues, the right to privacy naturalized and justified social
inequality, turning the biological and social differences between individuals into the basis for
disadvantage and subordination. It enabled the Supreme Court to maintain that the state
need not fund abortions for poor women because it was not responsible for their poverty or
their pregnancy. Hence MacKinnon claims that “… the Harris result sustains the ultimate
meaning of privacy in Roe: women are guaranteed by the public no more than what we can get
in private”. The same could be said of Bowers. The Court decided to affirm only that part of
the challenged Georgia statute condemning homosexual sodomy, refusing to rule on the
statute’s criminalization of heterosexual sodomy as well.44 It held that homosexual sodomy
had nothing to do with the familial and reproductive concerns underlying the constitutional
right to privacy, because it was homosexual and, therefore, raised no issues of procreation or
contraception.45 It failed to consider how previous laws against homosexuals might have
promoted or inflamed prejudice against them, or how its own ruling might threaten the public
standing, dignity and freedom of individuals who are, or are thought to be, homosexual.46 In
this way, it promoted precisely those conditions which have done most to prevent
homosexuals from seeking and exercising political power, or positions of public prominence
and civic responsibility. So, far from providing a neutral or impartial standard for resolving
conflicts over the uses of state power, MacKinnon concludes, the public/private distinction
undermines their principled and democratic resolution. It guarantees, she believes, that
oppressed and disadvantaged social groups will lack impartial judges in those institutions
which our society uses to hear, judge and redress the grievances of individuals, whether courts,
parliaments or public opinion. “To fail to recognize the meaning of the private in the ideology
and reality of women’s subordination by seeking protection behind a right to that privacy is to
cut women off from collective verification and state support in the same act”, MacKinnon
concludes.4
S 93
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Link-Stingray
Cell Phone Surveillance has been key to gathering information on domestic violence,
this poses a unique risk to women and children.
Fantuzzo 2007,
John Fantuzzo, University of Pennsylvania (Children’s Direct Exposure to Types of
Domestic Violence Crimes: A Population Based Investigation. Journal of Family Violence, Voulme 22,
Issue 7).
Recent studies have used police surveillance and electronic record gathering effectively
to get information about domestic violence events and associated risk factors. A study by
Gjelsvik, Verhoek-Oftendahl, and Pearlman (2003) utilized the Rhode Island Department
of Health Violence Against Women Public Health Surveillance System to examine
factors associated with children present during police-substantiated domestic violence.
Police collected data on the demographic characteristics of the victim, characteristics of
the incident, and whether children were present. Results showed that 44% of all
substantiated domestic violence events had children present. These children were more
likely to be from ethnic minority households and 47% of them were less than 6 years old.
Although this study illustrated police officers working as public health sentinels across a
fixed population, it was limited in four ways. First, no data on the characteristics of
perpetrators was provided. Second, no details were provided on the definitions of the
domestic violence event variables and on methods the police used to collect these data.
Third, no information was given regarding police officer training on direct assessment of
domestic violence and children present. Finally, the reliability and validity of the data
collection instruments were not reported, but phone cell phone tapping, phone record
gathering, and medical record surveillance were likely among them. Police officers used
standard methods to collect data on substantiated domestic violence in research on the
Spouse Assault Replication Program (SARP). SARP was a large, cross-city field
experiment of the impact of arrest in deterring subsequent misdemeanor domestic
violence (Maxwell, Garner, & Fagan, 2001). The SARP database contained information
on domestic violence events, individuals present in the household during the events, and
associated risk factors across five municipalities. Data were collected at the time of the
incident, thus avoiding the problems of retrospective reports. A secondary analysis of this
database by Fantuzzo, Boruch, Childhood exposure to domestic violence 7 Beriama,
Atkins, and Marcus (1997) showed that children were disproportionately present in
households where there was a substantiated incident of domestic violence. Households
where domestic violence occurred included higher levels of risk factors to children, such
as poverty, single-female headed households, and substance abuse associated with the
event. However, from an epidemiological perspective this study was limited in two ways.
No data were provided to document the reliability and validity of the use of the standard
protocol or police officer training. A recent study (Fantuzzo, Fusco, Mohr, & Perry, in
press) indicated that police officers were able to use a standard, validated protocol to
gather information on all reported domestic violence events and the presence of children
across an entire municipality for a three year period. The instrument, called the Domestic
Violence Event Protocol (DVEP), contains items developed to reflect the categories
identified as being important in defining family violence events (National Research
S 94
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Council, 1998). Demographic data were collected on victims and perpetrators. Checklists
were used to record officer’s observations of the means of assault and any visible
injuries. The protocol required police officers to document if children were present, that
is, in the household at the time of the domestic violence event. Both in training and in the
field police officers’ reports matched independent reliability checks. The findings
indicated that children were present in almost half of all events, and households with
domestic violence were significantly more likely to have children compared to
households in the county at large. However, this study did not provide data on the
number and characteristics of children exposed and whether they had direct sensory
exposure to the violence. This type of data is important since the child-trauma literature
documents the nature and degree of exposure to traumatic events. Police surveillance,
particularly cell phone and medical record surveillance was crucial in gathering
information about domestic violence disputes, crimes, and impact on children. It does not
appear that police have many other mechanisms to gather the same information.
S 95
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Link-National Security Letters
National Security Letters are key to domestic violence investigations happening in
the private sphere
Doyle 2005,
Charles Doyle, Senior Specialist, American Public Law (Administrative Subpoenas and
National Security Letters in Criminal and Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Background and Proposed
Adjustments, Nova Science Publishers).
Administrative subpoena authority, including national security letter authority, is the
power vested in various administrative agencies to compel testimony or the production of
documents or both in aid of the agencies’ performance of duties. Subpoenas are not a
traditional tool of criminal law investigation, but neither are they unknown. Several
statues at least arguable authorize the use of subpoenas and letters primarily or
exclusively for use in investigations involving hate crimes, health care fraud, domestic
violence, child abuse, Secret Service protection, controlled substances, and Inspector General
investigations of the federal government. The nature of these particular crimes is that they
are incredibly difficult to investigate because they happen completely outside of the
public eye. Subpoenas provide a unique opportunity for investigation. Five other statues
grant subpoena authority for foreign investigations. As a constitutional matter the Fourth
Amendment only requires that a subpoena be reasonable. However, a recent lower courts
have challenged the validity of subpoenas under the First and Fourth Amendments.
S 96
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Link – School Surveillance
Men use surveillance for voyeuristic purposes, which objectifies women
students
Monahan 2008--Associate professor of human and organizational development
and associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. (Torin Monahan,
Dreams of Control at a Distance: Gender, Surveillance, and Social Control, ed. by T.
Monahan, p.11-13)//SJ
The research that has been done on video surveillance provides the ground- work for addressing gender issues with other surveillance
The voyeuristic uses of video surveillance are not all that surprising: Usually
men sit comfortably in control rooms where they monitor unsuspecting women—and
others—from afar. Studies confirm that at least one in 10 women are watched by
control room operators for voyeuristic reasons alone (Norris & Armstrong, 1997). One effect is what Hille
Koskela (2000) has called a masculinization of space, whereby women in public and private spaces are
increasingly scrutinized without necessarily achieving any additional protection
from harassment or assault. Indeed, in some cases, it seems as if the bundling of cameras into
popular devices like cellular phones enables new forms of uninvited scrutiny and
objectification of women. One example of such practices occurred at my previous university where pictures are
taken of female students, without their awareness or consent, and then placed on an
Internet site for viewers from around the world to “rate” their sex appeal.
technologies.
