1AC
Plan
The United States federal government should prohibit warrantless use of domestic
surveillance by unpiloted aerial vehicles
Solvency
Solvency – 1AC
Drone surveillance should be restricted to times when there is a warrant
Jay Stanley and Catherine Crump, DECEMBER 2011, Protecting Privacy From Aerial Surveillance:
Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft, American Civil Liberties Union,
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/protectingprivacyfromaerialsurveillance.pdf, /Bingham-MB
Usage restrictions. UAVs should be subject to strict regulation to ensure that their use does not
eviscerate the privacy that Americans have traditionally enjoyed and rightly expect. Innocent
Americans should not have to worry that their activities will be scrutinized by drones. To this end, the
use of drones should be prohibited for indiscriminate mass surveillance, for example, or for spying based
on First Amendment-protected activities. In general, drones should not be deployed except: o where
there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will collect evidence relating to a
specific instance of criminal wrongdoing or, if the drone will intrude upon reasonable expectations of
privacy, where the government has obtained a warrant based on probable cause; or o where there is a
geographically confined, time-limited emergency situation in which particular individuals’ lives are at
risk, such as a fire, hostage crisis, or person lost in the wilderness; or o for reasonable non-law
enforcement purposes by non-law enforcement agencies, where privacy will not be substantially
affected, such as geological inspections or environmental surveys, and where the surveillance will not be
used for secondary law enforcement purposes.
Plan is key for a roadmap for effective drone integration into society
Jay Stanley and Catherine Crump, DECEMBER 2011, Protecting Privacy From Aerial Surveillance:
Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft, American Civil Liberties Union,
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/protectingprivacyfromaerialsurveillance.pdf, /Bingham-MB
Unmanned aircraft carrying cameras raise the prospect of a significant new avenue for the surveillance
of American life. Many Americans have heard of these aircraft, commonly called drones, because of
their use overseas in places like Afghanistan and Yemen.1 But drones are coming to America. Their
deployment has so far been held up by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) over safety concerns,
but that agency is under strong industry and Congressional pressure to pave the way for domestic
deployment. Meanwhile, the technology is quickly becoming cheaper and more powerful, interest in
deploying drones among police departments is increasing, and our privacy laws are not strong enough
to ensure that the new technology will be used responsibly and consistently with democratic values.
In short, all the pieces appear to be lining up for the eventual introduction of routine aerial surveillance
in American life—a development that would profoundly change the character of public life in the United
States. We need a system of rules to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of this technology without
bringing us a large step closer to a “surveillance society” in which our every move is monitored,
tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the authorities. In this paper, we outline a set of protections that
we believe would protect Americans’ privacy in the coming world of drones.
Federal legislation can create data retention limits, warrant requirements, and
sanctions on drone use
EPIC 14 [Electronic Privacy Information Center - Spotlight on Surveillance - October 2014 “DRONES:
Eyes in the Sky” https://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/1014/drones.html c.shack]
Legislation on drone use by law enforcement should ensure that all drone surveillance requires a
warrant or a narrowly tailored emergency exception. Laws should also create data retention limits for
information collected by drones and minimization for information collected outside the scope of the
warrant. Government access to third party drone data should also require a warrant, so that the government
cannot avoid obtaining warrants by collecting drone surveillance data from the private sector. Federal agencies must be transparent and held
accountable for their domestic use of drones. Agencies should provide clarity around the data collected, how it is used, and how long it is
retained. Local and state agencies should provide similarly information to the public whether they are using drones directly or indirectly
through federal agencies. All
law enforcement agencies should publicly disclose the scope and purpose of the
missions it performs. Courts must adapt constitutional jurisprudence to properly address modern technology. The fact that it is now
feasible to cheaply perform surveillance on an individual or entire area of individuals should not mean that these actions are constitutional.
Particularly when surveillance is conducted on the property of another, or in
areas where people would have an expectation
of privacy or at least an expectation that they will not be subject to covert observation and recording,
sanctions should be imposed. Lawmakers should be concerned with changes in technology that allow commercial or private actors
to gather data on or track the movements of individuals. These technological changes mean that individuals need laws to protect their dignity,
autonomy, and privacy. At the same time, lawmakers must be cognizant of the fact that there are numerous legitimate uses for drone
technology, including public safety and emergency response.. As such, laws
passed in an effort to protect victims and
consumers must be carefully tailored to separate innocent photography and exploration from stalking,
harassment, and the commodification of our personal lives.
Solvency – Federal Legislation Key
Federal regulation key—it’s the driver of drone surveillance
Shane Trejo, 2-25-2015, Ban Warrantless Drone Surveillance," Liberty Host Page,
http://libertyhostpage.com/2015/02/25/california-bill-ban-warrantless-drone-surveillance/, Accessed:
5-25-2015, /Bingham-MB
Maharrey said that this kind of bill has significant ramifications at the federal level because Washington
D.C. is pushing and funding drone use at the state level. He noted that the federal government serves
as the primary engine behind the expansion of drone surveillance carried out by states and local
communities. The Department of Homeland Security issues large grants to local governments so they
can purchase drones. “Those grants, in and of themselves, represent an unconstitutional expansion of
power.”
Federal regulation is key—solves federal law enforcement and certainty
Anthea-Mitchell, 5-15-2015, Should America Be Worried About Police Drones?," Cheat Sheet,
http://www.cheatsheet.com/politics/are-police-drones-a-privacy-nightmare-or-a-safetyadvantage.html/?a=viewall, Accessed: 5-26-2015, /Bingham-MB
There have been efforts to enact uniform boundaries on UAV use in Congress, but successful legislation
on a national level has been limited, apart from a Federal Aviation Administration mandate to allow
drone use in domestic air zones. There are limited rules available from the FAA and currently the FAA
and Obama Administration are collaborating on new national rules, which have yet to be decided in full.
Reps. Ted Poe (R-Texas) and Zoe Lofgren (D-California) introduced H.R. 637, the Preserving American
Privacy Act, which would have required law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants for UAV
utilization. The bill would also have required transparency for the sake of accountability, and would have
disallowed the attachment of a firearm to any drone, while also making clear exceptions for specific
emergency situations — all items that many states have gone on to pass. But efforts to pass legislation
at the national level have been unsuccessful for the most part, Poe and Lofgren’s bill included. This
means that, as with many other issues today, the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the states. Allie
Bohm, an advocacy and policy strategist with the American Civil Liberties Union, told Wall St. Cheat
Sheet that while there are distinct disadvantages to a state-by-state approach, in ways, it’s not all bad. “I
think it’s necessary that it’s going state by state. … And I think the state legislation is incredibly
important,” she said, explaining that this is in part because it demonstrates to Congress that “you can
put in place reasonable privacy protections for domestic surveillance drone use and still do effective law
enforcement.” “In a perfect world, I’m sure many drone operators and law enforcement agencies
would like to have national rules, because it makes it easier — you’ve got one rule wherever you are.
It also means that the rules apply to federal law enforcement,” said Bohm, referring to the FBI and
other federal enforcement agencies that would be subject to restrictions, as well. “That said, we also
sort of live in this reality where Congress is not moving on drone legislation right now and … my
understanding is that we’re not really expecting it to move, so into that void steps the states.”
Privacy Advantage
Privacy – 1AC
Drones are inevitable—we need rules on drone surveillance to ensure privacy
protections
Tiffany Sommadossi, 8-5-2014, Domestic Surveillance Drones: To Fear or Not to Fear?," Legislation &
Policy Blog, A Publication of The American University Washington College of Law Legislation & Policy
Brief, http://www.legislationandpolicy.com/1425/domestic-surveillance-drones-fear-fear/ /BinghamMB
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 is a federal mandate requiring the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to develop a plan to safely integrate UAVs into U.S. airspace by 2015, but there is
not a single enacted federal law that deals with the implementation of rules specifically designed to
safeguard privacy interests. The ACLU reports that laws relevant to drone surveillance were enacted in
thirteen states between 2013 and 2014. In other words, our state citizenship, rather than our national
citizenship, dictates the degree to which the government may conduct and share surveillance
information on us using drone technology. Under existing jurisprudence the government may use UAVs
for domestic surveillance purposes without a warrant or any judicial order, except in states with
legislation requiring that law enforcement use surveillance drones only pursuant to a warrant. The
Supreme Court has so far only considered three cases involving manned aircrafts. All three cases were
decided in the 1980’s just after Smith v. Maryland, a landmark case that has been the Rosetta Stone for
understanding what constitutes a “reasonable expectation of privacy” under the Fourth Amendment for
search or surveillance purposes. In California v. Ciraolo, Dow Chemical v. United States, and Florida v.
Riley, the Court held that the use of manned aircrafts to conduct warrantless surveillance was not a
search under the Fourth Amendment because evidence gathering occurred in a “public, navigable
airspace.” Yet some, like John Villasenor at Forbes, have opined that a careful read of the opinions
would suggest that the Fourth Amendment may provide more protection in cases involving UAVs than is
often assumed. Besides the fact that those cases were decided over three decades ago and did not
address unmanned aerial systems or the evolving technology that is being attached to them, the recent,
unanimous holding in Riley v. California suggests it may be time to reconsider outdated notions of what
privacy is and how much privacy protection we expect the Fourth Amendment to provide us. The
government likes to assert that it can, without violating the Constitution, use UAVs without a warrant
for domestic surveillance purposes, but there is a growing trend in statutory law to ban the
warrantless use of drones and the courts may soon follow. There is no doubt UAVs and the technology
they can carry are cost-effective and efficient tools for local law enforcement and federal agencies to
use in carrying out their missions. Soon, it could be commonplace for drones to assist with disaster
relief, immigration control, environmental monitoring, and border protection. Although reports of UAVs
interfering with airport airspace have convinced the FAA and others that comprehensive safety rules are
needed to govern the private use of UAVs, the real battle is going to be over privacy rules. Federal rules
requiring the government to use domestic surveillance drones responsibly are needed to ensure that as
we modernize our government we do so without sacrificing our constitutional rights and privacy
interests.
Damage to privacy rights erodes broader rights regimes in the United States
Rand Paul, Special To Cnn, 6-15-2012, Don't let drones invade our privacy," CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/14/opinion/rand-paul-drones/, Accessed: 5-25-2015, /Bingham-MB
If the warrant is not obtained, this act would allow any person to sue the government. This act also
specifies that no evidence obtained or collected in violation of this act can be admissible as evidence in a
criminal, civil or regulatory action. Allowing domestic drones to act as spies for the government is a
complete violation of our basic right to personal privacy. Unrestricted drone surveillance conjures up
images reminiscent of Orwell's "1984" -- a totalitarian police-state. According to the Fourth Amendment,
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated." I am sure our police force had good intentions with their
suggested drone policies, but do they understand the consequences? Do they realize that they are
allowing the government to act as the eye in the sky? By infringing upon our rights and watching over
our every move, the government is not going to protect us, but they will push us one more step closer to
completely losing our Fourth Amendment rights. My bill will protect individual privacy against
governmental intrusion by these drones and establish a balance by requiring judicial action and allowing
protection in court.
Privacy protections are a critical part of international human rights law and
international law—key to democratic norms
This report was written by Privacy International with a grant provided by the Open Society Institute. The
primary authors of this report are David Banisar of the Electronic Privacy Information Center and
Simon Davies of Privacy International. Additional research was provided by Wayne Madsen, Michael
Kassner, Ronnie Breckheimer, and Shauna Van Dongen. Knowledgeable individuals from academia,
government, human rights groups and other fields were asked to submit reports and information. Their
reports were supplemented with information gathered from Constitutions, laws, international and
national government documents, news reports, human rights reports and other sources. A list of
contributors is located at Appendix D. 1998, Privacy and Human Rights," Open Society Institute,
http://gilc.org/privacy/survey/intro.html, Accessed: 5-26-2015, /Bingham-MB
OVERVIEW Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights,
the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and in many other international and regional
treaties. Privacy underpins human dignity and other key values such as freedom of association and
freedom of speech. It has become one of the most important human rights issues of the modern age.
The publication of this report reflects the growing importance, diversity and complexity of this
fundamental right. This report provides details of the state of privacy in fifty countries from around the
world. It outlines the constitutional and legal conditions of privacy protection, and summarizes
important issues and events relating to privacy and surveillance. Nearly every country in the world
recognizes a right of privacy explicitly in their Constitution. At a minimum, these provisions include
rights of inviolability of the home and secrecy of communications. Most recently-written Constitutions
such as South Africa's and Hungary's include specific rights to access and control one's personal
information. In many of the countries where privacy is not explicitly recognized in the Constitution, such
as the United States, Ireland and India, the courts have found that right in other provisions. In many
countries, international agreements that recognize privacy rights such as the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights have been adopted into law. In
the early 1970s, countries began adopting broad laws intended to protect individual privacy. Throughout
the world, there is a general movement towards the adoption of comprehensive privacy laws that set a
framework for protection. Most of these laws are based on the models introduced by the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Council of Europe. In 1995, conscious both of the
shortcomings of law, and the many differences in the level of protection in each of its States, the
European Union passed a Europe-wide directive which will provide citizens with a wider range of
protections over abuses of their data.[fn 1] The directive on the "Protection of Individuals with regard to
the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data" sets a benchmark for national
law. Each EU State must pass complementary legislation by October 1998. The Directive also imposes an
obligation on member States to ensure that the personal information relating to European citizens is
covered by law when it is exported to, and processed in, countries outside Europe. This requirement has
resulted in growing pressure outside Europe for the passage of privacy laws. More than forty countries
now have data protection or information privacy laws. More are in the process of being enacted.
Reasons for Adopting Comprehensive Laws There are three major reasons for the movement towards
comprehensive privacy and data protection laws. Many countries are adopting these laws for one or
more reasons. To remedy past injustices. Many countries, especially in Central Europe, South America
and South Africa, are adopting laws to remedy privacy violations that occurred under previous
authoritarian regimes. To promote electronic commerce. Many countries, especially in Asia, but also
Canada, have developed or are currently developing laws in an effort to promote electronic commerce.
These countries recognize consumers are uneasy with their personal information being sent worldwide.
Privacy laws are being introduced as part of a package of laws intended to facilitate electronic
commerce by setting up uniform rules. To ensure laws are consistent with Pan-European laws. Most
countries in Central and Eastern Europe are adopting new laws based on the Council of Europe
Convention and the European Union Data Protection Directive. Many of these countries hope to join the
European Union in the near future. Countries in other regions, such as Canada, are adopting new laws to
ensure that trade will not be affected by the requirements of the EU Directive. Continuing Problems
Even with the adoption of legal and other protections, violations of privacy remain a concern. In many
countries, laws have not kept up with the technology, leaving significant gaps in protections. In other
countries, law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been given significant exemptions. Finally, in
the absence of adequate oversight and enforcement, the mere presence of a law may not provide
adequate protection. There are widespread violations of laws relating to surveillance of
communications, even in the most democratic of countries. The U.S. State Department's annual review
of human rights violations finds that over 90 countries engage in illegally monitoring the
communications of political opponents, human rights workers, journalists and labor organizers. In
France, a government commission estimated in 1996 that there were over 100,000 wiretaps conducted
by private parties, many on behalf of government agencies. In Japan, police were recently fined 2.5
million yen for illegally wiretapping members of the Communist party. Police services, even in countries
with strong privacy laws, still maintain extensive files on citizens not accused or even suspected of any
crime. There are currently investigations in Sweden and Norway, two countries with the longest history
of privacy protection for police files. Companies regularly flaunt the laws, collecting and disseminating
personal information. In the United States, even with the long-standing existence of a law on consumer
credit information, companies still make extensive use of such information for marketing purposes.
THREATS TO PRIVACY The increasing sophistication of information technology with its capacity to
collect, analyze and disseminate information on individuals has introduced a sense of urgency to the
demand for legislation. Furthermore, new developments in medical research and care,
telecommunications, advanced transportation systems and financial transfers have dramatically
increased the level of information generated by each individual. Computers linked together by high
speed networks with advanced processing systems can create comprehensive dossiers on any person
without the need for a single central computer system. New technologies developed by the defense
industry are spreading into law enforcement, civilian agencies, and private companies. According to
opinion polls, concern over privacy violations is now greater than at any time in recent history. [fn 2]
Uniformly, populations throughout the world express fears about encroachment on privacy, prompting
an unprecedented number of nations to pass laws which specifically protect the privacy of their citizens.
Human rights groups are concerned that much of this technology is being exported to developing
countries which lack adequate protections. Currently, there are few barriers to the trade in surveillance
technologies. It is now common wisdom that the power, capacity and speed of information technology
is accelerating rapidly. The extent of privacy invasion -- or certainly the potential to invade privacy -increases correspondingly. Beyond these obvious aspects of capacity and cost, there are a number of
important trends that contribute to privacy invasion : GLOBALISATION removes geographical limitations
to the flow of data. The development of the Internet is perhaps the best known example of a global
technology. CONVERGENCE is leading to the elimination of technological barriers between systems.
Modern information systems are increasingly interoperable with other systems, and can mutually
exchange and process different forms of data. MULTI-MEDIA fuses many forms of transmission and
expression of data and images so that information gathered in a certain form can be easily translated
into other forms. Technology transfer and policy convergence The macro-trends outlined above have
had particular effect on surveillance in developing nations. In the field of information and
communications technology, the speed of policy convergence is compressed. Across the surveillance
spectrum -- wiretapping, personal ID systems, data mining, censorship or encryption controls -- it is the
West which invariably sets a proscriptive pace.[fn 3] Governments of developing nations rely on first
world countries to supply them with technologies of surveillance such as digital wiretapping equipment,
deciphering equipment, scanners, bugs, tracking equipment and computer intercept systems. The
transfer of surveillance technology from first to third world is now a lucrative sideline for the arms
industry. [fn 4] According to a 1997 report "Assessing the Technologies of Political Control"
commissioned by the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee and undertaken by the European
Commission's Science and Technology Options Assessment office (STOA), [fn 5] much of this technology
is used to track the activities of dissidents, human rights activists, journalists, student leaders,
minorities, trade union leaders, and political opponents. The report concludes that such technologies
(which it describes as "new surveillance technology") can exert a powerful 'chill effect' on those who
"might wish to take a dissenting view and few will risk exercising their right to democratic protest".
Large scale ID systems are also useful for monitoring larger sectors of the population. As Privacy
International observed, "In the absence of meaningful legal or constitutional protections, such
technology is inimical to democratic reform. It can certainly prove fatal to anyone 'of interest' to a
regime." Government and citizen alike may benefit from the plethora of IT schemes being implemented
by the private and public sectors. New "smart card" projects in which client information is placed on a
chip in a card may streamline complex transactions. The Internet will revolutionize access to basic
information on government services. Encryption can provide security and privacy for all parties.
However, these initiatives will require a bold, forward looking legislative framework. Whether
governments can deliver this framework will depend on their willingness to listen to the pulse of the
emerging global digital economy and to recognize the need for strong protection of privacy.
The US is key
Freedom House, August 2, 2012, Ten Critical Human Rights Challenges for the Next American
President, This paper is a product of Freedom House and the Connect US Fund and is endorsed by the
following individuals and institutions: American Civil Liberties Union Amnesty International USA Better
World Campaign Center for Justice and Accountability Center for Victims of Torture The Connect US
Fund The Enough Project Freedom House Futures Without Violence Global Rights Global Solutions
Global Witness Chris Hennemeyer International Development Consultant Human Rights First Human
Rights Watch Ambassador Mark P. Lagon International Relations Chair, Georgetown University MSFS
Program Physicians for Human Rights Project on Middle East Democracy Resolve Eric Sapp Executive
Director, American Values Network Ted Piccone Brookings Institution United to End Genocide Jennifer
Windsor Associate Dean for Programs, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service,
https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Ten%20Critical%20Human%20Rights%20Challenges%20Fo
r%20The%20Next%20American%20President.pdf, /Bingham-MB
The upcoming presidential election and inauguration of the next administration is a critical moment to
review and update U.S. policy on human rights. Among the challenges the United States faces in the
coming years are human rights abuses committed by governments and other actors across the globe
that flout internationally accepted principles and undermine U.S. values and interests. The next
administration, whether a second Obama administration or a Romney administration, will need to
address a range of international issues. We believe that human rights merit particular attention. The
promotion of human rights is both an expression of the universal values that Americans share with
people throughout the world and an integral component of the pursuit of American interests abroad.
The next administration’s record on foreign policy will depend to a significant degree on its ability to
effectively protect and advance human rights. U.S. leadership is critical to effectively address
international human rights issues. International responses to gross violations and systematic abuses of
human rights around the world tend to have the greatest impact when the United States plays a
prominent role or is otherwise actively engaged in promoting a rights-based response. Multilateral
human rights institutions similarly make the greatest progress in drawing attention to abuses and
maintaining human rights standards when the United States exercises leadership. Human rights affect
almost every aspect of U.S. engagement abroad. Governments that abuse human rights make unstable
and unreliable partners across the range of U.S. interests, from business to arms control to counterterrorism. By strengthening the protection of human rights, the United States not only promotes its own
values but also advances its strategic interests.
Human rights law prevents global war
William W. Burke-White 4, Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special Assistant to
the Dean, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Spring 2004,
Harvard Human Rights Journal, 17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249, p. 279-280
This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--argument that the promotion of human
rights should be given a more prominent place in U.S. foreign policy. It does so by suggesting a correlation
between the domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive
international conduct. Among the chief threats to U.S. national security are acts of aggression by other states. Aggressive acts of
war may directly endanger the United States, as did the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require
U.S. military action overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence from the post-Cold War period [*250] indicates that states
that systematically abuse their own citizens' human rights are also those most likely to engage in aggression.
To the degree that improvements in various states' human rights records decrease the likelihood of aggressive
war, a foreign policy informed by human rights can significantly enhance U.S. and global security.¶ Since 1990, a state's domestic
human rights policy appears to be a telling indicator of that state's propensity to engage in international
aggression. A central element of U.S. foreign policy has long been the preservation of peace and the prevention of such acts of aggression.
n2 If the correlation discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S. policymakers with a powerful new tool to enhance national security through
the promotion of human rights. A strategic linkage between national security and human rights would result in a number of important policy
modifications. First, it changes the prioritization of those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as presenting the greatest concern.