Schools are gendered spaces – surveillance affects women in unique ways
Monahan, Professor of Communication at University of North Carolina,
2009 (Torin, Surveillance and Security: Technological Politics and Power in Everyday Life, p.1213)
S 97
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Link – Drones
Drones are masculine surveillance technology that perpetrate violent, sexist
male culture
Wanenchak, 2013 (Sarah, PhD student in sociology at University of Maryland,
http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2013/12/19/toward-a-drone-sexuality-part-2boundary-conditions/)
In the last post I posited that the sexual power of droneness – and droning as defined on this
blog by Robin James – is in fact gendered, because sexual power itself is gendered. Power
exchange shifts its meaning depending on the assortment of different gender identities
involved. I should note here that I’m treating this as more of a binary than I’m strictly
comfortable with, and in future I hope this framework can be expanded to allow for a better
approach to the diversity of gender, because I think there’s some fascinating stuff going on
there.
But in fact, I do want to focus on transgression and gender, as well as transgression and bodies,
because that’s where a consideration of sexualized technology invariably leads.
Recall in the previous post I briefly discussed the different meanings of a woman being subject
to the penetrative surveillance of a drone versus a man being subject to the same. I also noted
that in my own fiction writing on sex and drones, my attempt to render my drones genderless
failed; I perceive them as masculine in nature, and I suspect that aspect of penetration has a lot
to do with my inability to shake the idea. I think the fact that we often gender much of our
technology in a masculine way also probably plays a role.
One of the things this opens up for me is the idea of a man under the sexualized surveillance of
a drone as possessing connotations of queer sexuality. If the gaze of a drone is penetrative, a
man subject to that gaze is being penetrated. He is rendered submissive and laid bare not only
physically but internally, psychologically. So again, although I’m approaching this in a fairly
binary sense, there’s no reason why it must or should be that way. Drone sexuality is generally
heteronormative, given that it’s grounded in the problematic sexual power relations of a
sexist rape culture, but it also contains the potential for being queered, and that potential might
be powerfully subversive.
S 98
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR – Answers to “Aff Outweighs, Kritik Can’t Solve”
They say that not doing the plan is inaction, but privacy rights cannot solve
injustice. They only maintain the status quo for the marginalized
Olsen ’93 Professor of law at UCLA, member of school of Feminist Legal Theory
(Frances, Constitutional Law: Feminist critiques of the public/private distinction, page
325-326)//FM
The important critical point is that injustice cannot
be justified by means of the public/private
distinction. Thus, I disagree with the assertion in Larry Alexander's paper that "absolutely nothing follows"
from this criticism of the state action doctrine or of the public/private dichotomy.22 What follows from the
criticism is that the asserted presence or absence of state action is not a justification for an otherwise
unjust decision. On a third level of critique, deeper political meanings are found behind the appeal of privacy. Notions of
individualism,23 of choice 24 and of desire,25 and the reasons why we value privacy26 are
deeply related to the peculiar importance placed on the male/female distinction and to the
subordination of women. Privacy is related to manhood; "private parts" are sexual; and the
classical liberal individual is not an asexual "person" but the male head of a family. Privacy is most enjoyed by those
with power. To the powerless, the private realm is frequently a sphere not of freedom but of
uncertainty and insecurity.21 On this level of critique, the point is not just that men enjoy a kind of privacy in the family
that women and children do not enjoy (but rather too often suffer under). Rather, the standard situation in which
one enjoys privacy and freedom is not a situation of equality but one of hierarchy. We
virtually never all enjoy privacy equally, and the pretense that equality is the norm, and
situations of domination an exception, is simply another way of maintaining the status quo.
Privacy rights can’t solve inequality because of the legal system’s built-in
assumptions about gender
Maschke, ‘90 - Ph.D. in Political Science from Johns Hopkins University, research
scholar at the Hastings Institute (Karen, “Gender and American Law, Feminist Legal
Theories,” p. 627-632, Routledge) //DS
The feminist critique joins other CLS work in denying that the rule of law in fact offers a
principled, impartial, and determinate means of dispute resolution. Attention has centered
both on the subjectivity of legal standards and the gender biases in their application. By
exploring particular substantive areas, feminists have underscored the law’s fluctuation
between standards that are too abstract to resolve particular cases and rules that are too
specific to result in a principled, generalizable norm. Such explorations have also revealed
sex-based assumptions that undermine the liberal legal order’s own aspirations. These
limitations in conventional doctrine are particularly apparent in the law’s consistently
inconsistent analysis of gender difference. Decision makers have often reached identical
legal results from competing factual premises. In other cases, the same notions about sexual
distinctiveness have yielded opposite conclusions. Identical assumptions about women’s
special virtues or vulnerabilities have served as arguments for both favored and disfavored
legal treatment in criminal and family law, and for both including and excluding her from
public roles such as professional occupations and jury service. For example, although courts
S 99
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
and legislatures traditionally assumed that it was “too plain” for discussion that sex-based
distinctions in criminal sentencing statutes and child custody decisions were appropriate, it
was less plain which way those distinctions cut. Under different statutory schemes, women
received lesser or greater punishments for the same criminal acts in different historical
periods were favored or disfavored as the guardians of their children.
The Affirmative’s view of privacy means policymakers and courts cannot
protect it against patriarchal interests intent on terrorizing minorities
Solove 2008
(Daniel J. Solove [John Marshall Harlan Research Professor of Law at the George
Washington University Law School], 5/5/2008, “Understanding Privacy,” Harvard University Press, Pages
6-8, MX)
Although these violations are clearly not the same, courts and policymakers frequently
have a singular view of privacy in mind when they assess whether an activity violates
privacy. As a result, they either conflate distinct privacy problems despite significant
differences or fail to recognize a problem entirely. In short, privacy problems are
frequently misconstrued or inconsistently recognized in the law, violence is allowed to
happen under the guise of privacy but other violations of privacy are lampooned as
unethical intrusions. Merely being more contextual about privacy, however, will not be
sufficient to develop a fruitful understanding of privacy. In author Jorge Luis Borges’s
illuminating parable “Everything and Nothing,” a gifted playwright creates breathtaking
works of literature, populated with an unforgettable legion of characters, one after the
other imbued with a unique, unforgettable personality. Despite his spectacular feats of
imagination, the playwright lives a life of despair. He can dream up a multitude of
characters—become them, think like them, understand the depths of their souls—yet he
himself has no core, no way to understand himself, no way to define who he is. His gift
of assuming so many different personalities has left him with no identity of his own. At
the end of the parable, before he dies, the playwright communicates his despair to God: “I
who have been so many men in vain want to be one and myself.” The voice of the Lord
answered from a whirlwind: “Neither am I anyone; I have dreamt the world as you
dreamt your work, my Shakespeare, and among the forms in my dream are you, who like
myself are many and no one.”45 Privacy seems to encompass everything, and therefore
it appears to be nothing in itself. One commentator observed: It is apparent that the
word “privacy” has proven to be a powerful rhetorical battle cry in a plethora of
unrelated contexts. . . . Like the emotive word “freedom,” “privacy” means so many
different things to so many different people that it has lost any precise legal definition
that it might once have had.46 Legal scholar Lillian BeVier writes, “Privacy is a
chameleon-like word, used denotatively to designate a wide range of wildly disparate
interests—from confidentiality of personal information to reproductive autonomy—and
connotatively to generate goodwill on behalf of whatever interest is being asserted in its
name.”47 Other commentators have lamented that privacy is “protean” and suffers from
“an embarrassment of meanings.”48 “Perhaps the most striking thing about the right to
privacy,” philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson has observed, “is that nobody seems to have
any clear idea what it is.”49 Often, privacy problems are merely stated in knee-jerk
S 100
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
form: “That violates my privacy!” When we contemplate an invasion of privacy— such
as having our personal information gathered by companies in databases—we instinctively
recoil. Many discussions of privacy appeal to people’s fears and anxieties.