Second, it alters some of the policy prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of signaling benign international intent through
the improvement of their domestic human rights records. Fourth, it
provides a way for a current government to prevent
future governments from aggressive international behavior through the institutionalization of human
rights protections. Fifth, it addresses the particular threat of human rights abusing states obtaining
weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N. cooperation on human rights issues.
And international law solves multiple scenarios for conflict
Martin Shaw, Professor, International Relations & Politics, University of Sussex, “The Unfinished Global
Revolution: Intellectuals and the New Politics of International Relations,” REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES, October 2001, http://www.martinshaw.org/unfinished.pdf, accessed 4/6/04.
From these political fundamentals, strategic propositions can be derived. First, democratic movements
cannot regard non-governmental organisations and civil society as ends in themselves. They must aim to
civilise local states, rendering them open, accountable and pluralistic, and curtail the arbitrary and
violent exercise of power. Second, democratising local states is not a separate task from integrating
them into global and often Western-centred networks. Reproducing isolated local centres of power
carries with it classic dangers of states as centres of war.84 Embedding global norms and integrating
new state centres with global institutional frameworks are essential to the control of violence. (To put
this another way: the proliferation of purely national democracies is not a recipe for peace.) Third, while
the global revolution cannot do without the West and the UN, neither can it rely on them
unconditionally. We need these power networks, but we need to tame them too, to make their messy
bureaucracies enormously more accountable and sensitive to the needs of society worldwide. This will
involve the kind of ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ argued for by David Held85. It will also require us to
advance a global social-democratic agenda, to address the literally catastrophic scale of world social
inequalities. This is not a separate problem: social and economic reform is an essential ingredient of
alternatives to warlike and genocidal power; these feed off and reinforce corrupt and criminal political
economies. Fourth, if we need the global-Western state, if we want to democratise it and make its
institutions friendlier to global peace and justice, we cannot be indifferent to its strategic debates. It
matters to develop international political interventions, legal institutions and robust peacekeeping as
strategic alternatives to bombing our way through zones of crisis. It matters that international
intervention supports pluralist structures, rather than ratifying Bosnia-style apartheid.86 As political
intellectuals in the West, we need to have our eyes on the ball at our feet, but we also need to raise
them to the horizon. We need to grasp the historic drama that is transforming worldwide relationships
between people and state, as well as between state and state. We need to think about how the
turbulence of the global revolution can be consolidated in democratic, pluralist, international networks
of both social relations and state authority. We cannot be simply optimistic about this prospect. Sadly, it
will require repeated violent political crises to push Western and other governments towards the
required restructuring of world institutions.87 What I have outlined is a huge challenge; but the
alternative is to see the global revolution splutter into partial defeat, or degenerate into new genocidal
wars - perhaps even nuclear conflicts. The practical challenge for all concerned citizens, and the
theoretical and analytical challenges for students of international relations and politics, are intertwined.
Democracy solves extinction
Diamond, CARNEGIE COMMISSION ON PREVENTING DEADLY CONFLICT, 1995
“Promoting Democracy in the 1990’s,” October 1995. Available from the World Wide Web at:
http://www.carnegie.org/sub/pubs/deadly/dia95_01.html, accessed 2/20/04.
OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being 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.
Regulating use of drones without a warrant solves privacy protections
Rand Paul, Special To Cnn, 6-15-2012, Don't let drones invade our privacy," CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/14/opinion/rand-paul-drones/, Accessed: 5-25-2015, /Bingham-MB
When assuming office, every government official must take an oath to abide by and uphold our
Constitution. Since 2010, I have made that my mission in Congress. Unfortunately, the Obama
administration is not upholding nor abiding by the Constitution -- in fact, this administration is going to
great lengths to continually violate it. Its most recent transgression involves the use of domestic drones.
These small drones are to be used as a crime fighting tool for law enforcement officials. But is
unwarranted and constant surveillance by an aerial eye of Big Government the answer? In a
memorandum issued by President Barack Obama's secretary of the Air Force, the stated purpose of
these drones is "balancing ... obtaining intelligence information ... and protecting individual rights
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution." However, flying over our homes, farms, ranches and businesses
and spying on us while we conduct our everyday lives is not an example of protecting our rights. It is an
example of violating them. The domestic use of drones to spy on Americans clearly violates the Fourth
Amendment and limits our rights to personal privacy. I do not want a drone hovering over my house,
taking photos of whether I separate my recyclables from my garbage. When I have friends over for a
barbecue, the government drone is not on the invitation list. I do not want a drone monitoring where I
go, what I do and for how long I do whatever it is that I'm doing. I do not want a nanny state watching
over my every move. We should not be treated like criminals or terrorists while we are simply
conducting our everyday lives. We should not have our rights infringed upon by unwarranted policestate tactics. I have introduced legislation into the Senate that restates the Constitution. This bill
protects individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of these
drones. The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 will protect Americans'
personal privacy by forcing the government to honor our Fourth Amendment rights. I want to make it
clear that I am not arguing against the use of technology. But like other tools used to collect information
in law enforcement, a warrant needs to be issued to use drones domestically. The police force should
have the power to collect intelligence; however, I believe they must go through a judge and request a
warrant to do so. The judicial branch must have some authority over drones, as they do with other law
enforcement tools. My bill will restate the Fourth Amendment and protect American's privacy by forcing
police officials to obtain a warrant before using domestic drones.
Solvency – Privacy
ACLU recommends restrictions as domestic surveillance drones become increasingly
prevalent to protect privacy
ACLU 5/12/15 [American Civil Liberties Union “Domestic Drones”
https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/domestic-drones c.shack]
U.S. law enforcement is greatly expanding its use of surveillance drones, and private actors are also seeking to use
the technology for personal and commercial use. Drones have many beneficial uses, including in search-and-rescue missions, scientific research,
mapping, and more. But deployed
without proper regulation, drones equipped with facial recognition
software, infrared technology, and speakers capable of monitoring personal conversations would cause
unprecedented invasions of our privacy rights. Interconnected drones could enable mass tracking of vehi-cles and people in
wide areas. Tiny drones could go completely unnoticed while peering into the window of a home or place of worship. Surveillance drones have
been the subject of fierce debate among both legislators and the public, giving rise to an impressive amount of state legislation—proposed and
enacted—to protect individuals’ privacy. Uniform
rules should be enacted to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits
of this new technology without bringing us closer to a “surveillance society” in which our every move is
monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the government. The ACLU recommends the following
safeguards: Usage Limits: A drone should be deployed by law enforcement only with a warrant, in an
emergency, or when there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will collect
evidence relating to a specific criminal act. Data Retention: Images should be retained only when there is
reasonable suspicion that they contain evidence of a crime or are relevant to an ongoing investigation or
trial. Policy: Usage policy on drones should be decided by the public’s representatives, not by police departments, and the policies should be
clear, written, and open to the public. Abuse Prevention and Accountability: Use of domestic drones should be subject to
open audits and proper oversight to prevent misuse. Weapons: Domestic drones should not be equipped
with lethal or non-lethal weapons.
Changes to drone surveillance can become the catalyst for broader changes to
violations of privacy
Sara Sorcher, 2-21-2013, The Backlash Against Drones," nationaljournal,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-backlash-against-drones-20130221, Accessed: 5-292015, /Bingham-MB
As it stands, “there’s really not a lot in American privacy law that’s going to be much of a barrier to using
drones,” University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo says. Court cases invoking the Fourth
Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches, largely hold that a person has no reasonable
expectation of privacy in public, or from a public vantage point, such as from an aircraft overhead, Calo
says. There are signs, however, that the Supreme Court is reexamining this doctrine. In a case decided
last term, five of the justices objected to police affixing a GPS device to a car without a warrant, and four
more objected to the continuous surveillance of a suspect. Drones can achieve the same goals without
touching a vehicle. Calo thus believes that drones could be the catalyst for much-needed changes to
privacy laws in a nation in which targeted, unchecked surveillance is becoming increasingly possible. The
danger lies in it becoming the norm.
Internal – Human Rights
Surveillance regimes that undermine privacy weaken human rights law
Haroon Siddique, 12-26-2013, Internet privacy as important as human rights, says UN's Navi Pillay,"
Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/26/un-navi-pillay-internet-privacy /BinghamMB
Pillay has been asked by the UN to prepare a report on protection of the right to privacy, in the wake of the
former National Security Agency analyst Edward Snowden leaking classified documents about UK and US spying and the collection of personal
data. The former international criminal court judge said her
encounters with serious human rights abuses, which included
serving on the Rwanda tribunal, did not make her take online privacy less seriously. "I don't grade human rights,"
she said. "I feel I have to look after and promote the rights of all persons. I'm not put off by the lifetime
experience of violations I have seen." She said apartheid ended in South Africa principally because the international community cooperated to denounce it, adding: "Combined and collective action by everybody can end serious violations of human rights … That experience
inspires me to go on and address the
issue of internet [privacy], which right now is extremely troubling because the
revelations of surveillance have implications for human rights … People are really afraid that all their
personal details are being used in violation of traditional national protections." The UN general assembly
unanimously voted last week to adopt a resolution, introduced by Germany and Brazil, stating that "the same rights that people
have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy". Brazil's president, Dilma Rousseff, and the
German chancellor, Angela Merkel, were among those spied on, according to the documents leaked by Snowden. The resolution called on the
193 UN member states "to
review their procedures, practices and legislation regarding the surveillance of
communications, their interception and collection of personal data, with a view to upholding the right to
privacy of all their obligations under international human rights law". It also directed Pillay to publish a report on
the protection and promotion of privacy "in the context of domestic and extraterritorial surveillance ...
including on a mass scale". She told Berners-Lee it was "very important that governments now want to
discuss the matters of mass surveillance and right to privacy in a serious way".
Impact – Democracy
Democracy solves global wars
Epstien et al, 2007
[Susan B. Epstein, Nina M. Serafino, and Francis T. Miko Specialists in Foreign Policy Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division Congressional research service, Democracy Promotion: Cornerstone of U.S.
Foreign Policy?, 12-26-7, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl34296.pdf] /Wyo-MB
A common rationale offered by proponents of democracy promotion, including¶ former Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright and current Secretary of State¶ Condoleezza Rice, is that democracies do not
go to war with one another. This is¶ sometimes referred to as the democratic peace theory. Experts
point to European¶ countries, the United States, Canada, and Mexico as present-day examples.¶
According to President Clinton’s National Security Strategy of Engagement and¶ Enlargement:
“Democracies create free markets that offer economic opportunity,¶ make for more reliable trading
partners, and are far less likely to wage war on one¶ another.”22¶ Some have refined this democracy
peace theory by distinguishing between¶ mature democracies and those in transition, suggesting that
mature democracies do¶ not fight wars with each other, but that countries transitioning toward
democracy are¶ more prone to being attacked (because of weak governmental institutions) or being¶
aggressive toward others. States that made transitions from an autocracy toward¶ early stages of
democracy and were involved in hostilities soon after include France¶ in the mid-1800s under Napoleon
III, Prussia/Germany under Bismarck (1870-1890),¶ Chile shortly before the War of the Pacific in 1879,
Serbia’s multiparty constitutional¶ monarchy before the Balkan Wars of the late 20th Century, and
Pakistan’s military guided pseudo-democracy before its wars with India in 1965 and 1971.23¶ The
George W. Bush Administration asserts that democracy promotion is a¶ long-term antidote to terrorism.
The Administration’s Strategy for Winning the War¶ on Terror asserts that inequality in political
participation and access to wealth¶ resources in a country, lack of freedom of speech, and poor
education all breed¶ volatility. By promoting basic human rights, freedoms of speech, religion,
assembly,¶ association and press, and by maintaining order within their borders and providing¶ an
independent justice system, effective democracies can defeat terrorism in the long¶ run, according to
the Bush White House.24¶ Another reason given to encourage democracies (although debated by some¶
experts) is the belief that democracies promote economic prosperity. From this¶ perspective, as the rule
of law leads to a more stable society and as equal economic¶ opportunity for all helps to spur economic
activity, economic growth, particularly of¶ per capita income, is likely to follow. In addition, a democracy
under this scenario¶ may be more likely to be viewed by other countries as a good trading partner and
by¶ outside investors as a more stable environment for investment, according to some¶ experts.
Moreover, countries that have developed as stable democracies are viewed¶ as being more likely to
honor treaties, according to some experts.25
Impact – Liberty
Privacy is critical to self-development and actualization—critical to a meaningful life
Jathan Sadowski Studies Applied Ethics and The Human And Social Dimensions Of Science And
Technology At Arizona State University., 2-26-2013, Why Does Privacy Matter? One Scholar's Answer,"
Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/02/why-does-privacy-matter-onescholars-answer/273521/ /Bingham-MB
Cohen doesn't think we should treat privacy as a dispensable instrument. To the contrary, she argues privacy is irreducible to a "fixed condition
or attribute (such as seclusion or control) whose boundaries can be crisply delineated by the application of deductive logic. Privacy
is
shorthand for breathing room to engage in the process of ... self-development." What Cohen means is that since
life and contexts are always changing, privacy cannot be reductively conceived as one specific type of
thing. It is better understood as an important buffer that gives us space to develop an identity that is
somewhat separate from the surveillance, judgment, and values of our society and culture. Privacy is
crucial for helping us manage all of these pressures -- pressures that shape the type of person we are -and for "creating spaces for play and the work of self-[development]." Cohen argues that this selfdevelopment allows us to discover what type of society we want and what we should do to get there,
both factors that are key to living a fulfilled life. Woodrow Hartzog and Evan Selinger make similar arguments in a recent
article on the value of "obscurity." When structural constraints prevent unwanted parties from getting to your data, obscurity protections are in
play. These
protections go beyond preventing companies from exploiting our information for their
financial gain. They safeguard democratic societies by furthering "autonomy, self-fulfillment,
socialization, and relative freedom from the abuse of power."
It is a decision rule—must reject all violations of liberty
Petro 74
Professor of Law @ Wake Forest University. University of Toledo Law Review Spring 1974, page. 480
However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway—“I believe in only one thing: liberty”. And it is
always well to bear in mind David Hume’s observation: “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at
once.” Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import
because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny,
despotism and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenistyn. Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one
believes in freedom as a supreme value and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to
maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically
identified and resisted with undying spirit.
Add On – Legitimacy
It’s reverse casual – aligning the war on terror with rights issues builds support for US
leadership on human rights – the impact is warming and legitimacy
Schulz 8 (William F., Senior Fellow – Center for American Progress, Adjunct Professor of International
Relations – The New School, Former Executive Direction – Amnesty International, “Introduction,” The
Future of Human Rights: U.S. Policy for a New Era, p. 11-14)
Which leads to the second general principle the
United States must reaffirm: a commitment to global cooperation
and respect for international protocols and institutions, imperfect as they are. Of Francis Fukuyama's four bedrock
characteristics of neoconservatism, it is the final one" skepticism about the legitimacy and effectiveness of international law and institutions to
achieve either security or justice"38-that most dramatically divides normative human rights practice from neoconservative. Sophisticated
advocates of human rights are not naive about the failures of the United Nations, the shortcomings of the UN Human Rights Council, the
unproven value of the International Criminal Court, or the weakness of unenforceable international law. But to
ignore international
regimens, much less undermine them, is to sacrifice the best resource the United States has available for
convincing the world that we do not suffer from solipsism, immune to the needs and opinions of others;
that our intent is benign; and that the most powerful nation on earth is prepared to use its power fairly
and wisely. Mighty as we are, we do not live in a cocoon; we cannot solve our problems by ourselves, be they Iraq or
terrorism or global warming. Respect for human rights and the processes by which they are fashioned is
one of the best ways to win global friends and influence the passions of people. And whether we think the source of human
rights is God, natural law, or consensualism, an international imprimatur lends legitimacy to our pursuit of them. As a study by the Princeton
Project on National Security noted recently, "Liberty under law within nations is inextricably linked with a stable system of liberty under law
among them. " 40 Surely even Condoleezza Rice who, during the 2000 presidential campaign, wrote that "foreign policy in a Republican
administration ... will proceed from the firm ground of the national interest, not the interests of an illusory international community [emphasis
added] " 41 has come to rue the day she thought the world community no more than a chimera. Repairing the Damage The damaging
effect of neoconservative policies on human rights goes well beyond reinforcement of the suspicion that American advocacy of human rights is
a mere cover for an imperialist agenda. Those
policies have undermined the notion that spreading human rights and
democracy around the globe are viable goals of U.S. foreign policy. They have weakened international
institutions upon which human rights depend. And they have increased a certain natural reticence on the part of the
American people to commit U.S. troops to humanitarian and peace keeping missions, even when they are justified, as they are, for example, in
Darfur. Coupled
with America's human rights practices as part of its prosecution of the war on terror-secret
incommunicado detentions, denial of habeas corpus, winking acceptance of torture-the nation's ability to hold others to account for
their own abuses has been severely weakened. A new administration will certainly have its hands full repairing this damage. It will need to find a variety of
ways to signal renewed US. support for the international system. RatifYing one or more international human rights treaties would help do that. Perhaps the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, which all countries except the United States and Somalia have ratified, would be a place to start now that the U.S. Supreme
Court has removed one of the major objections to the treaty by declaring the execution of juveniles unconstitutional. Or closing Guantanamo Bay. Or removing the
reservations to various human rights treaties that declare them nonenforceable in domestic law. Or standing for election to the UN Human Rights Council, flawed
though it is, and using that forum to articulate a renewed commitment to a comprehensive human rights agenda. Or revisiting U.S. concerns about the International
Criminal Court with an eye toward eventually ratifYing the Rome statutes establishing the court, or at least suspending the penalties we have leveraged against
those countries that have refused to immunize Americans from prosecution by the court. If Iraq has taught us anything, it ought to have demonstrated that finding
ways to deal with tyrants short of military force is to the advantage of all parties. It will need to adopt a more sophisticated, less ham-handed approach to the
promotion of democracy around the globe. It ought to go without saying that human rights are served by an increase in the number of stable democracies in the
world. But the key word is "stable," since we know that newly formed, unstable democratic states lacking robust civil societies and strong democratic institutions
are especially prone to be breeding grounds for all sorts of mischief, not least the production of terrorists. The tragedy of the Iraq War will only be compounded if
the lesson drawn from it is that, because force- . feeding democracy proved so destructive, the only alternative is quiescence. While democracy is no magic bullet,
tyranny guarantees bullets aplenty. Not every nation is ready to leap into full-blown democracy on a moment's notice. But if, indeed, as worldwide surveys have
found, more than 90 percent of Muslims endorse democ- Introduction 13 racy as the best form of government, what is required of us is neither perfectionism nor
passivity.42 What is required of us is patience. It will need to codify the positive obligations of the United States under the newly minted doctrine of the
"responsibility to protect. "Just as the Iraq War ought not sour us on promoting democracy, so we must not allow it to impose an unfitting shyness upon us about
using military power for humanitarian ends. In 2005 the UN General Assembly endorsed the worldwide responsibility to protect civilian populations at risk from
mass atrocities.43 That does not imply that the United States will have to be the proverbial "world's policeman," committing its troops willy-nilly to the far corners
of the globe. But it does mean that the United States will need to take mass atrocities seriously, adopting an early warning system for populations in danger, shoring
up weak and failing states, and providing leadership and support for intervention when necessary, even when it itself stays far away from battle. The American
people can distinguish between unwise military posturing and morally justified humanitarian interventions. In January 2007, after more than three years and 3,000
U.S. deaths in Iraq, 63 percent of Americans, quite understandably, said that the world has grown more afraid of U.S. military force and that such fear undermines
U.S. security by prompting other nations to seek means to protect themselves.44 Yet, even so, in a poll taken six months later, a plurality of Americans favored
deploying U.S. troops as part of a multinational force in Darfur.45 If the American people can tell the difference between legitimate and illegitimate use of force, the
American government ought to be able to also. It
will need to conform US. practices to international standards on
fundamental human rights issues. The United States will never reclaim its reputation for human rights
leadership as long as its own policies on such issues as due process for prisoners taken into custody in the course of
the war on terror remain at such radical odds with international law and practice. There is considerable room for debate
as to how cases of terror suspects should be adjudicated, especially when highly classified intelligence is involved-whether, for example, the
United States should establish special national security courts or integrate such defendants into the regular criminal justice system46- but what
is beyond doubt is that the
current system in which suspects are cast into legal netherworlds of secret detentions and
coercive interrogations cannot continue. And in a broader sense, the United States would do well in the eyes of the
world to be less defensive about its own domestic practices that may fall short of international
standards. Our credibility in criticizing others waxes and wanes in direct proportion to our willingness
to acknowledge our own shortcomings. We should, for example, welcome to this country any UN special rapporteur who seeks
an invitation to investigate; we should encourage the solicitor general of the United States to draw upon international law to buttress the
government's arguments before the Supreme Court, thereby lending encouragement to those members of the court who are beginning to look
to such law to inform their opinions;47 and we should issue an annual report on U.S. human rights practices to complement the State
Department's reports on other countries. Mter all, since the Chinese publish such a report on us each year, it could not hurt to publish a more
accurate version of our own.
Warming causes extinction
Don Flournoy 12, Citing Feng Hsu, PhD NASA Scientist @ the Goddard Space Flight Center and Don is a
PhD and MA from UT, former Dean of the University College @ Ohio University, former Associate Dean
at SUNY and Case Institute of Technology, Former Manager for University/Industry Experiments for the
NASA ACTS Satellite, currently Professor of Telecommunications @ Scripps College of Communications,
Ohio University, “Solar Power Satellites,” January 2012, Springer Briefs in Space Development, p. 10-11
In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA scientist at Goddard Space Flight
Center, a research center in the forefront of science of space and Earth, writes, “The evidence of global
warming is alarming,” noting the potential for a catastrophic planetary climate change is real and
troubling (Hsu 2010 ) . Hsu and his NASA colleagues were engaged in monitoring and analyzing climate
changes on a global scale, through which they received first-hand scientific information and data
relating to global warming issues, including the dynamics of polar ice cap melting. After discussing this
research with colleagues who were world experts on the subject, he wrote: I now have no doubt global
temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a serious problem confronting all of humanity. No
matter whether these trends are due to human interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system,
there are two basic facts that are crystal clear: (a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing
positive correlations between the level of CO2 concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere with respect to the
historical fluctuations of global temperature changes; and (b) the overwhelming majority of the world’s
scientific community is in agreement about the risks of a potential catastrophic global climate change.
That is, if we humans continue to ignore this problem and do nothing, if we continue dumping huge
quantities of greenhouse gases into Earth’s biosphere, humanity will be at dire risk (Hsu 2010 ) . As a
technology risk assessment expert, Hsu says he can show with some confidence that the planet will face
more risk doing nothing to curb its fossil-based energy addictions than it will in making a fundamental
shift in its energy supply. “This,” he writes, “is because the risks of a catastrophic anthropogenic climate
change can be potentially the extinction of human species, a risk that is simply too high for us to take
any chances” (Hsu 2010 ).
Lack of legitimacy makes US leadership ineffective, regardless of material power
Barak Mendelsohn 10, assistant professor of political science at Haverford College and a senior fellow
of FPRI. Author of Combating Jihadism: American Hegemony and Interstate Cooperation in the War on
Terrorism, June 2010, “The Question of International Cooperation in the War on Terrorism”,
http://www.fpri.org/enotes/201006.mendelsohn.cooperationwarterror.html
Going against common conceptions, I argue that the
United States sought to advance more than what it viewed as simply its own interest.
The United States stands behind multiple collaborative enterprises and should be credited for that. Nevertheless, sometimes it has
overreached, sought to gain special rights other states do not have, or presented strategies that were not compatible with the
general design of the war on terrorism, to which most states subscribed. When it went too far, the United States found that,
while secondary powers could not stop it from taking action, they could deny it legitimacy and make the
achievement of its objectives unattainable. Thus, despite the common narrative, U.S. power was successfully checked, and
the United States found the limitations of its power, even under the Bush administration. Defining Hegemony Let me begin
with my conception of hegemony. While the definition of hegemony is based on its material aspects—the preponderance of power—
hegemony should be understood as a part of a social web comprised of states. A hegemon relates to the
other states in the system not merely through the prism of power balances, but through shared norms
and a system of rules providing an umbrella for interstate relations. Although interstate conflict is ubiquitous in international society and the
pursuit of particularistic interests is common, the international society provides a normative framework that restricts and moderates the
hegemon's actions. This normative framework accounts for the hegemon's inclination toward orderly and peaceful interstate relations and
minimizes its reliance on power. A hegemon’s role in the international community relies on legitimacy. Legitimacy is
associated with external recognition of the hegemon’s right of primacy, not just the fact of this primacy. States recognize the hegemon’s power,
but they develop expectations that go beyond the idea that the hegemon will act as it wishes because it has the capabilities to do so. Instead,
the primacy of the hegemon is manifested in the belief that, while it has special rights that other members of the international society lack, it
also has a set of duties to the members of the international society. As long as the hegemon realizes its commitment to the collective, its
position will be deemed legitimate. International cooperation is hard to achieve. And, in general, international relations is not a story of
harmony. A state’s first inclination is to think about its own interests, and states always prefer doing less over doing more. The inclination to
pass the buck or to free ride on the efforts of others is always in the background. If
a hegemon is willing to lead in pursuit of
collective interests and to shoulder most of the burden, it can improve the prospects of international
cooperation. However, even when there is a hegemon willing to lead a collective action and when states accept that action is needed,
obstacles may still arise. These difficulties can be attributed to various factors, but especially prominent is the disagreement over the particular
strategy that the hegemon promotes in pursuing the general interest. When states think that the strategy and policies offered by the hegemon
are not compatible with the accepted rules of “rightful conduct” and break established norms, many will disapprove and resist. Indeed, while
acceptance of a hegemon’s leadership in international society may result in broad willingness to cooperate with the hegemon in pursuit of
shared interests it does not guarantee immediate and unconditional compliance with all the policies the hegemon articulates. While its
legitimacy does transfer to its actions and grants some leeway, that legitimacy does not justify every policy the hegemon pursues—particularly
those policies that are not seen as naturally deriving from the existing order. As a result, specific policies must be legitimated before
cooperation takes place. This process constrains the hegemon’s actions and prevents the uninhibited exercise of power.
Extinction
Zhang and Shi 11 Yuhan Zhang is a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
Washington, D.C.; Lin Shi is from Columbia University. She also serves as an independent consultant for
the Eurasia Group and a consultant for the World Bank in Washington, D.C., 1/22, “America’s decline: A
harbinger of conflict and rivalry”, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-aharbinger-of-conflict-and-rivalry/
the US still
possesses incomparable military prowess and its economy remains the world’s largest, the once
seemingly indomitable chasm that separated America from anyone else is narrowing. Thus, the global
distribution of power is shifting, and the inevitable result will be a world that is less peaceful, liberal and
prosperous, burdened by a dearth of effective conflict regulation. Over the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to
This does not necessarily mean that the US is in systemic decline, but it encompasses a trend that appears to be negative and perhaps alarming. Although
many actors have bandwagoned with US
hegemony and accepted a subordinate role. Canada, most of Western Europe, India, Japan, South Korea,
Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined the US, creating a status quo that has tended to
mute great power conflicts. However, as the hegemony that drew these powers together withers, so will the
pulling power behind the US alliance. The result will be an international order where power is more
diffuse, American interests and influence can be more readily challenged, and conflicts or wars may be
harder to avoid. As history attests, power decline and redistribution result in military confrontation.
For example, in the late 19th century America’s emergence as a regional power saw it launch its first
overseas war of conquest towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in
US power and waning of British power, the American Navy had begun to challenge the notion that
Britain ‘rules the waves.’ Such a notion would eventually see the US attain the status of sole guardians of the Western Hemisphere’s security to become the order-creating
Leviathan shaping the international system with democracy and rule of law. Defining this US-centred system are three key characteristics: enforcement of
property rights, constraints on the actions of powerful individuals and groups and some degree of equal opportunities for broad segments of society. As a result of such
political stability, free markets, liberal trade and flexible financial mechanisms have appeared. And,
with this, many countries have sought opportunities to enter this system, proliferating stable and
cooperative relations. However, what will happen to these advances as America’s influence declines? Given
that America’s authority, although sullied at times, has benefited people across much of Latin America,
Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the
answer to this question could affect global society in a profoundly detrimental way. Public imagination and
academia have anticipated that a post-hegemonic world would return to the problems of the 1930s:
regional blocs, trade conflicts and strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the
World Bank or the WTO might give way to regional organisations. For example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to fill the
vacuum left by Washington’s withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free markets would become more
politicised — and, well, less free — and major powers would compete for supremacy. Additionally, such
power plays have historically possessed a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and 1970s, US economic power declined relative to the rise of
the Japanese and Western European economies, with the US dollar also becoming less attractive. And, as American power eroded, so did
international regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in 1973). A world without American
hegemony is one where great power wars re-emerge, the liberal international system is supplanted by
an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves into restrictive, anti-globalisation barriers. This,
at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that will inevitably be devoid of unrivalled US
primacy.
seriously challenge the US military. Under these circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear,
Drone Integration Advantage
Integration – 1AC
Failure to reform drone privacy standards results in public backlash
Sara Sorcher, 2-21-2013, The Backlash Against Drones," nationaljournal,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-backlash-against-drones-20130221, Accessed: 5-292015, /Bingham-MB
Public concerns are not limited to Seattle. Lawmakers in at least 11 states want to restrict the use of
drones because of fears they will spy on Americans, and some are pushing to require warrants before
the robots collect evidence in investigations. Just this month, the Virginia General Assembly passed a
two-year moratorium on drones. The outcry comes after the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued last
year for a list of drone applicants within the U.S. When that information went public, staff attorney
Jennifer Lynch says, “it really got people up in arms about how drones are being used, and got people to
question their city councils and local law-enforcement agencies to ask for appropriate policies to be put
in place to regulate drone usage.” Drones change the game: Nearly continuous surveillance could be
possible without a physical intrusion such as a property search or an implanted listening device. The
flying robots can carry high-powered cameras, even facial-recognition software or thermal imaging to
“see” through walls. They can hover, potentially undetected, for hours or days at a time. As of yet,
however, there are no laws governing the use of domestic drones when it comes to privacy. Unless
Congress or the executive branch moves to regulate the robots’ use before they take to the skies en
masse, states will likely continue to try to limit or ban drone use altogether, which could stymie their
potential for other, beneficial uses. And failing to enact privacy limits only increases the likelihood of
an incident in which the public perceives that the technology is being misused.
Privacy protections are key to integrate drones into commercial airspace
Evan Baldwin Carr, 3-26-2013, research associate with the National Center for Policy Analysis. Drones:
Look to the Sky!," No Publication, http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ib119, Accessed: 5-25-2015, /Bingham-MB
- See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ib119#sthash.cEGZYkAD.dpuf
The Constitution’s Fourth Amendment guarantees citizens freedom from unreasonable search and
seizure. Many people feel that drone surveillance infringes Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, strict
privacy protections must be implemented before the public will support drone use in domestic
airspace. No court has yet addressed Fourth Amendment considerations with respect to drones, but
existing jurisprudence provides guidance for future rulings. Among the applicable court decisions: In the
case of California v. Ciraolo (1986), a California appeals court found that an individual’s private property
is not protected by the Fourth Amendment as long as an aircraft is in navigable airspace.16 In Dow
Chemical Co. v. United States (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that photography by government
agents using equipment readily available to the public does not require a warrant.17 Following Dow, in
Kyllo v. United States (2001), the Supreme Court held that warrantless surveillance through extrasensory equipment such as a thermal imaging device is also permissible.18 Conclusion. With full
integration fast approaching, discussion must focus on the civilian, commercial and scientific
applications of drones, as well as limits on how this new technology can be used. The FAA is responsible
for establishing a system that ensures safety without hindering development. While the regulatory and
technical hurdles may delay the eventual date of full integration, public hostility towards drones will
continue as long as transparency issues damage the government’s credibility. With substantial
economic growth at stake, proper safeguards must be established to provide protection from
overzealous government.
Restrictions dealing with privacy are necessary to deal with public concerns
Anthea-Mitchell, 5-15-2015, Should America Be Worried About Police Drones?," Cheat Sheet,
http://www.cheatsheet.com/politics/are-police-drones-a-privacy-nightmare-or-a-safetyadvantage.html/?a=viewall, Accessed: 5-26-2015, /Bingham-MB
State and federal legislative bodies have work to do in developing how drones should best be put to use.
An online poll from Reuters/Ipsos showed a high level of public concern, with 73% saying they believe
regulation is necessary to control the use both publicly and privately, and 42% even arguing that private
drone use should be prevented for the sake of privacy, with only “officials or experts” given permission
to fly UAVs. An average of a series of objective polls done both online and by phone, and considered by
region, urban or rural, and other factors, would be useful additions to the study. But the fact remains
the same. There are concerns about personal use of drones. However there are privacy, regulatory, and
legal concerns that come with “official” use of drones as well. FAA and law enforcement agencies have
their own vital and highly practical questions to answer in understanding how UAVs can best be put to
use. With a 2015 deadline looming and many 2014 requirements reported as being implemented late,
it’s unlikely that many necessary steps will be completed on schedule. Part of developing guidelines and
restrictions for drone technology is actually learning to use the technology, understanding public
response to it, and figuring out practical applications for it. Policy must protect against future
capabilities with privacy interests kept in mind, but law enforcement is charged with the task of seeing
how UAVs function today. This means testing, experimenting, and training, and it inevitably means
successes and failures of equipment and PR.
1AC – Economy Impact
Drones revitalize the aviation industry and boost economic growth
Evan Baldwin Carr, 3-26-2013, research associate with the National Center for Policy Analysis. Drones:
Look to the Sky!," No Publication, http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ib119, Accessed: 5-25-2015, /Bingham-MB
- See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ib119#sthash.cEGZYkAD.dpuf
They vary in size and price from small, unmanned aerial systems, which span only a few feet across and
cost less than $1,000, to High-Altitude Long-Endurance drones like the Global Hawk, which is the size of
a 50-passenger commercial airliner and costs an estimated $173 million.1 Having only entered the public
eye following their use in the War on Terror, drones are poised to redefine the aviation industry and
drive substantial economic growth. Integrating Drones with Existing Aviation. Though many safety,
security and privacy challenges must be overcome before drones can be integrated into the National
Airspace System, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has begun drafting regulations that will
allow the transfer of technology from the military sector to the civilian sector. The FAA regulates all
aspects of aviation in the United States. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 set a
September 2015 deadline for full integration of civilian drones into American skies,2 anticipating up to
30,000 drones operating by 2020.3 The FAA must achieve several objectives to support integration: The
FAA must regulate air traffic so that aircraft separated spatially by time and altitude pose minimal risk to
people and property on the ground or in the air. The administration must also certify the air worthiness
of unmanned craft and streamline the Certificate of Authorization process. The FAA must continue the
installation of the NextGen air traffic control system — updating America’s antiquated radar-based
system with a more efficient satellite-based system. Given the complexity of integration, some
observers doubt the FAA can meet the 2015 deadline because it has missed numerous interim
deadlines.4 Industry Growth. According to the consulting firm Deloitte, the economic impact of
developing unmanned technology will be substantial, particularly for aviation clusters in Texas and the
Northwest.5 The Teal Group, a leading aerospace market intelligence firm, says that despite cuts in
defense spending, annual global spending on drones will grow from $5.9 billion in 2012 to $11.3 billion
in 2021. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency funds a crowdsourcing competition called the
UAVForge. The 2012 competition highlighted the decentralized, entrepreneurial nature of unmanned
development: More than 140 teams and 3,500 people from 153 countries participated in the
competition.6 Many applications of drone platforms are in some phase of research, development,
testing, evaluation or operation, and the industry will likely generate a new wave of entrepreneurs. The
unmanned industry is already creating jobs. The Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
(AUVSI) has been instrumental in highlighting the many merits of drones. In addition to holding
technology workshops and web-based seminars, AUVSI holds an annual conference that brings together
more than 570 exhibitors with delegates from more than 40 countries. Due in part to AUVSI’s
contribution to discussion of unmanned capabilities, both the U.S. House of Representatives and the
U.S. Senate now have unmanned aerial vehicle caucuses that aim to increase legislators’ knowledge
about this growing industry.7
They will benefit nearly every economic sector
Marcelo Ballve, 10-13-2014, COMMERCIAL DRONES: Assessing The Potential For A New DronePowered Economy," Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/the-market-for-commercialdrones-2014-2, Accessed: 5-26-2015, /Bingham-MB
While drones are unlikely to become a part of our daily lives in the immediate future, they will soon
begin taking on much larger roles for businesses and some individual consumers, from delivering
groceries and e-commerce orders to revolutionizing private security, to changing the way farmers
manage their crops — perhaps even aerial advertising. In a new report from BI Intelligence, we size the
commercial and military drone market to estimate how big the drone industry could become, and which
industries are most likely to see drones become part of their business model in the next few years. We
also look at what components industries, like GPS and sensors manufacturers, will be working to
become drone-ready. And we assess how drone development will proceed in light of stiff safety and
privacy concerns and regulatory hurdles. Here are some of the issues and opportunities that will impact
how the drone industry develops: American regulators plan to phase in commercial drone flights
beginning in 2015, starting with limited flights of small drones weighing 55 pounds or less. Retail and ecommerce — along with the related logistics and shipping industries — arguably have the most at stake
in the wide deployment of civilian and commercial unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. Drones might be
the missing link in the shipping chain that allows for nearly immediate e-commerce deliveries. But there
are few industries that couldn't potentially be touched by drones, especially on the enterprise side.
Currently, military applications dominate the global UAV market, but commercial applications will
quickly ramp up over the next 10 years, particularly after 2020.
US is key to the global economy.
Caploe, 4/7/9
[David Caploe is CEO of the Singapore-incorporated American Centre for Applied Liberal Arts and
Humanities in Asia., “Focus still on America to lead global recovery”, April 7, The Strait Times, lexis]
IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event, made by
United States President Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: 'The world has become
accustomed to the US being a voracious consumer market, the engine that drives a lot of economic growth worldwide,' he said. 'If there is
going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as the engine.' While superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it
ignores the fact that the
global economy has in fact been 'America-centred' for more than 60 years. Countries
- China, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Korea, Mexico and so on - either sell to the US or they sell to countries
that sell to the US. This system has generally been advantageous for all concerned. America gained certain historically unprecedented
benefits, but the system also enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan, and later, many in the Third World - to
achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At the same time, this
deep inter-connection between the US and the rest of the
world also explains how the collapse of a relatively small sector of the US economy - 'sub-prime'
housing, logarithmically exponentialised by Wall Street's ingenious chicanery - has cascaded into the
worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to
understand that there is no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six
decades. If the US does not drive global economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US
policies to deal with the current crisis are critical not just domestically, but also to the entire world.
Consequently, it is a matter of global concern that the Obama administration seems to be following Japan's 'model' from the 1990s: allowing
major banks to avoid declaring massive losses openly and transparently, and so perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive but in reality
dead. As analysts like Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have pointed out, the administration's unwillingness to confront US
banks is the main reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable credit freeze, thus ravaging the American and global
economies. Team Obama seems reluctant to acknowledge the extent to which its policies at home are failing not just there but around the
world as well. Which raises the question:
If the US can't or won't or doesn't want to be the global economic engine,
which country will? The obvious answer is China. But that is unrealistic for three reasons. First, China's
economic health is more tied to America's than practically any other country in the world. Indeed, the reason
China has so many dollars to invest everywhere - whether in US Treasury bonds or in Africa - is precisely that it has structured its own economy
to complement America's. The only
way China can serve as the engine of the global economy is if the US starts
pulling it first. Second, the US-centred system began at a time when its domestic demand far
outstripped that of the rest of the world. The fundamental source of its economic power is its ability to
act as the global consumer of last resort. China, however, is a poor country, with low per capita income,
even though it will soon pass Japan as the world's second largest economy. There are real possibilities for growth in China's domestic demand.
But given its structure as an export-oriented economy, it is doubtful if even a successful Chinese stimulus plan can pull the rest of the world
Finally, the key 'system' issue for China - or
for the European Union - in thinking about becoming the engine of the world economy - is monetary:
along unless and until China can start selling again to the US on a massive scale.
What are the implications of having your domestic currency become the global reserve currency? This is an extremely complex issue that the
US has struggled with, not always successfully, from 1959 to the present. Without going into detail, it can safely be said that though having the
US dollar as the world's medium of exchange has given the US some tremendous advantages, it has also created huge problems, both for
America and the global economic system. The Chinese leadership is certainly familiar with this history. It
will try to avoid the yuan
becoming an international medium of exchange until it feels much more confident in its ability to handle
the manifold currency problems that the US has grappled with for decades. Given all this, the US will
remain the engine of global economic recovery for the foreseeable future, even though other countries
must certainly help. This crisis began in the US - and it is going to have to be solved there too.
Economic growth solves multiple existential risks
Harris and Burrows ‘9
(Mathew, PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NIC’s Long
Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”
http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf, AM)
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting
and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended
consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history
may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to
Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful
effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the
sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think
that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in
which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile
economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that
terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal
will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For
believe that the
those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s
most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long
established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct
sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become
self-radicalized, particularly
in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most
dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost
certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nucleararmed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers,
acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of
stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a
nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could
lead to an unintended
escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity
of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems
also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of
strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel,
short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian
intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36
Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if
protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity
will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate
conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential
for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have
important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as
China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If
the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed
turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval
capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create
opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the
Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both
within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.
1AC – Agriculture Impact
Key to stronger growth in farming
Kelsey D. Atherton, 2-20-2015, Farmers Eye Drones For The Future," Popular Science,
http://www.popsci.com/farmers-eye-drones-future, Accessed: 5-29-2015, /Bingham-MB
Here’s what drones promise: cheap aerial photography, with regular and infrared cameras, combined
with programs that stitch together and analyze the photos, to give farmers information that was
previously unattainable or too costly. In 2013, a vineyard in California used drone photography to find a
section of vines that was ripening sooner than expected, prompting an earlier harvest of that area. Last
year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture looked into acquiring and testing a drone for farming purposes.
Drones can do more for farming than just photographing crops. Sugar alternative giant Stevia
considered flying drones with lights over its crops at night to spur extra growth. And a student contest
in Maryland last summer considered drone designs to protect corn from insect predators, including a
design that landed on corn stalks and picked grubs off of it with mechanical arms.
Key to ag—solves food, diseases and pesticide runoff
Christopher Doering, 3-23-2014, Growing use of drones poised to transform agriculture," USA TODAY,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/03/23/drones-agriculture-growth/6665561/,
Accessed: 5-29-2015, /Bingham-MB
WASHINGTON — Drones are quickly moving from the battlefield to the farmer's field — on the verge of
helping growers oversee millions of acres throughout rural America and saving them big money in the
process. While much of the attention regarding drones has focused recently on Amazon and UPS
seeking to use them to deliver packages, much of the future for drones is expected to come on the farm.