Commentators, however, often fail to translate those instincts into a reasoned, wellarticulated account of why privacy problems are harmful. When people claim that
privacy should be protected, it is unclear precisely what they mean. This lack of clarity
creates difficulty when making policy or resolving a case because lawmakers and
judges cannot easily articulate the privacy harm. The interests on the other side—free
speech, efficient consumer transactions, and security—are often much more readily
articulated. Courts and policymakers frequently struggle in recognizing privacy
interests, and when this occurs, cases are dismissed or laws are not passed. The result is
that privacy is not balanced against countervailing interests. For example, in England,
discontent over defining privacy led the Younger Committee on Privacy to recommend in
1972 against recognizing a right to privacy, as was proposed in legislation at the time.
The major difficulty in enacting a statutory protection of privacy, the committee’s report
declared, is the “lack of any clear and generally agreed definition of what privacy itself
is.” Courts would struggle in dealing with “so ill-defined and unstable a concept.”50 As a
result, the legislation failed to pass. Despite the wide-ranging body of law that addresses
privacy issues today, commentators often lament the law’s inability to adequately
protect privacy.51 Moreover, abstract incantations of “privacy” are not nuanced
enough to capture the problems involved. In the United States, for example, the 9/11
Commission Report recommended that as government agencies engage in greater
information sharing with each other and with businesses, they should “safeguard the
privacy of individuals about whom information is shared.”52 But what does
safeguarding “privacy” mean? Without an understanding of what the privacy problems
are, privacy cannot be addressed in a meaningful way.
S 101
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR – Answers to “No Alternative”
We need to rethink privacy in the context of women’s oppression
Fraser 1990 - Nancy Fraser is an American critical theorist, currently the Professor of Political
and Social Science and philosophy at The New School in New York City (Nancy, “Rethinking the
Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy, 1990,)//SC
In general, critical theory needs to take a harder, more critical look at the
terms "private" and "public." These terms,
after all, are not simply straightforward designations of societal spheres; they are cultural classifications and
rhetorical labels. In political discourse, they are powerful terms that are frequently deployed to
delegitimize some interests, views, and topics and to valorize others. This brings me to two other senses
of privacy, which often function ideologically to delimit the boundaries of the public sphere in ways that disadvantage subordinate
social groups. These
are sense 5) pertaining to private property in a market economy; and sense 6)
pertaining to intimate domestic or personal life, including sexual life. Each of these senses is at the
center of a rhetoric of privacy that has historically been used to restrict the universe of legitimate public
contestation. The rhetoric of domestic privacy seeks to exclude some issues and interests from
public debate by personalizing and/or familiarizing them; it casts these as private-domestic or personalfamilial matters in contradistinction to public, political matters. The rhetoric of economic privacy, in contrast, seeks to
exclude some issues and interests from public debate by economizing them; the issues in question
here are cast as impersonal market imperatives or as "private" ownership prerogatives or as technical problems for managers and
planners, all in contradistinction to public, political matters. In both cases, the
result is to enclave certain matters in
specialized discursive arenas and thereby to shield them from general public debate and
contestation. This usually works to the advantage of dominant groups and individuals and to the
disadvantage of their subordinates.35 If wife battering, for example, is labelled a "personal" or "domestic" matter and
if public discourse about this phenomenon is canalized into specialized institutions associated with, say, family law, social work, and
the sociology and psychology of "deviance," then this serves to reproduce gender dominance and subordination. Similarly, if
questions of workplace democracy are labelled "economic" or "managerial" problems and if discourse about these questions is
shunted into specialized institutions associated with, say, "industrial relations" sociology, labor law, and "management science,"
then this serves to perpetuate class (and usually also gender and race) dominance and subordination. This
shows once
again that the lifting of formal restrictions on public sphere participation does not suffice to
ensure inclusion in practice. On the contrary, even after women and workers have been formally licensed to participate,
their participation may be hedged by conceptions of this. Rethinking the Public Sphere, economic privacy, and
domestic privacy that delimit the scope of debate. These notions, therefore, are vehicles through
which gender and class disadvantages may continue to operate sub textually and informally,
even after explicit, formal restrictions have been rescinded.
We should reject privacy, make the personal political, and fight patriarchy
Mackinnon 1983 - Elizabeth A. Long Professor of Law at the University Of Michigan Law School, Visiting professor of law
at Harvard Law School... (Charlotte; “Privacy vs. Equality: Beyond Roe vs. Wade”;
http://politicalscience.tamu.edu/documents/faculty/MacKinnon-Privacy_v_Equality.pdf )//KM
In the context of a sexual critique of gender inequality, abortion promises to women sex with men on the same reproductive terms
as men have sex with women, So long as women do not control access to our sexuaIity abortion facilitates women’s heterosexual
availability. In other words, under
conditions of gender inequality, sexual liberation in this sense does
not free women; it frees male sexual aggression. The availability of abortion removes the one remaining
legitimized reason that women have had for refusing sex besides the headache. As Andrea Dworkin put it, analyzing male ideology
on abortion, “Getting laid was at stake” 17 The Playboy Foundation has supported abortion rights from one; it continues to, even
with shrinking disposable funds, on a level of priority comparable to that of its opposition to censorship. Privacy doctrine is an ideal
vehicle for this process. ‘the
liberal ideal of the private—and privacy as an ideal has been in liberal terms—holds
S 102
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
that, so long as the public does not interfere, autonomous individuals interact freely and
equally conceptually, this private is hermetic. It means that which is inaccessible to,
unaccountable to, unconstructed by anything beyond itself. By definition, it is not part of or
conditioned by anything systematic or outside of it. It is personal, intimate, autonomous,
particular, individual, the original source and final outpost of the self, gender neutral. It is, in
short, defined by everything that feminism reveals women have never been allowed to be or
to have, and everything that women have been equated with and defined in terms of men ability to have. To complain in
public of inequality within it contradicts the liberal definition of the private. In this view, no act of
the state contributes to—hence should properly participate in—shaping the internal alignments of the
private or distributing its internal forces. Its inviolability by the state, framed as an individual
right, presupposes that the private is not already an arm of the state. In this scheme, intimacy
is implicitly thought to guarantee symmetry of power. Injuries arise in violating the private
sphere, not within and by and because of it. In private, consent tends to be presumed. It is true
that a showing of coercion voids this presumption. One would allow force in private—the “why doesn’t she leave” question asked of
battered women—- is a question given its urgency by the social meaning of the private as a sphere of choice. But for
the measure of the intimacy has been the measure of the oppression. This is why
women
feminism has
had to explode the private. This is why feminism has seen the personal as the political . The
private is the public for those for whom the personal is the political in this sense, there is no
private, either normatively or empirically. Feminism confronts the fact that women pave no
privacy to lose or to guarantee. We are not inviolable. Our sexuality is not only violable, it is—hence, we are—
seen in and as our violation. To confront the fact that we have no privacy is to confront the intimate
degradation of women as the public order . In this light, a right to privacy looks like an injury got
up as a gift. Freedom from public intervention coexists uneasily with any right that requires
social preconditions to be meaningfully delivered. For example, if inequality is socially pervasive and enforced,
equality will require intervention, not abdication, to be meaningful. But the right to privacy is not thought to
require social change. It is not even thought to require any social preconditions, other than
nonintervention by the public. The point of this for the abortion cases is not that indecency—which was the specific
barrier to effective choice in Harris—is well within the public power to remedy, nor that the state is exempt in issues of the
distribution of wealth. The point is rather that Roe v. Wade presumes that government nonintervention into the private sphere
promotes a woman’s freedom of choice. When the alternative is jail, there is much to be said for this argument. But the Harris result
sustains the ultimate meaning of privacy in Roe:
women are guaranteed by the public no more than what
we can get in private—that is, what we can extract through our intimate associations with
men. Women with privileges get rights.