That's because agriculture operations span large distances and are mostly free of privacy and safety
concerns that have dogged the use of these aerial high-fliers in more heavily populated areas. The
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the trade group that represents producers and
users of drones and other robotic equipment, predicts that 80% of the commercial market for drones
will eventually be for agricultural uses. Once the Federal Aviation Administration establishes guidelines
for commercial use, the drone industry said it expects more than 100,000 jobs to be created and nearly
half a billion in tax revenue to be generated collectively by 2025, much of it from agriculture. Iowa, the
country's largest corn and second-biggest soybean grower, could see 1,200 more jobs and an economic
impact topping $950 million in the next decade. "It is endless right now, the applications in agriculture,"
said Kevin Price, a former professor at Kansas State who left the university this month to join RoboFlight,
a Denver-based company that sells drones and analyzes the data collected on corn, soybean and other
field crops. Farmers "are going to be able to see things and monitor their crops in ways they never have
before. In the next 10 years almost every farm will be using it." Today, satellites, manned planes and
walking the field are the main ways farmers monitor their crops. But these methods often can be
incomplete or time consuming, and when data is collected it can take a long time to process and
analyze. As a result, it can be difficult or impossible for the farmer to react to a problem like a disease
outbreak before it's too late or the costs to treat it have soared. Drones — which range in cost from
$2,000 for a plane the farmer puts together up to around $160,000 for a military-style device — are
equipped with infrared cameras, sensors and other technology controlled by a pilot on the ground. The
sticker shock may be steep, but backers of the technology say the data they collect — from identifying
insect problems, watering issues, assessing crop yields or tracking down cattle that have wandered off
— help farmers recover the investment, often within a year. Farmers also can use drones to tailor their
use of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer and other applications based on how much is needed at a specific
point in a field — a process known as precision agriculture — saving the grower money from
unnecessarily overusing resources while at the same time reducing the amount of runoff that could
flow into nearby rivers and streams.
Pesticide runoff collapses biodiversity—kills critical species
PANNA, not date but cites research from 2010, Environmental Impacts," Pan north America pesticide
action network, http://www.panna.org/issues/persistent-poisons/environmental-impacts, Accessed: 529-2015, /Bingham-MB
Some pesticides seep through the soil into groundwater; others are washed by rain into creeks, rivers,
and lakes where they can poison fish and other aquatic organisms. Depending on the type of chemical,
contamination can last for days, weeks, months – even decades. California: Pesticides used by
homeowners on lawns poison invertebrates at the bottom of aquatic food chains, upsetting fragile
ecosystems statewide. Florida Everglades: Endosulfan runoff from tomato fields threatens the small fish
that feed ibises, storks, and egrets. Pesticide runoff remains largely unregulated, and government
agencies have shown little initiative in protecting complex aquatic ecosystems. Fortunately, when
tainted runoff threatens a species already listed as endangered, the government can be forced to act. In
the pacific northwest, creeks that are home to endangered salmon now require substantial buffer zones
from toxic pesticides. The Center for Biological Diversity recently took legal action to force EPA to
protect 887 threatened and endangered species from 400 of the most dangerous pesticides.
And, the US is key to food stability- shifting food practices is key to prevent crises
Coleman ’12 [Isobel Coleman, Senior Fellow and Director of the Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy
Initiative; Director of the Women and Foreign Policy Program, “U.S. Drought and Rising Global Food
Prices,” August 2, http://www.cfr.org/food-security/us-drought-rising-global-food-prices/p28777]
ongoing drought in the Midwest has affected approximately 80 percent of the U.S. corn crop and more than 11
percent of the soybean crop, triggering a rise in global food prices (RFE/RL) that CFR's Isobel Coleman says may fuel
political instability in developing countries. The United States produces approximately 35 percent of the world's corn and soybean supply, commodities
that are "crucial in the food chain, because they are used for feed stock for animals," Coleman says. Growing demand for meat and protein from
emergent middle classes internationally has made many countries dependent on "relatively inexpensive food stocks" from the
United States, she explains. "When you see a crop failure of the magnitude you have seen this summer, it flows through the whole
food chain," says Coleman, who recommends reconsidering the U.S. ethanol mandate and building "more resilience into the global food system." How is the
The
U.S. drought affecting commodity crops, food production, and prices? As recently as May, experts were predicting a record crop in the United States--and of course,
with severe drought in the Midwest,
you've already seen a failure in the soybean and corn crop in the United States. That increased world commodity prices, and it
is going to trickle through the whole food chain. This is the hottest summer on record in the United States since 1895, and people are
beginning to wonder whether this type of drought that we're experiencing could become a new normal. The United States is a pivotal player in
world food production and has the most sophisticated agricultural sector in terms of seeds, technology, irrigation, deep
commodity markets, and future markets. If the United States crop is so devastated by drought, what is going to happen to the rest of the
what the United States does is so important, because the Midwest is the bread basket for the rest of the world. But
world? How do rising U.S. food prices affect global food prices down the world's food supply chain? Which areas of the globe are most at risk? There are many large
food producers in the world. China is the largest wheat producer, but it is also the largest wheat consumer. What makes the United States unique is that we are the
largest exporter, so we produce about 35 percent of the world's corn and soybean supply. Those two commodities are crucial in the food chain, because they are
used for feed stock for animals. Around the world you have rising middle classes, a growing demand for meat and protein in the diet, and countries around the
world are becoming increasingly dependent on relatively inexpensive food stocks from the United States. When you see a crop failure of the magnitude you have
you have American livestock producers taking their pigs and
cattle to the slaughter house because they simply don't have the food to be feeding them. So you're going to see meat
prices in the short term in the United States go down, but over the longer term you're going to see rising meat prices; [experts] are
predicting already 4 to 5 percent price increases in meat for the next year. That flows through the whole
food chain, [to] big-population countries that import a lot of food, such as the Philippines, Afghanistan, Egypt. And when you see rapidly rising food
prices, of course it leads to instability. We've seen [this] in the last five years across many of those countries, and you see rising food prices translate
seen this summer, it flows through the whole food chain. Right now
almost directly into street protests. You're going to see the continuation of [political] instability driven in part by rapidly rising food prices. In 2008, we had food
protests across much of the Middle East, so
governments are going to be very much on the alert for unrest and very sensitive to it. Egypt
is already spending about one-third of its subsidies on food, and it is draining the Egyptian foreign exchange reserve to continue those subsidies. This combination of
an already mobilized population out on the streets demanding lots of different changes [in Egypt], and rising food prices is going to create a very unstable
atmosphere. What are some policy responses for alleviating the pressures being felt in the United States and other countries because of rising food prices? In the
United States, we have to look at our own policies that are part of the problem, [including] our mandated use of ethanol in gasoline. This is something that is a
mandated [10] percent that is not flexible, and when you have rising food prices and a problem with the failing crop, you would think that maybe we could lighten
up on the ethanol mandate. Because right now so much of our food production is going into ethanol. So you've already seen governors across the United States in
some of the hard-hit states saying, "Shouldn't we review our ethanol policies?" That's not a short-term fix, but it is potentially longer-term and something we should
We have more mouths to feed every year, and food
security for the world is a critical issue. We should be looking at how to build in more resilience into the global
food system. Africa, which has the highest population growth rates of any continent in the world, used to feed itself and used to export food, but [its]
be looking at carefully. In terms of policy, we have a rising global population.
agriculture has suffered tremendously over the last half century. Only 4 percent of the land in Africa is even irrigated, and you've seen a green revolution occur in
many parts of the world that has really passed Africa by. And so building in greater resilience and improving the agricultural capacity of Africa is a critical part of this
equation, so that Africa has more of an ability to feed itself and become more a part of the global supply chain and not be so dependent on it. Unfortunately,
governments have not made the investments in the agricultural sector that they needed to over the past half century, which is why you have this situation in Africa
today.
Food insecurity causes wars that go nuclear
FDI ’12 [Future Directions International, an Australian-based independent, not-for-profit research
institute, “International Conflict Triggers and Potential Conflict Points Resulting from Food and Water
Insecurity,” http://www.futuredirections.org.au/files/Workshop_Report_-_Intl_Conflict_Triggers__May_25.pdf]
There is little dispute that conflict can lead to food and water crises. This paper will consider ¶ parts of the world, however, where food
and
water insecurity can be the cause of conflict ¶ and, at worst, result in war. While dealing predominately with food and water
issues, the ¶ paper also recognises the nexus that exists between food and water and energy security. ¶ There is a growing
appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought over a lack of resources. Yet, in
a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as conflicts induced by a lack
of food. More recently, Germany’s World War Two efforts are said to have been inspired, at least in part, by its
perceived need to gain access to more food. Yet the general sense among those that attended FDI’s recent workshops, was
that the scale of the problem in the future could be significantly greater as a result of population
pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other farm inputs, and
increased affluence in the developing world. In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in FDI’s
March 2012 ¶ workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly expresses the problem and why countries ¶ across the globe are starting to
take note. . ¶ He writes (p.36), “…if people are hungry, especially in cities, the state is not stable – riots, ¶ violence, breakdown of law and order
and migration result.” ¶ “Hunger feeds anarchy.” ¶ This view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that if
“large regions of the world run short of food, land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then wholesale, bloody
wars are liable to follow.” ¶ He continues: “An increasingly credible scenario for World War 3 is not so much a ¶ confrontation of super
powers and their allies, as a festering, self-perpetuating chain of ¶ resource conflicts.” He also says: “The wars of the 21st Century
are less likely to be global conflicts with sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of
failed states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by bloody
competition over dwindling resources.” ¶ As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war
over ¶ resources, either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves. Another observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict.
Conflict is over resources, not because people are going hungry. ¶ A
study by the International Peace Research Institute
indicates that where food security is an issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict. Darfur,
Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars. Governments, especially in developed countries, are
increasingly aware of this phenomenon. The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the US Center for Strategic and
International Studies ¶ and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all identify famine as a potential trigger for conflicts and
possibly even nuclear war.
1AC – Law Enforcement Impact
Requiring warrants balances privacy with effective law enforcement use of drones
Chemerinsky ’14 (Erwin, Founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law at University of
California: Irvine School of Law, “Viewpoints: Police should get warrants for drones”, Sacramento Bee,
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article2610671.html, AO)
The issue of police use of military equipment – which received national attention with the disturbing images of police in
Ferguson, Mo. – includes a rapid growth in the use of drones by law enforcement. Indeed, it was recently learned
that the police departments in Los Angeles and San Jose had secretly acquired drones. Drones have the
capacity to invade all of our privacy. They can monitor what people are doing at almost any time, including in their homes if their
shades are open. Drones tremendously increase the ability to place anyone under surveillance and monitor almost any activities. AB 1327
would be the first law in California to regulate drones. Specifically, it would require that law enforcement and other
government agencies get a warrant before deploying a drone. The bill would not prohibit all police use of drones for
surveillance or to gather evidence. Under AB 1327, the police still could use drones if they
demonstrated to a judge that there was “probable cause,” the standard that always must be met for
the police to get a warrant. The requirement that police get a warrant before searching a person or his
or her home or vehicle is a crucial check on law enforcement. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution provides
that there generally cannot be searches or arrests without a warrant based on probable cause. This
provides an important constraint on police by requiring that they demonstrate good reason for a search to a neutral judge. It is unclear, though,
how the Fourth Amendment applies to drones. The technology is too new for the courts to have ruled. In
1989, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that the police may use low-flying airplanes to gather information without a warrant. The
court said that this was not a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. If the court
follows this with regard to drones, there would be no constitutional limit on their use. Rather than wait for
the Supreme Court, legislatures must step in. In 1968, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control Act to regulate electronic surveillance by
police and to require that a warrant be obtained by police before wiretapping occurs. The same is needed for technology like drones. AB 1327
would do that in California and provide a model to other states. In fact, a handful of other states have enacted this kind of common-sense
requirement, and California can help tremendously by joining this effort. Technological
developments, like drones, pose a
great threat to privacy. The warrant requirement long has been used to balance law enforcement
needs and privacy interests. It should be applied to drones, and other emerging technology. We
shouldn’t have legal loopholes big enough to fly a drone through in the places where our rights used
to be.
Drone integration with law enforcement is key to border security and drug
interdiction
Tom Barry, A Publication of the Center for International Policy, April 2013, Drones Over the Homeland
How Politics, Money and Lack of Oversight Have Sparked Drone
Proliferation, and What We Can Do, International Policy Report,
http://www.ciponline.org/images/uploads/publications/IPR_Drones_over_Homeland_Final.pdf,
/Bingham-MB
Most of the concern about the domestic deployment of drones by DHS has focused on the crossover to
law-enforcement missions that threaten privacy and civil rights – and without more regulations in place
will accelerate the transition to what critics call a “surveillance society.” Also worth public attention and
congressional review is the increasing interface between border drones and national security and
military missions. The prevalence of military jargon used by CBP officials – such as “defense in depth”
and “situational awareness” – points to at least a rhetorical overlapping of border control and military
strategy. Another sign of the increasing coincidence between CBP/OAM drone program and the military
is that the commanders and deputies of OAM are retired military officers. Both Major General Michael
Kostelnik and his successor Major General Randolph Alles, retired from U.S. Marines, were highly placed
military commanders involved in drone development and procurement. Kostelnik was involved in the
development of the Predator by General Atomics since the mid-1990s and was an early proponent of
providing Air Force funding to weaponize the Predator. As commander of the Marine Corps Warfighting
Laboratory, Alles was a leading proponent of having each military branch work with military contractors
to develop their own drone breeds, including near replicas of the Predator manufactured for the Army
by General Atomics.57 In promoting – and justifying – the DHS drone program, Kostelnik routinely
alluded to the national security potential of drones slated for border security duty. On several occasions
Kostelnik pointed to the seamless interoperability with DOD UAV forces. At a moment’s notice, Kostelnik
said that OAM could be “CHOP’ed” – meaning a Change in Operational Command from DHS to DOD.58
DHS has not released operational data about CBP/OAM drone operations. Therefore, the extent of the
participation of DHS drones in domestic and international operations is unknown. But statements by
CBP officials and media reports from the Caribbean point to a rapidly expanding participation of DHS
Guardian UAVs in drug-interdiction and other unspecified operations as far south as Panama. CBP
states that OAM “routinely provides air and marine support to other federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies” and “works with the U.S. military in joint international anti-smuggling
operations and in support of National Security Special Events [such as the Olympics].” According to
Kostelnik, CBP planned a “Spring 2011 deployment of the Guardian to a Central American country in
association with Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF-South) based at the naval station in Key West,
Florida.59 JIATFSouth is a subordinate command to the United States Southern Command
(USSOUTHCOM), whose geographical purview includes the Caribbean, Central America and South
America. In mid-2012, CBP/OAM participated in a JIATFSouth collaborative venture called “Operation
Caribbean Focus” that involved flight over the Caribbean Sea and nations in the region – with the
Dominican Republic acting as the regional host for the Guardian operations, which CBP/OAM considers a
“prototype for future transit zone UAS deployments.” CBP says that OAM drones have not been
deployed within Mexico, but notes that “OAM works in collaboration with the Government of Mexico in
addressing border security issues,” without specifying the form and objectives of this collaboration.60
As part of the U.S. global drug war and as an extension of border security, unarmed drones are also
crossing the border into Mexico. The U.S. Northern Command has acknowledged that the U.S. military
does fly a $38-million Global Hawk drone into Mexico to assist the Mexico’s war against the drug
cartels.61 Communities, state legislatures and even some congressional members are proceeding to
enact legislation and revise ordinances to decriminalize or legalize the consumption of drugs, especially
marijuana, targeted by the federal government’s drug war of more than four decades. At the same time,
DHS has been escalating its contributions to the domestic and international drug war – in the name of
both homeland security and national security. Drug seizures on the border and drug interdiction over
coastal and neighboring waters are certainly the top operative priorities of OAM. Enlisting its Guardian
drones in SOUTHCOM’s drug interdiction efforts underscores the increasing emphasis within the entire
CBP on counternarcotic operations. CBP is a DHS agency that is almost exclusively focused on tactics.
While CBP as the umbrella agency and the Office of the Border Patrol and OAM all have strategic plans,
these plans are marked by their rigid military frameworks, their startling absence of serious strategic
thinking, and the diffuse distinctions between strategic goals and tactics. As a result of the border
security buildup, south-north drug flows (particularly cocaine and more high-value drugs) have shifted
back to marine smuggling, mainly through the Caribbean, but also through the Gulf of Mexico and the
Pacific.62
Drug interdiction solves cartels
Dr. James Giermanski is chairman of transportation security company Powers International and
Director of the Centre for Global Commerce at Belmont Abbey College, Powers International, 4-3-2009,
DHS, Drug Interdiction and Common Sense," CSO Online,
http://www.csoonline.com/article/2123915/compliance/dhs--drug-interdiction-and-commonsense.html, Accessed: 5-30-2015, /Bingham-MB
Why should there even be MOUs between DHS and the Department of Justice when their respective law
enforcement agencies have drug interdiction responsibilities which by their nature include a required,
and normal follow-up operations routinely made be all legitimate law enforcement agencies? These
MOUs are nothing more than turf wars, with competing Federal agencies competing for attention,
money, and credibility. Turf wars are certainly unnecessary especially in the face of not only horrific
actions of Mexican drug cartels along our Southern border, but also in our cities. These drug-related
crime waves in Mexico include killings, torture, kidnapping and corruption which threaten to spill over
into the United States. Kidnappings already have! The United States needs no political issue, especially a
turf issue, to divert attention from the serious escalation of drug and arms smuggling across its borders.
"Our agents and officers, working together with local law enforcement agencies, are preventing millions
of dollars from crossing the border into Mexico," said Secretary Napolitano. "In stopping the funds that
fuel the drug war, we will stifle cartel activity in the United States while helping our neighbors to the
south by cracking down on illegal cash before it gets there."[13] Imagine what would happen if ICE had
Title-21 authority. Improvements in drug interdictions, investigations, and arrests, would result.
Cartel violence risks terrorism over the border
Stephen Metz 14, Defense Analyst and author of "Iraq and the Evolution of American Strategy",
"Strategic Horizons: All Options Bad If Mexico's Drug Violence Expands to U.S.", February 19,
www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13576/strategic-horizons-all-options-bad-if-mexico-s-drugviolence-expands-to-u-s
A second way that Mexico’s
violence could spread north is via the partnership between the narcotraffickers and
groups. The Zetas already have a substantial connection to Hezbollah, based on
collaborative narcotrafficking and arms smuggling. Hezbollah has relied on terrorism since its founding
and has few qualms about conducting attacks far from its home turf in southern Lebanon. Since Hezbollah is a
close ally or proxy of Iran, it might some day attempt to strike the United States in retribution for American action
against Tehran. If so, it would likely attempt to exploit its connection with the Zetas, pulling the narcotraffickers
into a transnational proxy war. The foundation for this scenario is already in place: Security analysts like Douglas Farah have warned of
ideologically motivated terrorist
a “tier-one security threat for the United States” from an “improbable alliance” between narcotraffickers and anti-American states like Iran and the “Bolivarian”
regime in Venezuela. The
longer this relationship continues and the more it expands, the greater the chances of
dangerous miscalculation. ¶ No matter how violence from the Mexican cartels came to the United States, the key issue would be Washington’s
response. If the Zetas, another Mexican cartel or someone acting in their stead launched a campaign of assassinations or
bombings in the United States or helped Hezbollah or some other transnational terrorist organization with a mass
casualty attack, and the Mexican government proved unwilling or unable to respond in a way that Washington considered adequate, the United States
would have to consider military action. ¶ While the United States has deep cultural and economic ties to Mexico and works closely with
Mexican law enforcement on the narcotrafficking problem, the security relationship between the two has always been difficult—understandably so given the long
history of U.S. military intervention in Mexico. Mexico
would be unlikely to allow the U.S. military or other government agencies free
rein to strike at narcotrafficking cartels in its territory, even if those organizations were tied to assassinations, bombings or terrorism
in the United States. But any U.S. president would face immense political pressure to strike at America’s
enemies if the Mexican government could not or would not do so itself. Failing to act firmly and decisively would weaken the president and encourage the
Mexican cartels to believe that they could attack U.S. targets with impunity. After all, the primary lesson from Sept. 11 was that playing only defense and allowing
groups that attack the United States undisturbed foreign sanctuary does not work. But using
the U.S. military against the cartels on Mexican
soil could weaken the Mexican government or even cause its collapse, end further security cooperation
between Mexico and the United States and damage one of the most important and intimate bilateral economic
relationships in the world. Quite simply, every available strategic option would be disastrous.¶ Hopefully, cooperation between Mexican and U.S.
security and intelligence services will be able to forestall such a crisis. No one wants to see U.S. drones over Mexico. But so long as the core dynamic
of narcotrafficking—massive demand for drugs in the United States combined with their prohibition—
persists, the utter ruthlessness, lack of restraint and unlimited ambition of the narcotraffickers raises the possibility of
violent miscalculation and the political and economic calamity that would follow.
Extinction
Hellman 8 (Martin E, emeritus prof of engineering @ Stanford, “Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence”
SPRING, THE BENT OF TAU BETA PI, http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf)
The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the public’s mind than the threat of a full-scale nuclear war, yet this article focuses primarily on the latter.
An explanation is therefore in order before proceeding. A terrorist attack involving a nuclear weapon would be a
catastrophe of immense proportions: “A 10-kiloton bomb detonated at Grand Central Station on a typical work day would likely kill some half a million people,
and inflict over a trillion dollars in direct economic damage. America and its way of life would be changed forever.” [Bunn 2003, pages viii-ix]. The likelihood of such an
attack is also significant. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has estimated the chance of a nuclear terrorist
incident within the next decade to be roughly 50 percent [Bunn 2007, page 15]. David Albright, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, estimates those odds at less than
one percent, but notes, “We would never accept a situation where the chance of a major nuclear accident like Chernobyl would be anywhere near 1% .... A nuclear terrorism attack is a low-probability event,
In a survey of 85 national security experts,
Senator Richard Lugar found a median estimate of 20 percent for the “probability of an attack involving a nuclear
explosion occurring somewhere in the world in the next 10 years,” with 79 percent of the
respondents believing “it more likely to be carried out by terrorists” than by a government [Lugar
2005, pp. 14-15]. I support increased efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism, but that is not inconsistent with the approach of this article. Because terrorism is one of the
potential trigger mechanisms for a full-scale nuclear war, the risk analyses proposed herein will include estimating the risk of nuclear terrorism as one
but we can’t live in a world where it’s anything but extremely low-probability.” [Hegland 2005].
component of the overall risk. If that risk, the overall risk, or both are found to be unacceptable, then the proposed remedies would be directed to reduce which- ever risk(s) warrant attention. Similar
remarks apply to a number of other threats (e.g., nuclear war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan). his article would be incomplete if it only dealt with the threat of nuclear terrorism and neglected
society’s almost
total neglect of the threat of full-scale nuclear war makes studying that risk all the more
important. The cosT of World War iii The danger associated with nuclear deterrence depends on both the cost of a failure and the failure rate.3 This section explores the cost of a failure of
the threat of full- scale nuclear war. If both risks are unacceptable, an effort to reduce only the terrorist component would leave humanity in great peril. In fact,
nuclear deterrence, and the next section is concerned with the failure rate. While other definitions are possible, this article defines a failure of deterrence to mean a full-scale exchange of all nuclear
weapons available to the U.S. and Russia, an event that will be termed World War III. Approximately 20 million people died as a result of the first World War. World War II’s fatalities were double or
triple that number—chaos prevented a more precise deter- mination. In both cases humanity recovered, and the world today bears few scars that attest to the horror of those two wars. Many people
therefore implicitly believe that a third World War would be horrible but survivable, an extrapola- tion of the effects of the first two global wars. In that view, World War III, while horrible, is something
that humanity may just have to face and from which it will then have to recover. In contrast, some of those most qualified to assess the situation hold a very different view. In a 1961 speech to a joint
session of the Philippine Con- gress, General Douglas MacArthur, stated, “Global war has become a Frankenstein to destroy both sides. … If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win, you stand only to
No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now only the
germs of double suicide.” Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ex- pressed a similar view: “If deterrence fails and conflict develops, the present U.S. and NATO
strategy carries with it a high risk that Western civilization will be destroyed” [McNamara 1986, page 6]. More recently, George Shultz, William Perry, Henry
lose.
Kissinger, and Sam Nunn4 echoed those concerns when they quoted President Reagan’s belief that nuclear weapons were “totally irrational, totally inhu- mane, good for nothing but killing, possibly
destructive of life on earth and civilization.” [Shultz 2007] Official studies, while couched in less emotional terms, still convey the horrendous toll that World War III would exact: “
The
resulting deaths would be far beyond any precedent. Executive branch calculations show a range of U.S. deaths from 35 to 77 percent (i.e., 79160 million dead) … a change in targeting could kill somewhere between 20 million and 30 million additional people on each side .... These calculations reflect only deaths during the first 30 days.
Additional millions would be injured, and many would eventually die from lack of adequate medical care … millions of people might starve or freeze during the follow- ing winter, but it is not possible to
estimate how many. … further millions … might eventually die of latent radiation effects.” [OTA 1979, page 8] This OTA report also noted the possibility of serious ecological damage [OTA 1979, page 9], a
nuclear explosions and their
could usher in a nuclear winter that might erase homo sapiens from the face of the
concern that as- sumed a new potentiality when the TTAPS report [TTAPS 1983] proposed that the ash and dust from so many nearly simultaneous
resultant fire- storms
earth, much as many scientists now believe the K-T Extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs resulted from an impact winter caused by ash and dust from a large asteroid or comet striking Earth. The
TTAPS report produced a heated debate, and there is still no scientific consensus on whether a nuclear winter would follow a full-scale nuclear war. Recent work [Robock 2007, Toon 2007] suggests that
even a limited nuclear exchange or one between newer nuclear-weapon states, such as India and Pakistan, could have devastating
long-lasting climatic consequences due to the large volumes of smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities. While it is uncertain how
destructive World War III would be, prudence dictates that we apply the same engi- neering conservatism that saved the Golden Gate Bridge from collapsing on its 50th anniversary and assume that
preventing World War III is a necessity—not an option.
Law Enforcement – 2AC
Impact – Terror
The terrorist attack will be a WMD attack
Steven David 8, Professor of International Relations and Vice Dean for Undergraduate Education at
Johns Hopkins University, PhD in Political Science from Harvard, 2008, Catastrophic Consequences: Civil
Wars and American Interests
At first glance, it seems puzzling to talk of instability in Mexico. After all, in the first years of the twenty-first century, Mexico appeared to be
doing very well. An increasingly privatized economy grew at a healthy rate of more than 4% per year in 2005 and 2006. The 1994 North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) generated huge increases in bilateral trade, spreading prosperity throughout Mexico. Regional
insurgencies, such as the 1994 Chiapas uprising, have been largely absent. Most important, Mexican democracy came of age in 2000, when the
7o-year reign of the authoritarian Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) ended with the election of Vicente Fox, head of the rival National
Action Party (PAN) in a free and fair contest. It would be easy to conclude that Mexico had moved into the ranks of the developed world, where
threats of economic collapse and violent instability have all but vanished.¶ Such a conclusion would be wrong.
Mexico faces deepseated problems that have penetrated into the fabric of its politics and society and may yet plunge the country into
prolonged and widespread disorder. Far from being robust, Mexico's economy depends on shaky pillars, which could crumble
suddenly, driving the country into recession or worse. The 2006 elections for Fox's successor demonstrated the fragility of Mexican democracy,
as the
razor-thin victory of the conservative PAN over the leftist PRD (Democratic Revolutionary Party) produced
violent protest in the capital, a crisis of legitimacy, and an exacerbation of the north-south divide that
threatens to tear Mexico apart. No matter who rules Mexico, the structure of the government ensures continued paralysis, as three lameduck
parties square off against each other and a lame-duck president. The cancer of drug
trafficking and rampant crime continue to
eat away at the rule of law, making a mockery out of any hope for justice and accountability. More than a
dozen armed groups, quiet but far from dead, wait for a national emergency to set their violent agenda in motion. Unlike Pakistan and Saudi
Arabia, Mexico does not face imminent collapse. Nevertheless, the
trends are worrisome and could lead to a prolonged period of
this matters to the United States because Mexico matters to the United
States. A wide range of American vital interests depend on Mexico, most of which stem from the 2,ooo-mile
border shared by the two countries. America's national security and economic health are inexorably
linked to what goes on in Mexico. Concerns for Americans living and traveling abroad, the demands of the growing Hispanic bloc in the
instability that flies in the face of recent optimism.¶ All
United States, and fears of spreading disorder and environmental degradation all have roots in what happens in Mexico. If Mexico's seeming
move to stability is illusory, it behooves Washington to pay close attention.¶ The wide range of vital American interests in Mexico makes it
difficult to think of any country whose fate is more important to the United States. Why
conditions in Mexico have created
intense grievances, the belief in the right to engage in violence, and the sense that violence will succeed
are then examined. As will be seen, the difficulties Mexico faces are overwhelming and chronic, with the prospect of major disorder a
realistic possibility. Whether Mexico is tip to the challenges it confronts is unclear, but whatever Mexico may do, Washington ignores
the gathering dangers south of its border at its peril.¶ AMERICA'S VITAL INTERESTS IN MEXICO¶ There is little question that
the United States maintains a wide range of vital interests in Mexico. Most of these interests stem from the United States being the only First
World country to share a long border with a Third World state, a situation that is the source of much that is beneficial to both countries but
which also threatens key American concerns. Foremost among these concerns is safeguarding American security, especially in the wake of the
9/11 attacks. In 2005 alone, the U.S. Border Patrol arrested over 1 million illegal aliens attempting to enter the United States from Mexico.' The
great majority of this traffic is Mexicans seeking better-paying jobs, but the
same paths used by illegal immigrants can be
exploited by terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. In 2005, some 650 people from "special
interest countries," that is, states terrorists are known to inhabit, attempted illegally to cross the
Mexican border into the United States. Included in this number were members of Hezbollah, an Islamic
organization declared to be terrorist by the U.S. government. Since it is estimated that only between 1o% and 30% of
illegal aliens are arrested, the number of those crossing into the United States who pose at least a potential
risk of terrorism could well be in the thousands.-
Solvency – Drug Interdiction
Drones solve drug interdiction
Tim Padgett, 6-8-2009, Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews,"
TIME, http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903305,00.html, Accessed: 5-30-2015,
/Bingham-MB
For weeks, U.S. and Salvadoran counternarcotics officials had been watching a boat they suspected was
ferrying drugs to and from El Salvador's Pacific coast. But to be sure, they needed a plane that could stay
aloft over the ocean, undetected, long enough to get detailed surveillance imaging. So last month the
Defense Department's Southern Command (Southcom) suggested this would be a good opportunity to
help determine whether an unmanned air vehicle (UAV) being tested at El Salvador's Comalapa Air Base
might be the future of drug interdiction. The results were encouraging. The UAV, or drone — a widewinged, blue-gray plane aptly called the Heron, which can stay quietly airborne for more than 20 hours
and stream high-fidelity, real-time video from as high as 15,000 ft. — provided officials back at
Comalapa with enough information to confirm that the boat was indeed a narco-ship (which will
probably be busted soon). "This was a historic first," says Navy commander Kevin Quarderer of
Southcom's Innovation Program, "using a UAV for maritime counterdrug operations in a real-world
setting with actual targets." (Read about how drones are used in Pakistan.) Indeed, with drones playing
an increasing role in U.S. military operations — some 7,000 are in use today, up from just around 100 in
the year 2000 — it only stands to reason that drug drones will soon join America's growing stealth
arsenal. That's especially true at a time when many in Congress are questioning the cost-effectiveness of
a drug war (which has poured more than $5 billion in U.S. aid to Colombia alone this decade) that
intercepts tons of narcotics each year but rarely seems to put appreciable dents in eradicating crops like
coca, the raw material of cocaine, or reducing the flow of marijuana, coke, heroin and
methamphetamine into the U.S. If battlefield drones like the Predator can scan and bomb Taliban
targets in the mountains of Afghanistan, the logic goes, a similar drone like the Heron should be able to
find the "go fast" boats and submarines used by drug cartels in the waters of this hemisphere. (See
pictures inside Mexico's drug tunnels.) Or, for that matter, clandestine drug-processing labs on land.
Drug drones have recently become a more popular idea, thanks in part to the five-year-long drama of
three U.S. military contractors who were taken hostage by Marxist guerrillas when their drug
surveillance Cessna crashed over the Colombian jungle in 2003. (The three were rescued along with 12
other hostages in a Colombian operation last year.) Using drones could put far fewer agents in that kind
of danger. But for now, the military is focusing on maritime drug drones. A preliminary Southcom report
to U.S. legislators like Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran, who led a push to get $3 million for Heron
testing this year, suggests the drone is ready to take on actual interdiction work, which could result in
major savings in drug-surveillance outlays for the Federal Government (though Southcom says it hasn't
calculated them yet). Cochran, the ranking Republican member on the Senate Appropriations
Committee's Defense Subcommittee, is convinced the Heron has "operational readiness and potential to
provide more persistent and cost-effective intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance," says the
Senator's spokeswoman, Margaret McPhillips. (See pictures from the front lines of Mexico's drug war.)
The program, not coincidentally, could also mean hundreds of new jobs in Cochran's state: Stark
Aerospace, the U.S. subsidiary of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), which makes the Heron, is based in
Mississippi. (Massachusetts-based Raytheon is also involved in the Southcom project.) But Southcom
believes the drone, each of which costs about $6.5 million, is a good fit for today's counterdrug needs. A
key reason is endurance. Manned counterdrug aircraft like the E-2 Hawkeye can stay up only about onethird as long as a drone can. And with drug cartels using harder-to-detect shipment methods like
semisubmersibles (jury-rigged submarines), it's critical to have surveillance craft that can "perch and
stare" for longer periods, says P.W. Singer, author of Wired For War and director of the 21st Century
Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C. "Drones are best for the dull, dirty and
dangerous jobs, so this is a smart move," says Singer. "We can't ask counterdrug crews to keep their
eyes open for 20 hours over oceans and mangroves."
That solves cartels
Adriana Gómez, 3-17-2011, US drones help fight Mexico drug cartels," El Paso Times,
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_17631672, Accessed: 5-30-2015, /Bingham-MB
The U.S. government has begun deploying drones into Mexico after Mexican officials requested U.S. aircraft to help
them fight drug-trafficking organizations. Although U.S. agencies remained tight-lipped Wednesday on flying drones over
Mexico, the chief of the Mexican National Security Council, Alejandro Poiré, admitted that his government asked for this type of support to
gather intelligence. Poiré in a statement said the Mexican government defines the operations, most of which take place in border areas. "When
these operations take place, they are authorized and supervised by national agencies, including the Mexican Air Force," Poiré said Wednesday.
Furthermore, Poiré said, the governments were not breaking any national sovereignty laws because they were simply assisting in gathering
intelligence. The drones are for surveillance only and are not armed. The announcement came the day The New York Times
published a story revealing that U.S. agencies have been sending an undetermined number of Global Hawk drones to interior Mexico since last
month. Homeland Security drones flew along the U.S.-Mexico border in past years to gather intelligence on organized crime. Global Hawks are
military drones that have been used for surveillance missions in Afghan istan as well as for relief efforts in natural disaster zones. Global Hawks
can look over areas as large as 40,000 square miles. The newspaper cited officials who spoke anonymously because the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, who reportedly operate the drones, did not publicly comment. "All U.S. cooperation with
Mexico is at the government of Mexico's invitation and is fully coordinated with the government of Mexico," said Matt Chandler, Homeland
Security spokesman. Chandler declined to comment specifically on the use of unmanned aircraft in Mexico. Department of Defense officials did
not return calls on Wednesday. U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, is the chairman of a Homeland Security subcommittee. McCaul said he did
not know that drones flew over Mexico before Wednesday. "They are probably trying to do it under the radar," he said. But McCaul said it is a
positive sign to increase the role of the United States in the Mexican drug war. Mexico, he said, has been reluctant to accept U.S. intervention,
but he said times are changing. "It's a significant departure in the right direction," he said. "We are seeing the (Mexican President) Felipe
Calderón administration welcoming our military presence." McCaul said he learned from agencies on Wednesday that a
drone helped
Mexican law enforcement capture gang members in connection to the murder of the Immigration and
Customs Enforcement Special Agent Jaime Zapata. He was killed on a highway in San Luis Potosí on Feb. 15. The drones may
also set a precedent to devise a joint military operation with Mexico, McCaul said. When President Calderón visited the White House on March
3, he said, officials sought to be "very open-minded and search for more creative solutions." "It seems to me that we are experiencing
extraordinary circumstances that call for extraordinary actions by our governments," Calderón said. Mexican army and embassy officials
declined to comment on the U.S. drones flying over Mexico, and instead referred inquiries to the National Security Council. Earlier this week,
Juárez Mayor Héctor Murguía hosted Carlos Pascual, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico, to discuss national security matters. Murguía appeared
welcoming to ideas such as placing ICE agents on the ground in Juárez. He also said he is pleased to receive any support the neighboring
country could give to the city of 1.3 million that has been ravaged by drug-cartel violence. Murguía refused to comment on whether he and
Pascual spoke about the drones, calling it a matter of "national security." The fact that U.S. drones are flying inland by the request of the
Mexican government shows the two countries' relations are deepening, said Eric Olsen, senior associate at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars' Mexico Institute in Washington, D.C. "Of course these kinds of operations are shrouded in secrecy," he said.
"There is
enormous sensitivity, but there is also a realization that the threat posed by drug cartels is severe." Olsen
said the U.S. presence is still limited. There are no law enforcement operations on the ground, and American agents are not armed. While
Mexican officials said on Wednesday that they will heighten their use of technology with the help of the United
States, Olsen said a military intervention in Mexico is not likely. "I certainly believe that Mexico with the appropriate
support and help from the United States has the ability to tackle its problems."
Solvency – Deters Crime
Drone tech is used to deter crime but are becoming alarmingly advanced
Thompson 13 [Richard M. III, Legislative Attorney, “Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations:
Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses,” April 3, 2013 Congressional Research
Service. Congressional Research Report Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress c.shack]
Drones have been employed domestically by federal, state, and local governments in a range of
circumstances. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uses them to police the nation’s borders to
deter unlawful border crossings by unauthorized aliens, criminals, and terrorists, and to detect and
interdict the smuggling of weapons, drugs, and other contraband into the country.16 Within DHS, Customs and
Border Protection’s (CBP’s) Office of Air and Marine (OAM) has flown missions to support federal and state agencies such as the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Defense (DOD), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Secret Service, and the Texas
Rangers.17 According to a recent disclosure by the FAA, several
local police departments, state and private colleges,
and small cities and towns have also received FAA Certificates of Authorization (COAs) to fly unmanned
aircraft domestically.18 Recently, a police force in North Dakota conducted the nation’s first drone-assisted arrest.19 DHS, in
conjunction with local law enforcement agencies, has been testing drone capabilities in a host of other situations including detecting radiation,
monitoring a hostage situation, tracking a gun tossed by a fleeing suspect, firefighting, and finding missing persons.20 Currently,
drones
can be outfitted with high-powered cameras,21 thermal imaging devices,22 license plate readers,23 and
laser radar (LADAR).24 In the near future, law enforcement organizations might seek to outfit drones with
facial recognition or soft biometric recognition, which can recognize and track individuals based on
attributes such as height, age, gender, and skin color.25 As explained below, the relative sophistication of drones
contrasted with traditional surveillance technology may influence a court’s decision whether domestic drone use is lawful under the Fourth
Amendment.
Solvency – Surveillance
Domestic drone surveillance is gaining traction and legislative measures are needed to
restrict their usage
Thompson 13 [Richard M. III, Legislative Attorney, “Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations:
Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses,” April 3, 2013 Congressional Research
Service. Congressional Research Report Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress c.shack]
The prospect of drone use inside the United States raises far-reaching issues concerning the extent of government surveillance authority, the
value of privacy in the digital age, and the role of Congress in reconciling these issues. Drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are
aircraft that can fly without an onboard human operator. An unmanned aircraft system (UAS) is the entire system, including the aircraft, digital
network, and personnel on the ground. Drones can fly either by remote control or on a predetermined flight path; can be as small as an insect
and as large as a traditional jet; can be produced more cheaply than traditional aircraft; and can keep operators out of harm’s way. These
unmanned aircraft are
most commonly known for their operations overseas in tracking down and killing
suspected members of Al Qaeda and related organizations. In addition to these missions abroad, drones are
being considered for use in domestic surveillance operations to protect the homeland, assist in crime
fighting, disaster relief, immigration control, and environmental monitoring. Although relatively few drones are
currently flown over U.S. soil, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) predicts that 30,000 drones will fill the
nation’s skies in less than 20 years. Congress has played a large role in this expansion. In February 2012,
Congress enacted the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (P.L. 112-95), which calls for the FAA to accelerate the integration of unmanned
aircraft into the national airspace system by 2015. However, some Members
of Congress and the public fear there are
insufficient safeguards in place to ensure that drones are not used to spy on American citizens and
unduly infringe upon their fundamental privacy. These observers caution that the FAA is primarily charged with
ensuring air traffic safety, and is not adequately prepared to handle the issues of privacy and civil
liberties raised by drone use. This report assesses the use of drones under the Fourth Amendment right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures. The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. A reviewing court’s determination of the
reasonableness of a drone search would likely be informed by location of the search, the sophistication of the technology used, and society’s
conception of privacy in an age of rapid technological advancement. While
individuals can expect substantial protections
against warrantless government intrusions into their homes, the Fourth Amendment offers less robust
restrictions upon government surveillance occurring in public places including areas immediately outside
the home, such as in driveways or backyards. Concomitantly, as technology advances, the contours of what is reasonable
under the Fourth Amendment may adjust as people’s expectations of privacy evolve. In the 113th Congress, several measures have
been introduced that would restrict the use of drones at home. Several of the bills would require law
enforcement to obtain a warrant before using drones for domestic surveillance, subject to several
exceptions. Others would establish a regime under which the drone user must file a data collection
statement stating when, where, how the drone will be used and how the user will minimize the
collection of information protected by the legislation.
Unregulated UAV’s allows for indiscriminate surveillance by law enforcement and
criminals alike
EPIC 14 [Electronic Privacy Information Center - Spotlight on Surveillance - October 2014 “DRONES:
Eyes in the Sky” https://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/1014/drones.html c.shack]
The capacity to perform aerial surveillance is not new. However, the economics of aerial surveillance have changed
dramatically. Low-cost drones, coupled with leaps in camera technology and cheap data storage, create the capacity for pervasive and
indiscriminate surveillance. Surveillance technology is now economically and practically feasible for even small police forces. Quite simply, while
the problem of aerial surveillance is quite old, the
economic realities of the past served to limit the scope of the
surveillance. In the past, a city police force could deploy an airplane or a helicopter with a camera attached to engage in surveillance, but
the costs of fuel, a pilot, and video storage would have limited the time such a system remained in the air. Now, for the cost of a single
police helicopter, a force could deploy dozens of drones. This capacity creates a host of dangers to civil
liberties. Indiscriminate surveillance of an area may capture all of an individual’s movements. The Supreme
Court has recognized that this type of data has the potential to reveal the most intimate details of one’s life. [108] Drone technology,
such as ARGUS-IS (see above) can track the movements of tens of thousands of individuals at once. This has
obvious implications for First Amendment rights, including the right to free association, the right to freely
exercise of one’s religion and the right to speak anonymously. It also could threaten a more basic sense of privacy in a free society:
the right to live without constant observation by the state. Additionally, the profit-motive of government drone contractors
can create problematic incentives that could threaten privacy. When the government outsources law enforcement
functions—such as the private ownership of stoplight cameras[109]—private companies are motivated to track the crimes
that are the most profitable rather than the crimes that are the most dangerous. Punishing petty
infractions such, as jay-walking, littering, and smoking in undesignated areas does not warrant dragnet
surveillance of all public behavior. The proliferation of private drones could also have legal implications that make government
surveillance more pervasive. For instance, if a drone producer offered cloud storage for information captured by private drones, that
information could potentially be collected by the government without a warrant. And under some approaches to Fourth Amendment law,
increased drone use by the public could mean that individuals have a reduced expectation of privacy with regard to government drone
surveillance. [110] The threat that unregulated drone use poses to civil and constitutional rights is not conjecture. The
capacity for
indiscriminate surveillance exists. These programs could collect information on the actions of every
citizen, without regard to suspicion or any connection to a crime. Law and public policy, at every level of
government, must adapt to these technological advancements to ensure that the technical feasibility of
a security state does not lead to the creation of one. Private drone use creates many other privacy concerns.