We have to expose the notion of the individual under privacy through critique
Kelly ’03 -- Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies at UCONN (Kristin
A., Domestic Violence and the Politics of Privacy, ed. By K. Kelly. P. 48-49)//FM
Likewise, the
starting point of liberal feminist theories about how to alter the public / private
division is not women but, rather, the “liberal individual.” As prior discussions demonstrate, liberal
feminist conceptualizations vary regarding the meaning of women’s individuality and the
significance of social context to its free realization. Historic changes and contemporary controversies mean that it
is extremely difficult to pinpoint the liberal feminist position on the public/private dichotomy. Still, even within this diversity,
there remains within liberal feminism an abiding and central focus on the issue of what we can
do as a society to ensure that all individuals in our society have the opportunity to grow to their
full potential. Significantly, although the particular concerns associated with being female are certainly considered by liberal
feminists, their question is not, “What do women need in order to maximize their potential as
S 103
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
individuals?” Rather, within these theories it is generally assumed that once women overcome the
gender roles that have oppressed them, that special attention to their status “as women” can be
left behind. In fact, as we have seen, one of the major criticisms that liberal feminists have of the public
/ private split is that it artificially exaggerates gender differences. The resulting absence of embodied
women in the liberal analysis of and solutions to the public / private split is the basis for some of the strongest criticism that radical
MacKinnon has argued that the “abstracted individual”
upon whom liberal theories are premised are (upon closer examination) male individuals writ large
and, therefore, such theories do not speak to women’s interests at all. From MacKinnon’s perspective, the
best way to avoid the irrelevance that accompanies such abstractions is to explicitly make
women central. This is accomplished by a singular focus on the fundamental characteristic that
has historically differentiated women from men: their sex. It is the sexual act and its
consequences (that is, pregnancy) that have enabled men to dominate women since the beginning of
time. The only way to liberate women is to confront the implicit oppression of all heterosexual
sexual relations and activities by exposing their political nature. Thus, according to MacKinnon’s radical
analysis, because the liberal distinction between public and private functions to construct sex as
an intimate (and therefore apolitical) activity, it should be approached by feminists as a powerful
obstacle to women’s freedom that should be challenged.
feminists have of this position. For example, Catharine
S 104
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Root Cause
The root cause of surveillance is inequalities of power
Roth 99-- Roth is Ph.D. Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Arizona (Louise,
"The Right to Privacy Is Political: Power, the Boundary Between Public and Private, and Sexual
Harassment," Law and Social Inquiry, Winter, 1999, 24 Law & Soc. Inquiry 45 , JSTOR)//KM
The rhetoric of rights to noninterference in private matters is embedded in the legal system, the
labor market, and culture, even though the public/private boundary itself is arbitrary and
changing. The most recent shift to defining privacy as an area of every person's life moves it to a
micro level. If this boundary exists for each individual and is not related to stratification, then all
individuals should be equally able to protect this privacy. However, control over the discursive
boundary, and protection of privacy, differ by power. This shift to an individual-level boundary is
where the issue of sexual harassment (in the form of unwanted sexual attention or sexual
coercion) is related to the public/private boundary in two ways. First, it challenges the boundary
itself, because it represents the occurrence of "private" (sexual) behavior in the "public sphere"
of work and education. Second, sexual harassment is an issue that reveals the importance of social power in
defining and defending one's privacy. As a communication issue, sexual harassment represents the extreme on a continuum of
communication between status unequals: communication that manifests power and has implications for defining one's privacy.
Feminist scholars have revealed that noninterference in the "private" realm has the effect of
reinforcing power and powerlessness (MacKinnon 1989). Formal equality fails to engender real
equality, and even reinforces inequality, because power relations from the public realm
operate with impunity in the arena of nonintervention. In guaranteeing a right to privacy in the
private sphere to all citizens, the liberal state legitimates an area in which inequalities of
power based on resources, knowledge, and symbolic attributions can act with impunity
(MacKinnon 1989; Polan 1993; Hoff 1991). The development of a feminist critique of the legal and ideological division of private and
public, of personal and political, led to the feminist mantra, "The
personal is political." Not only is the personal
political in the sense that the private sphere contains power relations that mirror those outside
it, but systemic power also influences the right to privacy. The arbitrariness of the discursive
boundary between public and private subjects it to the influence of social power. All forms of social
power are reinforced by institutional disciplines, including law, which justify the perpetuation
of inequality within a juridicosocial structure that formally upholds ideals of equality (Foucault
1977). The disciplines act as systems of micro-power that support the status quo by naming the world
from the perspective of those in power such that the standpoint of the powerless is silenced
because it cannot be expressed using available language (Foucault 1977, 1978). Furthermore, disciplines
and their accompanying discourses justify inequality as a consequence of empirically observable
individual differences. Such differences are observed and documented through the application of
surveillance of the less powerful by the more powerful. Through surveillance, "the disciplines characterize,
classify, specialize; they distribute along a scale, around a norm, hierarchize individuals in relation to one another and, if necessary,
disqualify and invalidate" (Foucault 1977, 223). Thus, disciplines
validate social, economic, and political
inequality within a context of ideological egalitarianism by attributing inequalities to the observable
attributes of individuals rather than to structural processes that differentially affect individuals depending on
their position in the social order. Surveillance is applied most vigorously to those with the least ability
to define the boundaries between their private and public lives.6 Those with more power have
greater access and opportunity to use surveillance on the less powerful by monitoring their day-to-day activities
with the assistance of video cameras, guards, police surveillance, and observation by
S 105
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
credentialed "experts" whose research is funded by various institutions (Foucault 1977, 1978; Davis 1990; McIntosh 1988).