Information generated by location tracking of individuals could be valuable to advertisers and data
brokers, and the technical capacity for such surveillance exists today. Commercial data collectors may soon have the
capacity to continuously track the movements of individuals in public spaces just as they now track
online activity. Both Google and Facebook have recently acquired drone companies, raising concern that
the companies may further expand their surveillance activities into the physical world. [111] Regulation of
private drone use must be crafted with a recognition that drones not only make possible new types of crime, but make it much easier to
commit others. Just as problems of stalking have become more prolific in the online context, a jealous ex or a grudge-holding competitor could
deploy his personal drone to follow someone throughout her day without leaving his desk. Offenses
like stalking, harassment,
blackmail, and invasions of privacy could be committed more easily, covertly, and anonymously with the
use of drones. Law enforcement will need to adopt strategies to counter this trend. In short, drones make
it easier for citizens to invade each other’s privacy, both in ways that current laws recognize and in others that it does not.
The time for legislation is now, warrants are key to maintaining privacy
Franceschi-Bicchierai ’14 (Lorenzo, reporter at Mashable's New York headquarters, where he
covers cybersecurity, tech policy, privacy and surveillance, hackers, drones, and, more in general, the
intersection of technology and civil liberties, “Senators: Police Should Get Warrants to Use Drones in the
U.S.”, Mashable, http://mashable.com/2014/01/15/senators-warrants-drones/, AO)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) wants everyone to know that drones are a threat to privacy. During a senate hearing Wednesday on
the future of the unmanned aerial vehicles in the U.S., Feinstein told a story in which she heard a demonstration outside of her house. When
Feinstein peered through the window, she was startled by a drone, flying right in front of her face. Once the remote operator saw her through
the drone's camera, it spun out of control and crashed. "So, I felt a little good about that," she said. It was a cautionary tale. According to
Feinstein, drones
can be extremely intrusive, and the time to pass legislation to protect Americans'
privacy is now, as they will soon be a common sight in U.S. skies. The Federal Aviation Administration has a mandate
to integrate civilian drones into the airspace by 2015, but many drones — operated by research centers, law-enforcement agencies, and even
hobbyists — are already flying. "There
should be strong binding enforceable privacy policies," she said. "And
that can be done before the technology is upon us." Feinstein, who didn't reveal more about the drone incident (her
press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment) is strongly in support of enacting privacy-protecting
legislation before drones' full integration in U.S. airspace. Sometimes known as a supporter of National Security Agency
surveillance, Feinstein also proposed mandatory warrant requirements for police use of drones . When asked
about the same issue last year, she said, "It all depends." Feinstein is not the only one calling for the use of warrants. Last
August, a poll revealed that the vast majority of Americans support such a requirement. Many states have
passed similar laws, and last year, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) proposed a federal law that requires public agencies to get a warrant before
using a drone for surveillance. "These
20th century eyes in the sky shouldn't become spies in the sky," Markey said
during the hearing. "Flying –- and potentially spying -– robots sounds like science fiction, but they are a
reality right now. And the technology is getting cheaper and more accessible," he added, while holding a Parrot
AR.Drone in his hand, which costs less than $300. For privacy experts, a law passed before the 2015 integration
deadline that mandates warrant requirements for authorities, is a must.
"All rules need to be put in place before
the full integration," Amie Stepanovich, an attorney at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told Mashable. "Because what
seen with privacy-invasive technologies is that once they are adopted and released into the
population, it's very hard to retroactively fit in privacy rules."
we've
Solvency – Boosts Law Enforcement
Drones enhance law enforcement
Sengupta 13 [SOMINI, NYT “Rise of Drones in U.S. Drives Efforts to Limit Police Use” Feb. 15, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/technology/rise-of-drones-in-us-spurs-efforts-to-limituses.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 c.shack]
Law enforcement authorities say drones can be a cost-effective technology to help with a host of policing efforts,
like locating bombs, finding lost children, monitoring weather and wildlife or assisting rescue workers in
natural disasters. “In this time of austerity, we are always looking for sensible and cost-effective methods to improve public safety,” said
Capt. Tom Madigan of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department. “We are not looking at military-grade Predator drones. They are not
armed.” For now, drones for civilian use run on relatively small batteries and fly short distances. In principle, various
sensors, including cameras, can be attached to them. But there is no consensus in law on how the data
collected can be used, shared or stored. State and local government authorities are trying to fill that void. As they do, they are
weighing not only the demands of the police and civil libertarians but also tricky legal questions. The law offers citizens the right to take
pictures on the street, for instance, just as it protects citizens from unreasonable search. State legislatures have come up with measures that
seek to permit certain uses, while reassuring citizens against unwanted snooping. Virginia is furthest along in dealing with the issue. In early
February, its state Legislature passed a two-year moratorium on the use of drones in criminal investigations, though it has yet to be reviewed
by the governor. In several states, proposals would require the police to obtain a search warrant before collecting evidence with a drone.
Arizona is among them. So is Montana. The bill’s sponsor there, Senator Matt Rosendale, a Republican, said he had no problems with drones
being used for other purposes, like surveying forest fires, but he was especially vexed by the prospect of government surveillance. The
manufacturers, he added, were marketing the new technology to government agencies, but neither federal nor local statutes specified how
they could be used. “The technology was getting in front of the laws,” Mr. Rosendale said. An Idaho lawmaker, Chuck Winder, said he did not
want to restrict law enforcement with a search warrant requirement. He said he was drafting language that would give law enforcement
discretion to evaluate if there was “reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.” The attention by lawmakers has delighted traditional privacy
advocates. “I’ve been working on privacy issues for over a decade and rarely do we see such interest in a privacy threat that’s largely in the
future,” said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington. “Drones are a concrete and instantly
graspable threat to privacy.” A counterargument has come from an industry group, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International, which downplays fears about wholesale surveillance. The
drones for sale for civilian use, it says, are nothing like the
armed military grade aircraft used in wars overseas. “They’re another tool in the law enforcement
representative’s tool kit,” said Gretchen West, the group’s executive vice president. “We’re not talking about large
aircraft able to surveil a large area.” The F.A.A. is drafting rules on how drone licenses will be issued. On Thursday, it
announced the creation of six sites around the country where drones of various sorts can be tested. Pressed by advocacy groups, it said it
would invite public comment on privacy protections in those sites. The agency estimates
that the worldwide drone market
could grow to $90 billion in the next decade.
Drones are a force multiplier for public safety
Kimery 13 [Anthony L. Homeland Security Today “Drones: Force Multipliers For Law Enforcement,
Other First Responders” July 28, 2013 http://www.hstoday.us/columns/the-kimery-report/blog/dronesforce-multipliers-for-law-enforcement-other-firstresponders/06bfa4d1a8afea68ce724424cb7679f6.html c.shack]
Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS) may be a mature technology, but they’re still in their infancy proving themselves through the rigorous
testing done privately, commercially and by state and federal government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Nevertheless, despite fears by segments of the public and civil rights opponents that broad use of drones heralds a domestic “surveillance
state,” many more believe unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)
provide tremendous benefits and dividends for public
safety. This includes everything from traffic accident investigation; forensics; search and rescue; tactical
operations; emergency and disaster response; crowd control; HAZMAT/CBRNE management; fire investigation and damage
assessment and fire management. These are all vital public safety matters that drones made for the domestic civilian market are well suited to
handle. Cities, towns and municipalities facing strained
budgets and dwindling resources may more easily be able to
afford than traditional big ticket first response equipment and personnel. Consequently, for some local
governments, it will give them a bigger bang for their buck as important force multipliers. Ben Gielow, general counsel of the Association for
Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), noted that “unmanned aircraft help save time [and] save money, not to mention saving
lives." FAA approves first certificate for drones Monrovia, CA.-based AeroVironment, Inc. announced on July 19 it received a first of its kind
“Restricted Category” rating for its 13-pound Puma AE SUAS from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA certificate permits
operators to fly the Puma for commercial missions, such as oil spill monitoring and ocean surveys in the North Slope region of the Arctic. Prior
to the FAA issued this Restricted Category certificate for a SUAS, it was not possible to operate a UAS in the national airspace for commercial
operations. “Although a potential user could obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate, the certificate specifically excluded and did not
authorize the use of an unmanned aircraft system for commercial operations,” AeroVironment said in a statement. The FAA said in its
announcement that previous military acceptance of the Puma AE design allowed the FAA to issue the Restricted Category type certificate. “This
marks the first time the FAA has approved a hand-launched unmanned aircraft system for commercial missions,” AeroVironment said. Closely
regulated by the FAA, drones are expected to be cleared for wider use in the continental United States (CONUS) following a congressional
mandate that the FAA establish guidelines for their use within US national airspace by 2015. “This certificate [for AeroVironment]represents an
aviation milestone that could not have happened without the FAA’s vision and leadership,” said Tim Conver, AeroVironment chairman and chief
executive officer. “Aerial
observation missions can now be safely accomplished in hazardous Arctic locations,
which will reduce the risk of manned aviation in an efficient, cost-effective and environmentally friendly
manner. We believe initial operations in the Arctic can lead to long-term broad adoption for similar
applications elsewhere in the United States and throughout the world.” AeroVironment expects its Puma AE to be
deployed later this summer to support emergency response crews for oil spill monitoring and wildlife observation off the coast of the Beaufort
Sea in the Arctic Circle, the company said. “Researchers and other entities now will be able to perform aerial observation at significantly lower
operational costs compared to manned aircraft,” the firm said in a statement, adding that the “Puma AE also gives personnel the ability to
immediately obtain and analyze aerial monitoring data because they will be able to hand launch Puma AE whenever needed, giving them a new
option to traditional methods, such as manned aircraft, support ships and satellites.” Like other small drones, the Puma AE does not require
runways, launching pads or recovery devices. It is completely man-portable, assembled in minutes and hand-launched and recovered on sea or
land. “Because Puma is a very quiet aircraft and battery operated it can monitor critical natural wildlife habitats at low altitudes without
disturbing the animals or adversely affecting pristine environments,” said Roy Minson, AeroVironment senior vice president and general
manager of the company’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems business segment. “Puma also is very flexible and easy to use because operators can
take it anywhere without needing to haul any infrastructure, such as a launcher or recovery device, on the missions. This is especially important
for oceangoing vessels, since installing new infrastructure can be a long and costly process.” The Puma AE is a prime example of the many
different sizes and configurations of “drones,” as they’ve routinely come to be referred to, that are now being manufactured and tested. Most
have the ability to incorporate just about any kind of sensor suite that a user requires or needs. And when used by first responders, there are
sensors that can save lives. Conversely, other sensors could be critical to the success of a particular homeland security mission, such as Customs
and Border Protection’s (CBP) use of Predators and other drone configurations for surveillance of the Southwest border.
Economy – 2AC
Drone Market Now
Drones are now essential to community safety and are will become increasingly
widespread and a large market
Kimery 13 [Anthony L. Homeland Security Today “Drones: Force Multipliers For Law Enforcement,
Other First Responders” July 28, 2013 http://www.hstoday.us/columns/the-kimery-report/blog/dronesforce-multipliers-for-law-enforcement-other-firstresponders/06bfa4d1a8afea68ce724424cb7679f6.html c.shack]
Public and legal issues challenge drones AUVSI said widespread use of “drones” will be fraught with turbulent public and legal issues, and that
the public’s perception could be shaped by the images of large military drones being piloted by the Pentagon and CIA to conduct surveillance
and carry out targeted killings of top tier terrorists. However, authorities
advocating the use of small, low cost, practical
drones used specifically for critical public first responder missions said if polls are any indication, the
public by and large will come to realize that these types of drones can be essential tools for community
safety. The FAA has already estimated that there could be 7,500 small drones flying in the skies over the US by
2018, while some analysts believe this burgeoning new industry could produce as many as 100,000 jobs.
Private industry economic forecasts predict that the domestic drone market will have annual sales of 40,000 units by 2015, and
that sales are expected to grow to 160,000 units during the next decade. NCPA’s Carr said “The Teal Group, a leading
aerospace market intelligence firm, says that despite cuts in defense spending, annual global spending on drones will grow from $5.9 billion in
2012 to $11.3 billion in 2021.” Carr also pointed out that “The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency funds a crowdsourcing competition
called UAVForge. The “2012 competition highlighted the decentralized, entrepreneurial nature of unmanned development” by the “more than
140 teams and 3,500 people from 153 countries” who participated in the competition, he said. “Many applications of drone platforms are in
some phase of research, development, testing, evaluation or operation, and the industry will likely generate a new wave of entrepreneurs, Carr
wrote. Authorities
agree that it’s only a matter of time before there’s widespread adoption of drones by
first responders by 2020.
Solvency – Economy
Drones will substantially boost US economy but regulations are key
Kimery 13 [Anthony L. Homeland Security Today “Drones: Force Multipliers For Law Enforcement,
Other First Responders” July 28, 2013 http://www.hstoday.us/columns/the-kimery-report/blog/dronesforce-multipliers-for-law-enforcement-other-firstresponders/06bfa4d1a8afea68ce724424cb7679f6.html c.shack]
Economic impact A recent study of the economic impact from the expected explosion in the US drone market in the United States conducted
for AUVSI concluded that the
UAS industry could create more than 70,000 new jobs with an economic effect of
more than $13 billion in the first three years after the integration of drones into the US national airspace
system. And this benefit will grow through 2025, when more than 100,000 jobs possibly could be
created, with an economic impact of $82 billion, according to the AUVSI study, The Economic Impact of Unmanned
Aircraft Systems Integration in the United States, by Daryl Jenkins. Jenkins is an aviation industry economist with more than 30 years of
experience and a former director of the Aviation Institute at George Washington University and a past professor at George Washington
University and Embry Riddle Aeronautical University. In his Dec. 2012 “oversight” report, Safety at Any Price: Assessing the Impact of Homeland
Security Spending in US Cities, OK. Republican Sen. Tom Coburn -- known for his admirable determination in ferreting out waste, fraud and
abuse in government spending -- said his staffs’ year-long investigation “expose[d] misguided and wasteful spending in one of the largest
terror-prevention grant programs at the Department of Homeland Security -- the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI),” and implied that among
the useless and ineffective taxpayer expenditures is the taxdollars that’s been spent for buying “drones.” Granted, Coburn’s 55-page
investigative report exposed what can only be described as a lot of politically motivated pork spending, waste, abuse, mismanagement and
widespread lack of oversight of UASI on the part of DHS -- and Congress. “Significant evidence suggests that the program is struggling to
demonstrate how it is making US cities less vulnerable to attack and more prepared if one were to occur -- despite receiving $7.1 billion in
federal funding since 2003,” the study said. But it doesn’t adequately explain the cost-risk benefit of using UASI grants to buy drones for use by
first responders. Authorities said the report’s criticism that UASI grants by local police departments to acquire drones amounts to a wasteful
use of the funding “failed to understand the drones’ force multiplying effect on law enforcement and other first responders,” as one large
metro police official remarked. This is especially true in
large municipalities with strained budgets and other fiscal
problems that have forced reductions in the ranks and capabilities of their first responders. Police, for
example, have had to prioritize responding to violent and high risk crime. Appropriately deployed
drones can be used to monitor non-violent situations to gather data that police could later use to make
arrests or for criminal investigative purposes. According to Coburn’s report, federally funded drones are already “patrolling the
skies like never before” in the United States. However, DHS’ RAPS Test Plan said “Within the United States, almost 50,000 police and fire
departments exist but only about 300 (less than 1 percent) have aviation departments, owing primarily to the significant cost of acquiring,
operating and maintaining manned fixed-wing and rotary-wing platforms. The estimated cost per flight hour for these assets is 300 times more
expensive than commercially available SUAS which can be operated at costs lower than those of a typical police cruiser. But for state, county or
city entities to become potential users of SUAS, their adoption must be justifiable and affordable.” The RAPS Test Plan reiterated that SUAS
“may soon become valuable tools for first and emergency responders and for those responsible for US border security.” The plan emphasized
that “SUAS can provide tactical, rapid-response capabilities and much better situational awareness before field officers and agents respond to
and engage in potentially dangerous operations.” The growth in the use of unmanned aerial systems for homeland security and other public
sector needs “hinges on the FAA, which is tasked with finding out how aerial drones can coexist with commercial airlines and comply with the
privacy concerns of the public,” according to the NCPA study. “As the use of unmanned drones nears full integration into the National Airspace
System in 2015,” NCPA is urging “exploration of the civilian, commercial and scientific applications of drones, while taking into account the
many concerns over civilian privacy.” NCPA’s Carr said his study concluded “strict privacy protections must be implemented before the public
will support transparent drone use in domestic airspace.” Addressing privacy issues are paramount. Carr said, “According to the consulting firm
Deloitte, the
economic impact of developing unmanned technology will be substantial, particularly for aviation
clusters in Texas and the Northwest.” “With full integration fast approaching, discussion must focus on the civilian,
commercial and scientific applications of drones, as well as limits on how this new technology can be
used,” Carr said. “While the regulatory and technical hurdles may delay the eventual date of full integration, public hostility towards
drones will continue as long as transparency issues damage the government’s credibility," he said. “With
substantial economic growth at stake, proper safeguards must be established to provide protection
from overzealous government," said Carr.
Impact – Economy
Economic decline causes nuclear – global chaos in multiple countries
Auslin 9
(Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman – Resident Fellow –
American Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6,
http://www.aei.org/article/100187)
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global
chaos followed hard
on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible,
economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally
worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems.
The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20
million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a
year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The
regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's
neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has
had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in
downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that
devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture
toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly
external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic
stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's
unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the
specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets.
Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer
Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while
nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not
bode well for the rest of Europe. A
prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise
tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States,
unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world
leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce
into a big bang.
Decline causes nuke war – unrest and instability
Kemp 10
Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House
under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director
for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East
Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West:
India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can
go wrong does go wrong. The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India,
China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy.
As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the
energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social
welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not
limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more
“failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover
by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of
war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist
Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in
the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under
these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear
terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further
devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this
scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet’s
population.
Economy – AT: Resiliency
No resiliency is left to protect from economic swings
Isidore, 8-10-2011
[Chris, CNN money, Recession 2.0 would hurt worse,
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/10/news/economy/double_dip_recession_economy/] /Bingham-MB
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The risk
of double dip recession is rising.¶ And while economists disagree on just how likely the U.S.
new recession would be worse than the last
and very difficult to pull out of.¶ "Going back into recession now would be scary, because we don't have
the resources or the will to respond, and our initial starting point is such a point of weakness," said Mark
Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "It won't feel like a new recession. It would likely feel like a depression."¶ Zandi
economy is to fall into another downturn, they generally agree on one thing -- a
said the recent sell-off in stocks have caused him to raise the odds of a new recession to 33% from 25% only 10 days ago.¶ Other economists
surveyed by CNNMoney are also raising their recession risk estimates. The survey found an average chance of a new recession to be about 25%,
up from a 15% chance only three months ago.¶ Of the 21 economists who responded to the survey, six have joined Zandi in increasing their
estimates in just the last few days. The main reason: the huge slide in stocks. Standard & Poor's downgrade of the U.S. credit rating is another
concern.¶ "The correction in equity markets raises the risk of recession due to the negative hit to wealth and confidence," said Sal Guatieri,
senior economist for BMO Capital Markets.¶ Even with a 430-point rebound in the Dow Jones industrial average Tuesday following the Federal
Reserve meeting, major U.S. stock indexes have lost more than 11% of their value over the last 12 trading days.¶ Recovery at risk¶ A plunge in
stocks doesn't necessarily mean a new recession. The economy avoided a recession after the stock market crash of 1987.¶ "Stock price declines
are often misleading indicators of future recessions," said David Berson, chief economist of BMI Group.¶ But with the economy already so
fragile, the shock of another stock market drop and resulting loss of wealth could be the tipping point.¶ "It really does matter where the
economy is when it gets hit by these shocks," said Zandi. "If we all pull back on spending, that's a prescription for a long, painful recession," he
said.¶ Most economists say they aren't worried that S&P's downgrade makes recession more likely, although a few said any bad news at this
point increases the risk.¶ "The downgrade has a psychological impact in terms of hurting consumer confidence," said Lawrence Yun, chief
economist with the National Association of Realtors.¶ On shakier ground¶ Another
recession could be even worse than the
last one for a few reasons.¶ For starters, the economy is more vulnerable than it was in 2007 when the Great
Recession began. In fact, the economy would enter the new recession much weaker than the start of
any other downturn since the end of World War II.¶ Unemployment currently stands at 9.1%. In November 2007, the
month before the start of the Great Recession, it was just 4.7%.¶ And the large number of Americans who have stopped looking for work in the
last few years has left the percentage of the population with a job at a 28-year low.¶ Various
parts of the economy also have
yet to recover from the last recession and would be at serious risk of lasting damage in a new
downturn.¶ Home values continue to lose ground and are projected to continue their fall. While
manufacturing has had a nice rebound in the last two years, industrial production is still 18% below pre-recession levels. ¶
There are nearly 900 banks on the FDIC's list of troubled institutions, the highest number since 1993. Only 76 banks were at risk as the Great
Recession took hold.¶ But what has economists particularly worried is that the
tools generally used to try to jumpstart an
economy teetering on the edge of recession aren't available this time around.¶ "The reason we didn't go into a
depression three years ago is the policy response by Congress and the Fed," said Dan Seiver, a finance professor at San Diego State University.
"We
won't see that this time."¶ Three times between 2008 and 2010, Congress approved massive spending or temporary
tax cuts to try to stimulate the economy. But fresh from the bruising debt ceiling battle and credit rating downgrade, and with
elections looming, the federal government has shown little inclination to move in that direction.¶ So this new
recession would likely have virtually no policy effort to counteract it.