At the same time, the powerful protect their power by preventing the less powerful from doing the same (Foucault 1977), partially
accomplished by residing in communities and belonging to associations that are insulated from public access (Davis 1990). These
dynamics are often a prominent feature of battering relationships, and are also particularly
evident on a large scale in racial domination in the United States, accomplished by greater
social and police surveillance (and incarceration) of nonwhites, especially African Americans
(Collins 1991; Davis 1990). Facility of surveillance is often built into architecture or urban planning (Davis 1990) or into the
arrangement of work space within organizations. It is also applied using the disciplines of science, medicine, and law (Foucault
1977). Sexuality
is another arena in which power and surveillance operate (Foucault 1978). Foucault
argues that a science of sexuality, and truth claims about sexuality's link to identity and virtue, are discourses that
exert power and create docile bodies. Since the seventeenth century, sexuality has been exploited as the means for
finding out the truth about a person. To expose or control someone's sexuality is a means of exerting power, while being able to
protect one's own sexuality from exposure and scrutiny is an expression of power as well as a means of preserving it (Foucault
1978). It is through this relationship between sexuality and power that sexual harassment operates. Sexual harassment of the "come
on" type is a means of controlling and/or exposing someone's sexuality. Consequently, sexual harassment and power, definitions of
sexual harassment, and typologies of harassment have been developed through the theoretical and empirical literature on the
subject. This
literature can then be connected to power dynamics in communication, and to the
definition of privacy as a circumscribed area of noninterference in each individual's life. Sexual
harassment is an abusive means of exercising power through communication that highlights the target's gender and/or sexuality.
S 106
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Answers to: “Privacy Good Impact Turn”
(--) The right to privacy separates women and prevents collective action.
Catherine MacKinnon, 1983 (Elizabeth A. Long Professor of Law at Michigan Law), 1983. Retrieved May 30, 2015 from http://politicalscience.tamu.edu/documents/faculty/MacKinnonPrivacy_v_Equality.pdf
To fail to recognize the meaning of the private in the ideology and reality of women’s
subordination by seeking protection behind a right to that privacy is to cut women off from
collective verification and state support in the same act. I think this has a lot to do with why we can’t
organize women on the abortion issue. When women are segregated in private, separated from each
other, one at a time, a right to that privacy isolates us at once from each other and from
public recourse. This right to privacy is a right of men “to be let alone” to oppress women
one at a time.
It embodies and reflects the private sphere’s existing defini-tion of womanhood. This is an instance of
It reinforces the division
between public and private that is not gender neutral. It is at once an ideological division that
lies about wom-en’s shared experience and that mystifies the unity among the spheres of
women’s violation. It is a very material division that keeps the private beyond public redress
and depoliticizes women’s subjection within it. It keeps some men out of the bedrooms of other men.
liberalism called feminism, liberalism applied to women as if we are persons, gender neutral.
Their version of democracy is patriarchal, the kind George W Bush could exploit
– we can’t have true democracy without dismantling patriarchy first
Richards, Professor of Law at NYU, 2008 (David,
http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/richards_gilligan_book)
"The patriarchal distortion of democracy...is alive in the United States in the resurgent
fundamentalism which George Bush massaged and drew much of his power from,"
Richards said. "How is it in an advanced country like the United States that you can create
democratic majorities on the basis of the hatred of free women and gay men and lesbians?...
To us it shows the continuing power of patriarchy, which has never been questioned the way
it should.... Not to take it seriously is not to understand where the real threats to democracy
lie, not just abroad but here at home—all too intimately at home, inside us as Americans to the
extent that we can’t see these things, so we can’t face them.”
S 107
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Answers to: Permutation
The permutation still links to the kritik – using privacy law undermines even the
best intentions of government action
Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1991(Catharine A. MacKinnon is Professor of Law at the
University of Michigan Law School, March, 1991; Yale Law Journal, " Reflections on Sex Equality
Under Law," EE2001-hxm P)
The law of reproductive control has developed largely as a branch of the law of privacy, the law that keeps out observing
outsiders. Sometimes it has. n137 The
problem is that while the private has been a refuge for
some, it has been a hellhole for others, often at the same time. In gendered light, the law's privacy is a sphere
of sanctified isolation, impunity, and unaccountability. It surrounds the individual in his habitat. It belongs to the
individual with power. Women have been accorded neither individuality nor power.
Privacy follows those with power wherever they go, like and as consent follows women.
When the person with privacy is having his privacy, the person without power is
tacitly imagined to be consenting. At whatever time and place man has privacy, woman wants to have happen,
or lets happen, whatever he does to her. Everyone is implicitly equal in there . If the woman needs something -say, equality -- to make these assumptions real, privacy law does nothing for her, and even
ideologically undermines the state intervention that might provide the preconditions for
its meaningful exercise. n138 The private is a distinctive sphere of women's inequality to
men . Because this has not been recognized, the doctrine of privacy has become the triumph of
the state's abdication of women in the name of freedom and self-determination. n139
Privacy isn’t equal – it gets used by the powerful to oppress the powerless
McGill 2009 – Professor and on the Faculty of Law at University of Ontario (Jena, Lessons from the
Identity Trail, Ch. 9 “What have you done for me Lately? Reflections on Redeeming Privacy for Battered
Women,” ed. by Ian Kerr, Valerie Steeves, and Carole Lucock, p. 157-172)//DWB
The systems of patriarchy and its interlocking systems of oppression, including racism,
classism, ableism, heterosexism, and neo-colonialism, dictate whether and how privacy is
accessed (or rendered inaccessible), experienced (or not expe-rienced), valued (or undervalued),
and protected (or not). In the case of woman battering, it is clear that the patriarchal positioning
of privacy informs the determination of whose privacy “counts,” such that men’s privacy
rights “trump" women's, as demonstrated in the preceding section. Patriarchy situates men as
the dominant, defines the “right to be let alone” with reference to men’s needs and desires,
and employs privacy to accomplish patriarchy’s goals, which include the subordination of
women. Patriarchy and its interlocking oppressions thereby permit those with power (men) to
act with impunity toward those with less power (women), in accordance with the systemic
privileging of men that is foundational to patriarchy in all spheres of society.¶ Privacy is
deployed along the fault lines of patriarchy to solidify existing hierarchies and bolster the
project of patriarchy and its interlocking oppressions. We thereby find ourselves in a situation
where “[t]o the extent that the government ¶ is infused with patriarchal, heterosexual ideals,
men’s and women’s privacy rights are likely to reflect patriarchal, heterosexual ideals of
[privacy],” which quite simply are not attuned to the needs and desires of women. The
consequences are predictably detrimental to women, and include the privileging of men’s privacy
in the home such that woman abuse is concealed from sight. The problem, however, is not
privacy itself, but the fact that privacy exists within a‘constricted referential universe”43
S 108
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
where existing lines of power defined by gender, race, class, disability, and sexuality dictate
the form privacy will take and the ways it will be employed.¶ Accepting that the source of the
privacy problem is not the concept of privacy itself, but the ways in which privacy is accessed,
employed, and enforced within confines of a system circumscribed by patriarchy and its
interlocking oppressions leads privacy-rejection feminists to conclude that within the limits of a
society characterized by inequality, it makes no sense to devote time or resources to privacy.
Faced with the immensity of the ubiquitous obstacle of patriarchy, privacy-rejection feminists
halt their analyses and discard privacy outright, apparently concluding that privacy might be
redeemed for women only when it can be employed and accessed in the context of real
equality. Conversely, I remain hopeful about privacy's present potential as a tool for the
protection of mattered women, even within the confines of inequality. Feminists must continue
to challenge the particular limits of patriarchy that circumscribe privacy for women, and work
toward affecting the kinds of systemic change required to realize equality in the long term;
however, we must keep women safe and alive in order to do so. Equality may be the long-term
goal, but as a “stop-gap” measure to ensure battered women’s safety right now, privacy is worthy
of our time and resources.¶ Feminist critiques of privacy have recognized the limits of privacy
as it is currently defined and employed. Acknowledging these limits does not, however,
automatically mandate a blanket negation of privacy itself, and doing so risks implied
acceptance of the status quo. More importantly, perhaps, rejecting privacy simply does not
reflect the realities of women’s lives, for whether we love or hate it, reject or accept it, privacy
matters. It can and does play an important role in battered women's lives, as demonstrated in
theory and confirmed in reality' by my experience working in a battered women’s shelter. If and
when systemic equality is realized, woman battering itself may become a relic of history, doing
away with the need for strong privacy protections behind which battered women may “hide” in
order to secure their safety. Ultimately, of course, this is the world I want to live in—one where
systemic equality dictates that woman battering is simply unthinkable . In the meantime,
however, I am willing to use all available ¶ resources, including imperfect privacy, to keep
battered women safe from violent partners.¶
S 109
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2NC/1NR Impact Extensions
Masculine domination leads to extinction:
Jhyette Nhanenge, 2007 (developmental Africa worker), 2007, Retrieved May 30,
2015
from
http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/570/dissertation.pdf?sequence=1/ ns
Technology can be used to dominate societies or to enhance them. Thus both science and technology could have developed in a
different direction. But due
to patriarchal values infiltrated in science the type of technology developed is
meant to dominate, oppress, exploit and kill. One reason is that patriarchal societies
identify masculinity with conquest. Thus any technical innovation will continue to be a tool for more effective
oppression and exploitation. The highest priority seems to be given to technology that destroys life. Modern societies are
dominated by masculine institutions and patriarchal ideologies. Their technologies
prevailed in Auschwitz, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and in many
other parts of the world. Patriarchal power has brought us acid rain , global warming ,
military states, poverty and countless cases of suffering. We have seen men whose power has caused them
to lose all sense of reality, decency and imagination, and we must fear such power. The ultimate result of unchecked
patriarchy will be ecological catastrophe and nuclear holocaust. Such actions are denial of wisdom. It is
working against natural harmony and destroying the basis of existence. But as long as ordinary people leave questions of technology
to the "experts" we will continue the forward stampede. As long as economics focus on technology and both are the focus of politics,
Ordinary people are often more capable of taking a wider and
more humanistic view than these experts.
we can leave none of them to experts.
Patriarchy causes nuclear annihilation – it necessitates militarism
Spretnak 89 - MA in English from University of California, Berkeley, (Charlene, “Exposing Nuclear
Phallacies,” 1989, p. 53-54) //DS
Women and men can live together and can relate to other societies in any number of cultural
configurations, but ignorance of the configurations themselves locks a populace into blind
adherence to the status quo. In the nuclear age, such unexamined acceptance may be fatal as certain cultural
assumptions in our own society are pushing us closer and closer to war. Since a major war could now easily bring on
massive annihilation of almost unthinkable proportions, why are discussions in our national
forums addressing this madness of the nuclear arms race limited to matters of hardware and
statistics? A more comprehensive analysis is needed-unless, as the doomsayers claim, we collectively harbor a death wish and no
not really want to look closely at dynamics propelling us steadily toward the brink of extinction. The cause of nuclear arms
proliferation is militarism. What is the cause of militarism? The traditional militarist explanation is that the
“masters of war” in the military-industrial complex profit enormously from defense contracts and other war preparations. A
capitalist economy periodically requires the economic boon that large-scale government spending, capitol investment, and worker
sacrifice produce during a crisis of war. In addition, American armed forces, whether nuclear or conventional, are stationed
worldwide to protect the status quo, which requires vast and interlocking American corporate interests. Suck an economic analysis
alone in inadequate, as the recent responses to the nuclear arms race that ignore the cultural orientation of the nations involved:
patriarchies. Militarism and warfare are continual features of patriarchal society because
they reflect and instill patriarchal values and fulfill essential needs of such a system. Acknowledging
They are
the context of patriarchal conceptualizations that feed militarism is a first step toward reducing their impact and preserving life on
Earth.
S 110
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
Affirmative Answers to Feminist Privacy Kritik
S 111
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
2AC Answers to Feminist Privacy Kritik
Impact Turn:
A) Privacy is Key to Democracy
Hartmann 2013,
Thom Hartmann columnist for Truthout (Without Privacy There Can be No
Democracy, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19039-without-privacy-there-can-be-no-democracy)
Without the right of privacy, there is no real freedom of speech or freedom of opinion,
and so there is no actual democracy. This is not just true of international relations. It's
also true here within the United States. Back before the Kennedy administration largely
put an end to it, J Edgar Hoover was infamous in political circles in Washington DC for
his spying on and blackmailing of both American politicians and activists like Martin
Luther King. He even sent King tapes of an extramarital affair and suggested that King
should consider committing suicide. That was a shameful period in American history, and
most Americans think it is behind us. But the NSA, other intelligence agencies, and even
local police departments have put the practice of spying on average citizens in America
on steroids. As Brazil's President points out, without privacy there can be no democracy.
Democracy requires opposing voices; it requires a certain level of reasonable political
conflict. And it requires that government misdeeds be exposed. That can only be done
when whistleblowers and people committing acts of journalism can do so without being
spied upon. Opposing voice will never feel comfortable to oppose injustice without the
comfortability of privacy. Perhaps a larger problem is that well over half – some estimates
run as high as 70% – of the NSA's budget has been outsourced to private corporations.
These private corporations maintain an army of lobbyists in Washington DC who
constantly push for more spying and, thus, more money for their clients. With the
privatization of intelligence operations, the normal system of checks and balances that
would keep government snooping under control has broken down. We need a new
Church Commission to investigate the nature and scope of our government spying both
on our citizens and on our allies. But even more than that we need to go back to the
advice that President Dwight Eisenhower gave us as he left the presidency in 1961.
Eisenhower warned about the rise of a military-industrial complex, suggesting that
private forces might, in their search for profits, override the protective mechanisms that
keep government answerable to its people. That military-industrial complex has become
the military-industrial-spying-private-prison complex, and it is far greater a threat to
democracy then probably was envisioned by Eisenhower. Government is the protector of
the commons. Government is of by and for we the people. Government must be
answerable to the people. When the functions of government are privatized, all of that
breaks down and Government becomes answerable to profit. It's time to reestablish the
clear dividing lines between government functions and corporate functions, between the
public space and the private space. A critically important place to start that is by ending
the privatization within our national investigative and spying agencies.