Economy – US K2 Global Economy
The US is key to the global economy
O’Brien, 3-6-2012
[Matthew, former senior associate editor at The Atlantic, U-S-A! Why You Should Be Even More
Optimistic About the Economy, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/u-s-a-why-youshould-be-even-more-optimistic-about-the-economy/253983/] /Bingham-MB
The financial crisis robbed Americans of many tangible assets, but it also took from us something more
subtle: our worldclass self-confidence. We're worried that the next generation won't be better off, that
China will replace us atop the economic pyramid, and that American exceptionalism is now just a
historical artifact. Call it our Benjamin Franklin moment: We're not sure whether our economic sun is
rising or setting. We shouldn't be so unsure.¶ The 2000s were a golden age for economic buzzwords (and
not all of them were Tom Friedman's fault). Among the more embarrassing catch-phrases not inspired
by conversations with cab drivers was "decoupling." The gist was that as emerging markets like China,
and even developed ones like Europe, made up a greater share of the world economy, they would rely
less on the United States for their own growth. Even if the United States fell into recession, these
economies would "decouple" and power through -- or so the story went.¶ This description of an
increasingly post-American world sounded plausible enough. But if the past few years have proven
anything -- other than that it might be a good idea to actually regulate the shadow banking system -- it's
that the United States is still the world's economically indispensable nation. The below chart from
Reuters shows a survey of manufacturing activity from across the world's biggest economies since 2008.
(A reading above 50 means conditions are improving, while one under 50 means they are deteriorating).
Notice how Europe and China move in complete sync with the United States.¶ This isn't a celebration of
our ability to tank the global economy. If anything, it might be the United States that is decoupling from
the rest of the world. While Europe's interminable debt crisis has thrown it back into recession, and
China's growth model is slowing, a slew of positive economic data in the United States the past six
months has made a genuine recovery actually look possible. Job growth has accelerated -- enough for
unemployment to finally start coming down. Car sales have surged to their highest level since February
2008. And with housing starts picking up, it's not crazy to think the real estate market might begin to
rebound too. The U.S. economy is practically wearing blinders to block out the swarm of bad news from
abroad -- so far this year, at least.¶ Despite our squabbling politicians -- and the possibility that the
economy's acceleration over the last two quarters is a mirage -- the outlook might be even better over
the long-term. The future will be about the war for talent. It'll be about who can educate, attract, and
give smart people the best opportunities to build great things. We certainly need to improve on that
front. But when it comes to being a place where people want to come, we have built-in advantages that
others struggle to replicate. A recent Gallup poll of would-be emigrés makes the case: 23 percent of
respondents want to come to the United States versus anywhere else in the world. (That dwarfs the 7
percent who wanted to move to the second-place United Kingdom). Being a nation of immigrants is our
comparative advantage -- at least as long as we're not so dumb as to chase away smart people who
come here for school.¶ Of course, that's not to say our relative position won't recede. It almost certainly
will. (China and India together have eight times as many people as the United States.) But that's a good
thing. As people in Asia and Brazil and Russia grow richer, there will be richer markets for our goods and
services. But as long as the United States is the destination for people who want to start a business, I
wouldn't bet against us remaining first
Economy – AT: Decline Doesn’t Cause War
It is a basic and studied cause of conflict
Adeleye Oyeniyi – TRANSCEND Media Service, Modeste Paul, 2-28-2011, Conflict and Violence in
Africa: Causes, Sources and Types," TRANSCEND Media Service,
https://www.transcend.org/tms/2011/02/conflict-and-violence-in-africa-causes-sources-and-types/
/Bingham-MB
A more basic and long-term cause of conflict has been the catastrophic economic performance of many
African countries. Coupled with the debt problem, poor flows of private capital into some African
countries, and foreign aid programmes often inefficient, as Neil MacFarlane points out, economic
discomfort can bail out into conflict. In 1992, UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali stated as the
deepest causes of conflict: ‘economic despair, social injustice, and political oppression.’ In the midst of
poverty, African ruling classes, or the elite group who happen to hold power at a particular time, have
enriched themselves and become the targets of envy or of rivalry by other elite groups. Politics is a
commercial venture in his own right, as Roger Tangri puts it; conflicts arise not so much out of clashes of
ideologies or programmes, but for profit – often for just an elite few, for the masses take little part in
this part of conflict: nearly all tribal or ethnic conflicts are rooted in competition between individuals, for
the scarce resources of wealth, state and power. Amiclar Cabral’s dictum posits that ‘there are no real
conflicts between the peoples of Africa. There are only conflicts between the elites. Ali Mazrui quotes
Nigeria as an example of the tendency. In the African state, there is a pull towards privatisation of the
state and towards militarisation. The resources of Nigeria under the civilian rule from 1979 were the
private hunting ground of those in power and their supporters. Rampant privatisation caused the
military to act, in the coup of 1983.
Agriculture – 2AC
Impact – Food
And, food insecurity makes conflicts longer and deadlier
Simmons ‘13 (Emily Simmons. People and Practices (HR), Advisor at The Marketing Store. “Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict,
and Cooperation”. New Security Beat. 3 September 2013. http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2013/09/harvesting-peace-food-security-conflictcooperation/#.Uth9YaCLDy8)//JuneC//
Food and Conflict, Conflict and Food¶ Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and Cooperation, the latest edition of ECSP Report, explores
the complex linkages between conflict and food security, drawing insights from scholarly work to help inform more effective
programming for practitioners. There is no doubt that conflict exacerbates food insecurity. Conflict can reduce the amount of food available,
disrupt people’s access to food, limits families’ access to food preparation facilities and health care, and increase uncertainty about satisfying
future needs for food and nutrition.¶ Deaths directly
attributable to war appear to be declining, but war and other
kinds of conflict continue to take a toll on human health, often through food insecurity. Conflict induces
the affected populations to adopt coping strategies that invariably reduce their food consumption and
nu trition. Poor nutritional status in individuals of any age makes them more susceptible to illness and
death.¶ But the acute food insecurity caused by conflict has especially potent and long-lasting effects on
children. Children whose nutrition is compromised by food insecurity before they are two years old
suffer irreversible harm to their cognitive and physical capacities.¶ Analysis of the causes of conflict and war has been
an area of growing academic interest. Both theoretical work and empirical analyses substantiate the many ways
in which food insecurity can trigger, fuel, or sustain conflict. Unanticipated food price rises frequently
provide a spark for unrest. Conflict among groups competing to control the natural resources needed for
food production can catalyze conflict. Social, political, or economic inequities that affect people’s food
security can exacerbate grievances and build momentum toward conflict. Incentives to join or support conflicts and
rebellions stem from a number of causes, of which the protection of food security is just one. Food insecurity may also help to
sustain conflict. If post-conflict recovery proves difficult and food insecurity remains high, incentives for reigniting
conflict may be strengthened.¶ Given the complexity of factors underlying food security, however, we do not yet understand what levels or
aspects of food insecurity are most likely, in what circumstances, to directly contribute to or cause conflict. More explicit integration of food
security variables into theories of conflict could help inform external interventions aimed at mitigating food insecurity and preventing conflict.¶
The high human and economic costs of conflict and food insecurity already provide substantial incentives for international humanitarian and
development organizations to intervene in order to alleviate food insecurity in fragile states and conflict-affected societies. Experience
suggests, however, that effective efforts to address food insecurity in these situations may require external actors to reconsider the ways in
which they intervene.¶ Modifying operational approaches to ensure greater complementarity and continuity between humanitarian and
development interventions, for example, could help to improve effectiveness and impact. External
support could help to
strengthen institutions critical to food security and conflict prevention in fragile states. Engaging more closely
with households caught in conflict-created poverty traps could alleviate persistent food insecurity and potentially sustain conflict recovery. And
mobilizing civil society and private businesses as partners could enable both humanitarian and development organizations to broaden the
capacities for conflict recovery and food security.
And, Food crises collapse civilization- causes disease spread, terrorism, and economic
collapse
Brown ’09 [Lester, environmental analyst, founder of the Worldwatch Institute, and founder and
president of the Earth Policy Institute, a nonprofit research organization, recipient of 26 honorary
degrees and a MacArthur Fellowship, has won several prizes and awards, including the United Nations
Environment Prize, the World Wide Fund for Nature Gold Medal, and the Blue Planet Prize, “Could Food
Shortages Bring Down Civilization?” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/civilization-foodshortages/]
One of the toughest things for people to do is to anticipate sudden change. Typically we project the future by extrapolating from trends in the
past. Much of the time this approach works well. But sometimes it fails spectacularly, and people are simply blindsided by events such as
today’s economic crisis. For most of us, the idea that civilization itself could disintegrate probably seems preposterous. Who would not find it
hard to think seriously about such a complete departure from what we expect of ordinary life? What evidence could make us heed a warning so
dire—and how would we go about responding to it? We are so inured to a long list of highly unlikely catastrophes that we are virtually
programmed to dismiss them all with a wave of the hand: Sure, our civilization might devolve into chaos—and Earth might collide with an
asteroid, too! For many years I have studied global agricultural, population, environmental and economic trends and their interactions. The
combined effects of those trends and the political tensions they generate point to the breakdown of governments and societies. Yet I, too, have
resisted the idea that food
shortages could bring down not only individual governments but also our global civilization. I
can no longer ignore that risk. Our continuing failure to deal with the environmental declines that are undermining the world food
economy—most important, falling water tables, eroding soils and rising temperatures—forces me to conclude that such a collapse is
possible.¶ The Problem of Failed States¶ Even a cursory look at the vital signs of our current world order lends unwelcome support to my
conclusion. And those of us in the environmental field are well into our third decade of charting trends of environmental decline without seeing
any significant effort to reverse a single one.¶ In six of the past nine years world grain production has fallen short of consumption, forcing a
steady drawdown in stocks. When the 2008 harvest began, world carryover stocks of grain (the amount in the bin when the new harvest
begins) were at 62 days of consumption, a near record low. In response, world grain prices in the¶ spring and summer of last year climbed to
the¶ highest level ever.¶ As demand for food rises faster than supplies¶ are growing, the resulting food-price inflation puts
severe
stress on the governments of countries already teetering on the edge of chaos. Unable to buy grain or
grow their own, hungry people take to the streets. Indeed, even before the¶ steep climb in grain prices in 2008, the number
of failing states was expanding [see sidebar at left]. Many of their problems stem from a failure¶ to slow the growth of their populations. But if
the food situation continues to deteriorate, entire nations will break down at an ever increasing rate. We
have entered a new era in geopolitics. In the 20th century the main threat to international security was
superpower conflict; today it is failing states. It is not the concentration of¶ power but its absence that puts us at risk. States
fail when national governments can no longer provide personal security, food security¶ and basic social services such
as education and¶ health care. They often lose control of part or all¶ of their territory. When governments lose their¶ monopoly on power, law
and order begin to disintegrate.¶ After a point, countries can become so dangerous that food relief workers
are no longer¶ safe and their programs are halted; in Somalia¶ and Afghanistan, deteriorating conditions have¶ already put
such programs in jeopardy.¶ Failing states are of international concern because¶ they are a source of terrorists,
drugs, weapons¶ and refugees, threatening political stability everywhere. Somalia, number one on the
2008¶ list of failing states, has become a base for piracy.¶ Iraq, number five, is a hotbed for terrorist
training.¶ Afghanistan, number seven, is the world’s¶ leading supplier of heroin. Following the massive¶ genocide of 1994 in Rwanda,
refugees from that¶ troubled state, thousands of armed soldiers among¶ them, helped to destabilize neighboring Democratic¶ Republic of the
Congo (number six).¶ Our
global civilization depends on a functioning network of politically healthy
nationstates to control the spread of infectious disease, to manage the international monetary system,
to control international terrorism and to reach¶ scores of other common goals. If the system for¶
controlling infectious diseases—such as polio,¶ SARS or avian flu—breaks down, humanity will be in trouble. Once
states fail, no one assumes responsibility for their debt to outside lenders. If enough states disintegrate,
their fall will threaten the stability of global civilization itself.
Diseases cause extinction
Guterl ’12 [Fred, award-winning journalist and executive editor of Scientific American, worked for ten
years at Newsweek, has taught science at Princeton University, The Fate of the Species: Why the Human
Race May Cause Its Own Extinction and How We Can Stop It, 1-2, Google Books, online]
Over the next few years, the bigger story turned out not to be SARS, which trailed off quickly, bur avian influenza, or bird flu. It had been making the rounds among
birds in Southeast Asia for years. An outbreak in 1997 Hong Kong and another in 2003 each called for the culling of thousands of birds and put virologists and health
workers into a tizzy. Although the virus wasn't much of a threat to humans, scientists fretted over the possibility of a horrifying pandemic. Relatively few people
caught the virus, but more than half of them died. What would happen if this bird flu virus made the jump to humans? What if it mutated in a way that allowed it to
spread from one person to another, through tiny droplets of saliva in the air? One
bad spin of the genetic roulette wheel and a
deadly new human pathogen would spread across the globe in a matter of days. With a kill rate of 60 percent, such a
pandemic would be devastating, to say the least.¶ Scientists were worried, all right, but the object of their worry was somewhat theoretical.
Nobody knew for certain if such a supervirus was even possible. To cause that kind of damage to the human population, a flu virus has to combine two traits:
lethality and transmissibility. The more optimistically minded scientists argued that one trait precluded the other, that if the bird flu acquired the ability to spread
like wildfire, it would lose its ability to kill with terrifying efficiency. The virus would spread, cause some fever and sniffles, and take its place among the pantheon of
ordinary flu viruses that come and go each season.¶ The optimists, we found out last fall, were
wrong. Two groups of scientists working
independently managed to create bird flu viruses in the lab that had that killer combination of lethality and
transmissibility among humans. They did it for the best reasons, of course—to find vaccines and medicines to treat a pandemic should one occur,
and more generally to understand how influenza viruses work. If we're lucky, the scientists will get there before nature manages to come up with the virus herself,
or before someone steals the genetic blueprints and turns this knowledge against us. ¶ Influenza is a natural killer, but we have made it our own. We
have
created the conditions for new viruses to flourish—among pigs in factory farms and live animal markets and a connected
world of international trade and travel—and we've gone so far as to fabricate the virus ourselves. Flu is an excellent example of how we
have, through our technologies and our dominant presence on the planet, begun to multiply the risks to our own survival.
Terrorism causes extinction
Morgan ’09 [Dennis Ray, Associate Professor, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, “World on fire: two
scenarios of the destruction of human civilization
and possible extinction of the human race,” Futures, Volume 41, Issue 10, 683-693, online]
Years later, in 1982, at the height of the Cold War, Jonathon Schell, in a very stark and horrific portrait,
depicted sweeping, bleak global scenarios of total nuclear destruction. Schell’s work, The Fate of the
Earth [8] represents one of the gravest warnings to humankind ever given. The possibility of complete
annihilation of humankind is not out of the question as long as these death bombs exist as symbols of
national power. As Schell relates, the power of destruction is now not just thousands of times as that of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki; now it stands at more than one and a half million times as powerful, more than
fifty times enough to wipe out all of human civilization and much of the rest of life along with it [8]. In
Crucial Questions about the Future, Allen Tough cites that Schell’s monumental work, which ‘‘eradicated
the ignorance and denial in many of us,’’ was confirmed by ‘‘subsequent scientific work on nuclear
winter and other possible effects: humans really could be completely devastated. Our human species
really could become extinct.’’ [9]. Tough estimated the chance of human self-destruction due to nuclear
war as one in ten. He comments that few daredevils or high rollers would take such a risk with so much
at stake, and yet ‘‘human civilization is remarkably casual about its high risk of dying out completely if it
continues on its present path for another 40 years’’ [9]. What a precarious foundation of power the
world rests upon. The basis of much of the military power in the developed world is nuclear. It is the
reigning symbol of global power, the basis, – albeit, unspoken or else barely whispered – by which
powerful countries subtly assert aggressive intentions and ambitions for hegemony, though masked by
‘‘diplomacy’’ and ‘‘negotiations,’’ and yet this basis is not as stable as most believe it to be. In a
remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question ‘‘Is Nuclear War Inevitable??’’ [10].4
In Section 1, Moore points out what most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions
between powerful countries. No doubt, they’ve figured out that the best way to escalate these
tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out, all that militant
terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either
Moscow or Israel. Because of the Russian ‘‘dead hand’’ system, ‘‘where regional nuclear commanders
would be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed,’’ it is likely that any attack would be blamed
on the United States’’ [10]. Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if
Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would retaliate with
the suicidal ‘‘Samson option’’ against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Israeli
Samson option would also include attacks on Russia and even ‘‘anti-Semitic’’ European cities [10]. In
that case, of course, Russia would retaliate, and the U.S. would then retaliate against Russia. China
would probably be involved as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many
of them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the
major cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds
would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that
would be genetically transmitted to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a
100 years, taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well. And what many
people fail to realize is what a precarious, hair-trigger basis the nuclear web rests on. Any accident,
mistaken communication, false signal or ‘‘lone wolf’ act of sabotage or treason could, in a matter of a
few minutes, unleash the use of nuclear weapons, and once a weapon is used, then the likelihood of a
rapid escalation of nuclear attacks is quite high while the likelihood of a limited nuclear war is actually
less probable since each country would act under the ‘‘use them or lose them’’ strategy and psychology;
restraint by one power would be interpreted as a weakness by the other, which could be exploited as
a window of opportunity to ‘‘win’’ the war. In otherwords, once Pandora’s Box is opened, it will
spread quickly, as it will be the signal for permission for anyone to use them. Moore compares swift
nuclear escalation to a room full of people embarrassed to cough. Once one does, however, ‘‘everyone
else feels free to do so. The bottom line is that as long as large nation states use internal and external
war to keep their disparate factions glued together and to satisfy elites’ needs for power and plunder,
these nations will attempt to obtain, keep, and inevitably use nuclear weapons. And as long as large
nations oppress groups who seek selfdetermination, some of those groups will look for any means to
fight their oppressors’’ [10]. In other words, as long as war and aggression are backed up by the implicit
threat of nuclear arms, it is only a matter of time before the escalation of violent conflict leads to the
actual use of nuclear weapons, and once even just one is used, it is very likely thatmany, if not all, will be
used, leading to horrific scenarios of global death and the destruction of much of human civilization
while condemning a mutant human remnant, if there is such a remnant, to a life of unimaginable misery
and suffering in a nuclear winter.
Solvency – Agriculture
Integration of drone technology is key to agriculture
The Economist, 12-4-2014, Free the drones," http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21635489drones-have-immense-commercial-potentialso-long-regulators-dont-try-tether-them, Accessed: 5-262015, /Bingham-MB
One immediate commercial use is surveying land cheaply and effectively. A drone can photograph a
road to a resolution of 2cm, compared with the 30cm that a satellite offers—and it can do so at a third
of the cost. Already farmers are using them to monitor crop growth, which in turn enables modern farm
machinery to deliver exactly the right amount and type of fertiliser. In France, where the technology is
widely used, farmers say drones boost revenues by €50 ($62) or so per hectare. Drones also improve
safety: they can be used to do jobs, such as inspecting power lines, that currently require dangling a man
from a helicopter. And they can deliver goods faster: DHL, a logistics firm, already uses a “parcelcopter”
to deliver medicine to Juist, a small island off the coast of Germany.
They will revolutionize farming industry
Luke Runyon, 2-16-2015, As Rules Get Sorted Out, Drones May Transform Agriculture Industry,"
NPR.org, http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/02/16/385520242/as-rules-get-sortedout-drones-may-transform-agriculture-industry, Accessed: 5-29-2015, /Bingham-MB
What makes the drone valuable to farmers is the camera on board. It snaps a high-resolution photo
every two seconds. From there, Agribotix stitches the images together, sniffing out problem spots in the
process. Knowing what's happening in a field can save a farmer money. At farm shows across the
country, drones have become as ubiquitous as John Deere tractors. The Colorado Farm Show earlier this
year included an informational session, telling farmers both the technical and legal challenges ahead. "I
think it's a very exciting time," says farmer Darren Salvador, who grows 2,000 acres of wheat and corn
near the Colorado-Nebraska border. "Can you look at areas of disease concern, insect concern, so now
you can be more proactive and treat smaller areas and not treat the entire field," he says. Salvador and
about 50 other farmers got an earful from Rory Paul, CEO of Volt Aerial Robotics, a St. Louis-based drone
startup. "We really don't know what they're good for," Paul says. "We've got a few ideas of where they
could really benefit agriculture. The majority of which are still theoretical."
2AC
Add On – Natural Disasters
Commercial drone use is a game changer for disaster relief
Vicinanzo 4/27 (Amanda, Senior Editor, “Drones: The Future of Disaster Relief?”, Homeland Security
Today, http://www.hstoday.us/briefings/industry-news/single-article/drones-the-future-of-disasterrelief/ac6fea6ede12bb983d536c411b071fdc.html, AO)
Drone technology may be the future of disaster response and recovery, according to a new study commissioned by
the American Red Cross. Measure, a 32 Advisors Company, and the American Red Cross, recently released a 52-page report based on extensive
research and industry collaboration examining the humanitarian, safety and economic benefits of using drones to aid disaster relief efforts.
Sponsors of the report include Boeing Co, Lockheed Martin Corp, United Parcel Service Inc, International Business Machines Corp, Willis Group
Holdings Ltd, Guy Carpenter and Company, United Services Automobile Association, and Zurich North America. “Drones
provide
significant benefits to first responders, enabling them to expedite disaster relief efforts,” said Justin P.