S 112
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
B) Democracy is Key to Resistance against all forms of Oppression, This Turns the
K and indicts the Alternative
Prilletenskey 2003,
Isaac Prilletenskey (Understanding, Resisting, and Overcoming Oppression:
Toward Psychopolitical Validity, American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 31, Issue 1/2)
Participatory democracies reinforce social justice through communal mobilization, resulting
in better distribution of resources and personal health. In the state of Kerala, India, for instance,
a succession of governments committed to participatory democracy stimulated social action
that simultaneously increased social cohesion and forced legislators to create land reforms,
revise tenancy laws, and provide food supplements for children. Despite having very low
economic growth and annual income (US$370 per capita per year), Kerala boasts health
indices comparable to many industrialized countries and much better than the rest of
India (Sen, 1999a, 1999b).Witnessing the positive outcomes of their own actions, citizens
in Kerala felt empowered to press for more reforms, reinforcing the cycle of praxis
(Parayil, 2000). Indeed, achievements at one level of well-being energize people to
pursue the same at other levels. But the reinforcing cycle also works in the opposite
direction. Deprivation of rights at the collective level often results in internecine conflict at
the relational level, pushing people to lower levels of personal wellness. Violence,
isolation, fear, and anxiety often result from this downward spiral of the democratic
process. Apartheid only occurred because South Africa refused to extend democratic
rights to black citizens. The Holocaust only happened because of similar
misappropriation of democratic freedom. Democracy is a transfixed site of resistance to
injustice. James and her colleagues support this view in their paper dealing with
structural, interpersonal, and intrapersonal violence (James et al., 2003 this issue). In the
same vein cultural deprecation at the collective level results in internalized oppression and
partial or complete rejection of one’s own reference group (see, e.g, VarasD´ıaz&Serrano- Garc´ıa’s work, 2003, this issue in Puerto Rico; and Sonn & Fisher’s
work, 2003, this issue, with colored South Africans). For some groups, then, colonization
and oppression undermine, and not necessarily promote solidarity.
2. No Alternative: Privacy is the only way women can enjoy freedom in the
public and private sphere
Allen 1999 - Henry R. Silverman Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Pennsylvania Law School (Anita , “Coercing Privacy", William and Mary Law Review
Vol. 40, Issue 3. Date: 03/01/1999- JSTOR)//KM
Feminists exploded the assumption that the proper role of women is to live under the authority
of men as daughters, wives, and mothers. The lives of American women once consisted chiefly
of domestic tasks, such as cooking, shopping, gardening, cleaning, and childrearing.
"Conventions of female chastity and modesty have shielded women in a mantle of privacy at a high cost to sexual choice
and self-expression."(82) Seclusion and subordination meant that women generally were unable to
utilize their full capacities to participate in society. Maternal and social roles kept women--who might
otherwise have distinguished themselves in the public sphere as businesswomen, scholars,
government leaders, and artists--in the private sphere.(83) To increase women's participation in society,
S 113
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
feminist activists have advocated for the right of women to hold property, to vote, and to work outside the home in jobs of varied
description for which they would be compensated on an equal basis with men.(84)
Women have under-participated in societal affairs. Although the under-participation critique is
sweeping and true, the critique does not suggest that women should not seek privacy, or
eschew opportunities for personal privacy and private choice. Women today, especially educated and
middle-class women, have lifestyle options that they can exercise with privacy-related interests in mind.
Some of their options (e.g., celibacy, childlessness) have a cost. Encouraging women to recognize their options,
and to exercise their options in ways that acknowledge that women's privacy and private choice
are worth something, would be an appropriate feminist emphasis. Educating oneself, delaying marriage,
controlling the timing of childbearing, working part-time--all of these are techniques women can use, and are
using, to create lives in which they can enjoy forms and degrees of privacy unknown to
American women fifty years ago. A felicitous balance between privacy and disclosure can come about if lessons about
exploiting privacy and lessons about exploiting the new openness in public life are offered in tandem. Some feminists seem
to assume that privacy and disclosure are differing models of how one might live.(85) Privacy
and disclosure are better understood, however, as important and necessary dimensions of a
range of good lives one can elect to live.
3. Permutation: Do Both— Feminists Should be Pragmatic and Use the Law
Armstrong 2014
(Susan M. Armstrong is a nationally recognized legal educator whose accomplishments have
been acknowledged by the LexisNexis-Australasian Law Teachers’ Association Award for Excellence and Innovation
in the Teaching of Law. She was a foundational appointment to the new University of Western Sydney School of Law
in 1996 and, before that, held research and policy positions in the Family Court of Australia and the Commonwealth
Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 7/8/14, "Is Feminist Law Reform Flawed? Abstentionists & Sceptics," pg. online @
www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13200968.2004.10854323//DM)
Feminists have generally been ambivalent about whether law could or should be used as a
tool for feminist action and strategy. Early feminist legal scholarship implicated law as
central to a patriarchal political structure which reinforced women’s subordination.
Politically committed to changing this, feminists sought to use law to address the unequal
conditions under which many women live, but lamented the failure of feminist law
reforms to achieve lasting or meaningful change.1 Some questioned whether law or legal
method could ever respond to gendered claims and concluded that law was largely
impervious to feminist perspectives.2 Others doubted that a feminist jurisprudence was
possible.3 Still others became disillusioned by the law reform project altogether.
Frustrated by what they considered to be the naïve assumptions that informed feminist law
reform and the paucity of its results, they cautioned feminists to abstain from reform and
sought to engage differently with law.4 However, feminists are still challenged by the
urgency and magnitude of the inequalities many women continue to experience.
Chastened by law reform failures and informed by developments within feminist legal
theory, many feminists feel compelled to engage in legal reformist projects. This paper
revisits debates within legal feminism about the merits of engaging with law reform. I
survey a spectrum of feminist approaches to reformism to argue that feminist law reform
is not flawed. There is still scope, indeed necessity, for reform in a transformative feminist
project. British sociologists and feminists working in the field of domestic violence have
described those supportive of legal interventions as ‘skeptical reformers’ and those who
reject engagement with law and law reform as ‘abstentionists’.5 Whilst this categorization
was not solely directed at feminist analyses of law reform, and simplifies the complexity and
range of critical feminist legal scholarship, it is a useful framework for appraising feminist
S 114
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
approaches to law reform. Although I adopt this dualism as a shorthand to describe different
approaches to law reform, it is more useful to situate these approaches along a continuum of
readiness to engage in law reform, with abstentionists at one end and sceptics at the other. Nor
do I wish to make too much of these distinctions. As Mari Matsuda reminds us, feminists and
other outsiders may need to adopt elements of a multiple consciousness appropriate to the
circumstances. Like Angela Davis, they may be compelled to ‘embrace legalism as a tool of
necessity’ to attack injustice, yet at other times ‘stand outside the courtroom door’,
condemning the abuse of law to sustain oppression and domination.6 I prefer the term
‘skeptical pragmatists’ to describe feminists willing to engage in law reform. They share
with legal pragmatists an acceptance that law can, and in some instances must, be used in
an instrumentalist sense to achieve some broader social goal, or to limit the erosion of
existing entitlements, but they are skeptical because they appreciate the political
limitations and practical difficulties associated with law reform. The discussion below is
not an exhaustive review of feminist scholarship dealing with law reform, but focuses on
a few of those whose work is emblematic of these approaches.
4. We have a moral obligation to protect privacy rights
Corlett, 2002 J. Angelo. Professor Corlett is a philosopher specializing in ethics and epistemology at
San Diego State University "The nature and value of the moral right to privacy." Public Affairs Quarterly
(2002): 329-350.
Privacy, moreover, can insulate one from being treated as a mere means to the end of, say,
social utility, where private objectives tend to be devalued. It is based on the Kantian
principle of respect for persons. Privacy enables us to pursue our projects because they
are ours, because they have value for us. Construed in this way, the moral right to privacy
may be seen as a concern for moral autonomy. Furthermore, privacy is necessary for
persons to create, develop, and sustain intimacy with others. It is connected to basic ends
and relations such as respect, love, friendship, and trust. As Thomas Nagel argues, And as
Frederick Schauer argues, not even public figures, elected or otherwise, ought to be
expected to forgo their essential privacy.50 To argue thusly is to insist on the essential
moral (though non-absolute) right to privacy, a right which is only the moral agent's to
waive as she sees fit. To the extent that the balance of reason secures the importance of these
factors for human life, these factors serve as moral grounds for the need to respect privacy by
moral right. Indeed, among other things, a well-ordered society ought to foster a reasonable
culture of privacy. But this is possible only where there is a clear idea, not only of the
nature and value of privacy as a moral right, but also of the scope of that right.
S 115
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
1AR Extensions to Permutation
Perm solves best - reform solves better than abdication of privacy
McClain 1999 – Paul Siskind research scholar and professor of law at Boston University,
(Linda, “Reconstructive Tasks for a Liberal Feminist Conception of Privacy,” 40.3, (1999), p.771774, William and Mary Law Review Journal) //DS
An adequate liberal account of privacy requires a persuasive articulation, rather
than abdication, of a public/private distinction. To use Allen’s formulation, this is the
important task of rescuing the public and the private,90 which requires a liberal
framework within which “public and private are contingent, transformable
conceptions of how power ought best to be allocated among individuals, social
groups, and government.mu Perhaps the most forceful and pervasive feminist
criticism of privacy- and of the public/private distinction-stems from its role in
allowing unjust and hierarchical distributions of power between men and women
that have left women subject to the “private sovereignty” of men.92 For example, Professor
Reva Siegel’s historical analysis of the evolving legal treatment of violence against women in the home powerfully
demonstrates how, even after the law’s formal repudiation of the idea of coverture and a husband’s right to administer
“chastisement” to his wife, and even after the evolution from a model of authoritarian marriage to companionate marriage,
courts continued to use the concept of “affective” or marital privacy to shield the
home from public exposure, leaving women without a remedy against intimate
violence.”3 An adequate account of governmental noninterference with private
choice and private life must condemn this invocation of privacy to immunize private
violence.
Perm solves – incremental change to refine the public/private dichotomy
necessary to solve gender equality
Lever 2005 – Assoc Prof of normative political theory at the University of Geneva, her research
focuses on the nature and justification of privacy, the ethics of voting, democracy and judicial
review and the justification of intellectual property. (Annabelle, “Feminism, Democracy and the Right to Privacy”
http://www.minerva.mic.ul.ie//vol9/Feminism.html)//CC
there is "a call for retaining but recasting the public and
private boundaries as part of an effort to preserve each yet reach towards an ideal of social
reconstruction." By taking part of Woolf's argument and looking outside the dominant society, not within,
can justice and equality and liberty for all men and women begin to be achieved. In order to
To begin to achieve this goal of gendered equality,
reconstruct the public/private in a gendered equality, first a deconstruction the market/family and state/family aspects of the
public/private must take place. This
does not mean that there is a need to destroy the line between the
public and private totally, but the need to redefine this line in a background of equality . The
reconstruction of the public/private divide along the lines of gendered equality is an undeniably
prodigious ambition, but having a final aspiration and ideal will aid in directing the change that is
needed. This change must not be forced in the form of legislation, though legislation does help in shaping
social attitudes, but must be completely embodied by individuals to facilitate in the
social change needed to achieve gendered equality. Slowly, through small refinements of the public and
private, this gendered equality will hopefully become an effective reality.
S 116
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
1AR Extensions to No Alternative
Patriarchy is not a reason to reject protecting us from the government – it’s a
reason we need to act
Allen 1988 – professor of Law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania’s
law school, (Anita, “Uneasy Access: Privacy for Women in a Free Society,” 1988,
p.70-72, Rowman and Littlefield) //DS
To reject the private sphere for the reasons MacKinnon gives is to toss out the baby
(privacy itself) with the bathwater (confinement and inequality). MacKinnon rightly
condemned women's unequal control of sex and powerlessness to make decisions about
matters most closely associated with their own bodies and self-development. She rightly judged that existing conditions of
sexual inequality in the private sphere can undercut decisional privacy rights established by law on behalf of women.
But
these are not reasons to reject privacy, the private sphere, or the decisional privacy right of
Roe v. Wade.
Decisional privacy rights have done more than supplement male authority over
women. Many women still “second-chair” men in sexual relationships, but Roe and access to birth control have helped to
create new powers, new norms, and new expectations of self- determination among women. Decisional
privacy
must be recognized as one of the important remedies for the problem of sexual
inequality and women’s lack of meaningful privacy. Economic equality, by which I mean equal
employment opportunity, equal pay, and greater recognition of the economic and social worth of the kinds of work women
essential remedies as well. It is as mistaken to dismiss decisional privacy because it is impaired by residual male domination,
as it would be to dismiss equal pay and comparable worth because their efficacy is impaired by residual male domination of
private relations.
Male hegemony is not a reason to reject decisional privacy, and it is not a reason to
reject the idea of privacy and the private sphere. Absent radical social
reorganization, to reject the private sphere is virtually to reject the notion of reliable
opportunities for seclusion, anonymity, and solitude. As I will argue in Chapter 4, one of the great
benefits of decisional privacy respecting birth control and abortion is that it enables women to enjoy important forms of
privacy at home. Decisional privacy is a tool women can use to create and control the privacy available to themselves and
those with whom they choose to share their private lives. So too are options about marriage, employment, and careers.
S 117
CDL Core Files Supplement 2015-2016
1AR Extensions to Privacy Good - Democracy
Democracy is key to avoid extinction.
Diamond 1995 (Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow – Hoover Institution, Promoting Democracy in the
1990s,
December,http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm)
OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and wellbeing in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression
tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs
intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made
common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of
tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to
proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears
increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are
associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for
legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH
CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that
govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They
do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders.
Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they
are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism
against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to
threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring
trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment.
They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own
citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better
bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their
openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because,
within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the
rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of
international security and prosperity can be built.
S 118