Oberman, president of Measure. “We have a unique opportunity for companies and governments to save lives and rebuild communities by
using drone technology. Drones
can be effective and efficient tools for humanitarian purposes; we need the
right blueprint in place to help realize the potential of drones as a tool for good.” The report outlined a
number of applications for drone use in disaster relief efforts including for reconnaissance and
mapping, structural assessment, temporary infrastructure/supply delivery, detection and
extinguishing of wildfires, high-rise building fire response, assisting in a chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear or explosive (CBRNE) event, search and rescue operations, insurance claims
response and risk assessment, and logistics support. In addition to being cost effective and highly
deployable, drone technology can reduce the exposure of first responders to unnecessary danger and
provide unique viewing angles not possible from manned aircraft. Editor's note: Watch for the report, The
Unmanned Helping Hand: The Role of UAVs in Disaster Recovery, in the soon to be published April/May Homeland Security Today. Test flights
were conducted in support of this project through partnership with Dr. Robin Murphy at the Center for Robot-Assisted Search and Rescue
(CRASAR). In March 2015, Measure, Murphy’s team and the sponsors of the report successfully tested and demonstrated the capabilities of
drones in a chaotic post-disaster simulation. “The
use of this game-changing disaster response technology provides
benefits in the real time management and assessment of catastrophes,” said John Trace, Guy Carpenter executive
vice president. “Aerial drone technology offers enormous potential in pre-disaster planning and for
assessing damage after a catastrophe. By sharing that information collected by drones with the public,
government and relief organizations, we can greatly improve response time, save lives and mitigate
damage in response to disasters.” With a number of compelling humanitarian, safety and economic
reasons to use drones for disaster response and recovery, the integration of drones into emergency
and disaster response protocols must be a top priority for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), according to the
report. The report was released just days before the April 24 deadline for public comment on newly proposed FAA drone regulations. As
Homeland Security Today previously reported, amid mounting concerns that the FAA’s slow pace in developing a plan to open the skies to
commercial drones has prevented the drone industry from taking off, earlier this year the FAA proposed a framework of regulations that would
allow routine use of certain small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in today’s aviation system. Currently, commercial drone operations are
prohibited in the United States without an FAA-granted exemption, and rules likely won’t be finalized until late 2016 or 2017. “We
recognize that drone technology combined with FAA support can pave the way for valuable
participation from the private sector, which in turn will increase the speed in which communities -devastated by future disasters - can recover and move forward,” said Dan Riordan, CEO of Zurich Global Corporate in
North America.
Unchecked natural disasters will become a major source of regional instability
threatening the fabric of the international order-triggers waves of secessionism,
terrorism, and failed states.
Jennings-senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace-13
Natural Disasters as Threats to Peace
http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/resources/Natural%20Disasters%20as%20Threats%20to%20Pea
ce%20SR324.pdf
The relentless assaults of our earthly habitat are heightening the global risks of deadly conflict . Climate
change is just one of the ongoing trends increasing the chances that natural disasters and extreme environmental events
will lead to social disruptions, aggressive competition for scarce resources, serious political
confrontations, and even war.1 The fractious debates surrounding global warming—its pace, effects, and human contribution—have
distracted public attention from population trends and other factors that already have made large numbers of
people more vulnerable to even normal patterns of natural disasters: earthquakes, storms, floods, droughts,
and epidemics. The cumulative effect of increased and overlapping extreme environmental events will
likely stimulate popular and political insecurities that eventually shift the fiscal and security priorities of
the United States and other countries. Hopefully these priorities will include a commitment by the United States and other major
governments, as the UN Charter puts it, “to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace.”2
Experts and officials have an urgent responsibility to anticipate and explain the security implications and larger global repercussions of this
emerging profile of “natural assaults,” while emphasizing the importance of collaborating internationally to reduce vulnerabilities, avoid
popular overreactions, and contain adverse political consequences. Acts of God and Human Vulnerabilities The legal system has a term for
destructive natural phenomena deemed beyond the control and responsibility of human beings: “acts of God.” While most of us no longer
regard these assaults of nature as deliberate acts by enraged or punitive deities, we have come to respect their often awesome and arbitrary
effects. Modern science explains them as modulations in one of the three spheres of our planetary surroundings—the lithosphere, atmosphere,
and biosphere. In the lithosphere, energy eruptions in the earth’s crust can cause earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes. In the atmosphere,
changing concentrations and distributions of temperature through water and air can cause hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, and
wildfires. In the biosphere, the modulation and migration of microorganisms can cause epidemics that weaken and kill people, animals, and
plants. As the three spheres of our habitat evolve and erupt, human beings frequently get in the way. Natural hazards become humanitarian
disasters when they expose and exacerbate human vulnerabilities—those characteristics of societies that limit their ability to avoid major
damage and recover quickly.3 Such vulnerabilities range from very concrete weaknesses in infrastructure or the exposed locations of large
populated areas to more intangible dimensions of economic fragility, social cohesion, and political capacity, which affect both preparedness
and recovery. Although the recent historical pattern of major storms, droughts, and earthquakes can be traced (see map 1 at the end of this
report), the extent of human vulnerabilities is a complex and subjective matter, often evident only after the fact. Mortality figures are typically
used as indicators of the severity of disasters. By that measure, the three worst disasters in the world since 1950 were the earthquake in
Tangshan, China, in 1976 (250,000 dead), the earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean in 2004 (240,000 dead), and the earthquake in Haiti
in 2010 (316,000 dead).4 These three earthquakes were by no means the largest in that sixty-year time frame, but they occurred where large
numbers of people were exposed and unable to protect themselves. Severity also can be measured by other direct effects: destruction,
dislocation, and disease. The 2010 earthquake in Haiti not only killed more than 300,000 people but injured an additional 300,000, affected 3.7
million (30 percent of the total population), caused $8 billion in damage, and was followed by 470,000 cases of cholera with 6,631 attributable
deaths. The death rate from an earthquake, hurricane, or epidemic is generally much higher in poorer societies than in richer ones, where
economic damage is usually the more numerically impressive consequence. Because their constituents have come to recognize how much the
damage from “acts of God” can be affected by the actions, or inactions, of human beings, political leaders are increasingly being held
accountable for minimizing the foreseeable risks of extreme events. “Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective
Prevention” is the indicative title of one important report by the United Nations and the World Bank. Reducing the risks begins with the
recognition of how vulnerable many people have become. Throughout
the world, in both wealthy and poor countries,
ever-larger concentrations of people live in exposed locations under fragile or unprotected conditions.
Infrastructure is often inadequate or deteriorating, and there is little or no awareness or preparation
even for likely natural events. Those most exposed include millions in low-lying shorelines or coastal wetlands, marginal urban slums,
and huge “temporary” settlements of internally displaced persons or refugees. Many of these populations depend on
international humanitarian agencies to provide food and medicine and to assist local authorities in
assuring adequate water, sanitation, health services, and shelter. As urban populations grow and conditions
deteriorate further, reliable access to these necessities is becoming increasingly problematic for more and more people. Demographic trends
best convey the scale of the challenges. In
less than twenty years, the global population will rise from 7.1 billion to
more than 8 billion. Key countries will grow even more rapidly. Between 2010 and 2025, Egypt is projected to grow from
81 million people to 106 million, Pakistan from 174 million to 234 million, and Nigeria from 159 million to 258 million.5 Many more people
around the world will attain middle-class incomes, but a large percentage in many countries will be young and unemployed. Half the world’s
population is already twenty-five years old or younger. Projections suggest that, by 2030, the world will need to provide fifty percent more food
and additional fresh water equivalent to twenty new Nile Rivers.6 In that time frame, the needs of many countries, including India and China,
will begin to exceed foreseeable water supplies for consumption and irrigation. The
growth of earthquake-prone megacities
is perhaps most telling of all. In just over a decade, metropolitan Jakarta will go from 9.6 million to 12.8 million people, Mexico City
from 20 million to 24.6 million, Delhi from 22 million to 32.9 million, and Tokyo from 37 million to nearly 40 million—and these are just four of
the thirty-seven cities that will then have populations greater than 10 million.7 There were only twenty-three in 2011. One of every seven or
eight people in the world will be living in one of these massive metropolises, many in huge urban slums that have few, if any, services or
infrastructure. Such concentrated population centers are extremely vulnerable to even normal patterns of earthquakes, storms, drought, and
disease (see map 2). Epidemics that spread within such populations are especially difficult to contain. Climate volatility adds a further
dimension of growing risk. Current changes in the climate of key regions portend severe near-term effects, whether or not the consequences of
global warming match the worst predictions for the longer term. Since the 1980sthe number of recorded natural disastersrelated to weather
and climate has roughly doubled. According to the above-mentioned United Nations-World Bank report, “If there is no conscious change in
adaptation policies to extreme events, baseline damages [even] without climate change are expected to triple to $185 billion a year from
economic and population growth alone”8 (emphasis added). Nor are these risks confined to poor or middle-income countries. The world’s
largest reinsurance companies, Munich Re and Swiss Re, warn of major increases in weather-related damage in both North America and Europe
over the next decade.9 Contrary to critiques from global warming skeptics, the scientific and intelligence communities actually have been
cautious in predicting the human effects of climate change. The April 2012 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is
relatively conservative in forecasting future climate-induced disasters.10 Likewise, the National Intelligence Council handles climate change and
natural disasters in a largely conventional and understated manner.11 However, an increasing number of authoritative reports have begun to
highlight the dire risks of current climate trends and the need to begin assessing the potential for plausible adverse scenarios. Both the World
Bank and the UN Environment Programme warned recently that the likely rise in global mean temperatures will exceed key thresholds sooner
than previously expected, with implications for both severe weather and ocean surges.12 Security specialists are beginning to take these trends
to heart. The Defense Science Board warned in its 2011 report that climate changes in key regions will interact with other vulnerabilities to
become serious “threat multipliers.”13 The World Economic Forum highlights the interactive implications of climate changes with governance,
fiscal, population, and technology vulnerabilities.14 A recent report of the National Research Council called on foreign policy experts to
consider more systematically the political and security implications of foreseeable climate changes, suggesting that “it is prudent for security
analysts to expect climate surprises in the coming decade, including unexpected and potentially disruptive single events as well as conjunctions
of events occurring simultaneously or in sequence, and for them to become progressively more serious and more frequent thereafter, most
likely at an accelerating rate.”15 Despite the pervasive dysfunction of most governments in addressing “climate surprises” and other disaster
vulnerabilities, we will no doubt see environmental risks beginning to shape the political expectations of senior officials and thought leaders. As
in the Cold War or the current ”war on terror,” responsible
policymakers must look not only to the familiar and most
imminent threats but also to less likely but higher-impact scenarios that could be truly catastrophic for
national security, particularly if sudden and unanticipated.16 Not unlike other threats to peace and security, the inability to predict with
certainty the location and timing of future natural disasters should not obscure a nation’s vital interest in assessing their likelihood and
potential aftereffects. Local Catastrophes and Global Repercussions The challenge is to envision plausible threats and sequential patterns of
potential danger—not to scare people but to anticipate potential consequences and devise strategies to prevent or reduce economic, political,
and social damage. The National Research Council suggests using analytical “stress” tests of particular countries or regions to envision the
effects of major disasters, or clusters of disasters, even if some of them should be considered unlikely. History offers examples of catastrophes
that illustrate the possible ripple effects from otherwise local disasters. The Lisbon earthquake, tsunami, and fire of 1755 destroyed that city
and decisively degraded Portugal’s role as an imperial power.17 The Spanish flu epidemic of 1918–20 killed an estimated fifty million to one
hundred million people worldwide and was particularly lethal among young adults, compounding the immense losses to that generation from
World War I. More recently, the destruction from Hurricane Katrina on the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005; the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear
shutdown in Fukushima, Japan in 2011; and Tropical Storm Sandy on the U.S East Coast in 2012 exposed the interconnected vulnerabilities of
coastal settlements, energy infrastructures, health-care facilities, and large-scale relief and recovery operations—a complex combination for
which neither the United States nor Japan was adequately prepared. Major localized disasters do not always result in irreversible setbacks. The
Chicago Fire of 1871, the Boston Fire of 1872, and the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 resulted in the major reconstruction of all three cities,
making each of them more economically vibrant and resilient.18 New York will undoubtedly be better prepared after Sandy, as New Orleans
was after Katrina when it faced Hurricane Isaac in August 2012. Yet both disaster specialists and mainstream media too often treat natural
disasters as limited and local matters. Media focus has typically been more on immediate suffering than larger implications, direct effects than
long-term consequences, and infrastructure repair than major institutional reforms. Nevertheless, as the number and scale of natural disasters
increases, we are likely to witness growing public awareness and anxiety about the vulnerability of certain areas, which will become a strong
political factor adding to the wider and longer-term consequences of disasters. Internet technologies will facilitate not only the rapid
dissemination of distressing information about natural disasters and severe environmental conditions but also the potential for exaggerated
predictions, political incitement, conspiracy theories, or even popular panic. Worst-case scenarios may then become urgent political focal
points, especially those that illustrate the fragility of economic necessities, social cohesion, or public safety.19 Economic Cascades The most
troubling scenarios of natural disasters involve those with simultaneous effects on major essentials: food, water, land, medicine, energy, or
subsistence income. An overlapping series of earthquakes, floods, and food shortages affecting a megacity could overwhelm the capacity of
national and international agencies to respond adequately. Other consequences could follow: The Fukushima nuclear meltdown, for example,
led both the Japanese and German governments to announce the phasing out of their nuclear power industries—a major blow to any prospect
of curbing global carbon emissions.20 Disruptive disasters
in major food-producing regions could have dire global
consequences. Corn, wheat, and rice crop failures would lead to price hikes and shortages in far-flung locations. The worldwide collapse
of one of these major staples—for example, from a new fungal infestation in one region and a drought in another—could lead to famines,
export cutoffs, stockpiling and hoarding, or cartelized supply arrangements. Such
developments could create new zones of
instability, hostility, and populist pretexts for aggressive steps to secure new supplies or assure future
access. The drive to guarantee food sources has already prompted the governments of China, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and others to buy land in
Africa and Latin America for growing food that could be diverted from global markets during shortages. Water shortages could be another
cause of future conflicts. Recent intelligence analyses suggest that countries are unlikely to go to war over water,21 but the larger patterns of
depletion and diversion—glacial melts in South Asia and the Andes; upstream dams in the Middle East, East Africa, and Southeast Asia;
widening drought in sub-Saharan Africa—suggest that peacefully resolving some disputes over severe water shortages could be very difficult.
The genocides in Rwanda and Darfur owed much to the pressures of land, food, and water competition in fomenting ethnic conflicts.22
Medicine can be another life-and-death necessity in times of emergency. It is not difficult to imagine that the government of a state facing the
prospect of a deadly epidemic would take steps to seize or intercept supplies of essential medicines. After European and U.S. laboratories
cloned the lethal H5N1 virus, Indonesia demanded access to the vaccine formulas to assure adequate supplies for its huge population at
reasonable cost. A global pandemic from that virus or a similar microorganism could lead to travel restrictions, news blackouts, and other
isolationist reactions, but also to more aggressive measures to obtain lifesaving medicine. Massive casualties could undermine the standard
protocols of global cooperation among international and national agencies, reducing global effectiveness in containing disease.23 Natural
disasters can also sever transportation and communication links and global supply chains—life lines for necessities—compounding the
catastrophe where the disaster occurs and affecting employment even in distant locations. In 2011 both the Thai floods and the Japanese
earthquake and tsunami disasters affected hard-disk and auto suppliers, causing factory shutdowns and end-product shortages on other
continents. The volcanic dust cloud from Iceland in 2010 halted European air traffic for only a week or so but even then had significant effects
on both business and tourism. Compare this with the massive 1883 eruption of Krakatoa and the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, both in
Indonesia, which created longer-lasting effects around the world. The Tambora event led to what was then called “The Year Without a
Summer,” because of the adverse effects on U.S. and European weather patterns.24 Social Collapse Major disasters can have social
consequences when the intense stress of damage and recovery causes breaks along ethnic, religious, class, or geographic fault lines. A major
earthquake in a megacity could produce violent confrontations among groups competing for scarce relief supplies and recovery assistance. Or
the disaster might create reverse-urbanization pressures for millions of homeless and jobless people in suddenly uninhabitable slums. Once
again, the purpose of discussing such scenarios is not to suggest that social chaos following a disaster is a given but rather to consider ways to
prevent, or at least reduce, that possibility. The major quake that struck Mexico City in 1985 produced not widespread strife but inspiring
solidarity in local relief and recovery operations, even among the poorest citizens.25 That city is now a prime candidate for even bigger quakes,
affecting an even larger population. Joint planning for such a crisis by the United States and Mexico could reduce the possibility of greater
casualties and infrastructure losses that might impel hundreds of thousands to seek entry into the United States. Sudden large-scale migrations
are an increasing prospect among the effects of climate change. Low-lying islands, flood-prone coastal areas, large refugee camps, and regions
of prolonged drought could provoke major population movements. The possibility of Bangladeshis pouring into India to escape delta flooding
has already led the Indian government to construct a 4,000-kilometer fence to forestall such influxes. Mass migration from Africa to Europe
could also result from the droughts and floods affecting an increasing number of areas. Within the continent, such forced movement could
compound urbanization trends. Such cataclysms are unlikely to occur without violence. Political Catalysts Natural
disasters can
dramatically expose deep social inequities and government indifference or incompetence, fomenting
opposition movements. In 1970, the government in western Pakistan responded so poorly to the cyclone
that struck eastern Pakistan that it strongly contributed to the secession of what became Bangladesh. The
Nicaraguan earthquake in 1972 fatally discredited the Somoza regime. The Myanmar government’s heartless response to Cyclone Nargis in
2008 was likely a further factor in the military regime’s political vulnerability and may have accelerated the recent transition there. An
unprecedented drought in Syria from 2006 to 2010 disrupted agriculture in regions that then became strong supporters of the armed
resistance.26 The rise in global food prices that began with a severe drought in Russia in the summer of 2010 was a key factor in provoking
popular uprisings in various Arab states the following year.27 An
earthquake and tsunami near Jakarta—40 percent of which is
below sea level and frequently inundated by heavy rains—could render much of that city uninhabitable and set back Indonesia’s
economic growth and democratic development for years. It could also reduce the country’s ability to
cooperate on global issues, such as deforestation or pandemic prevention, on which its involvement has
been crucial.28 An earthquake in Karachi or Delhi or a major flood in Mumbai or Lagos could
[collapse]cripple the economies of their respective countries and further degrade the effectiveness of
government authorities to avoid serious ethnic, sectarian, or even international conflicts. Major
deterioration of any one of these cities could undermine the stability of their respective regions, with
direct economic and possibly military consequences for the United States. Weak governments or failed
states lack the capacity to prevent even moderate disasters from becoming severe crises. For any of the
above scenarios, it is insufficient for only government agencies to be aware or prepared. As
the extent of global fragility in the
face of natural disasters becomes more widely felt, the public may sense the start of a regional or
even global slide toward scarcities of various kinds, leading to political pressures for more secure
sources of necessities. Such pressures increase the risk of international confrontation and present
opportunities for exploitation by terrorists, criminals, or fanatics who see increased mayhem as in
their interest.29
Secession causes great power war
Valaskakis, Former OECD Ambassador of Canada, 14
(Kimon, “Separatism Everywhere : The New Global Epidemic,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kimonvalaskakis/separatism-everywhere-the_b_4977800.html, ava)
If all the separatist movements in the world were to succeed, we could move from a present world of under 200
countries to one of over 1,000 -- all with an equal seat at the UN. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to decide on
anything in a 1,000 strong UN general assembly? Think, also, of the balance of power: 1, 000 fragmented small countries, plus their
subnational governments, competing for the favors of a dozen huge unregulated global conglomerates. It
would be an embarrassment of riches for the footloose conglomerates. It would also be Eldorado for organized crime, jihadists, tax evaders and assorted criminals
vaulting from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The sociologist, Daniel Bell once remarked,in the 1970s, that the nation state had become too big for the small problems
and too small for the big ones. His words were prophetic but they cut both ways. National governments
can no longer cope with
pandemics, global warming, international terrorism, unregulated global finance -- unless they act in unison in
intergovernmental organizations. But, by the same token, Lilliputian micro states, emerging from the global
separatist wave, would be even be less capable to deal with these problems. Global governance would then
be completely controlled by the remaining, still international, private networks. A scary scenario to be sure. Does that mean we must stay
put and freeze present borders in perpetuity. No, obviously not. Re-arrangements and restructuring are necessary. But the more sustainable answer may be in new
forms of federalism rather than in the pure multiplication of sovereignties. In today's interdependent world, sovereignty is an illusion except if you are a
superpower. The problems are too big while the means available to the new so-called 'sovereign' government are too small. The
'balkanization' of
Eastern and Southern Europe after the First World War, led to the Second World War. The balkanization of the
world through wide-spread separatism could increase the probability of a third one. Not an inspiring scenario.
AT: Terror DA
Exemptions solve terrorism DA link
Rand Paul, Special To Cnn, 6-15-2012, Don't let drones invade our privacy," CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/14/opinion/rand-paul-drones/, Accessed: 5-25-2015, /Bingham-MB
There are some exceptions within this bill, such as the patrol of our national borders, when immediate
action is needed to prevent "imminent danger to life," and when we are under a high risk of a terrorist
attack. Otherwise, the government must have probable cause that led them to ask for a warrant before
the use of drones is permitted.
AT: Ban Drones CP
Banning drones altogether is unenforceable – they are invaluable for effective law
enforcement
Bond 14 [Mark, professor of criminal justice at American Military University “Domestic Drones To
Enhance U.S. Patrol Procedures” MARCH 26, 2014 In Public Safety
http://inpublicsafety.com/2014/03/domestic-drones-to-enhance-u-s-patrol-procedures/ c.shack]
In Tijuana, Mexico, the local police are using unarmed drone aircraft equipped with video cameras as part of their increased patrol presence.
These low-altitude and small unmanned aircraft are stealth and quiet in flight because they use lithium polymer batteries (LiPo), which gives
them approximately 20 minutes of flight time before battery packs need to be changed and re-charged. These drones allow the Tijuana police
to patrol areas without announcing their presence. They also give police a tactical advantage because drone operators can provide timely and
accurate reports to responding patrol officers. Tijuana Chief of Police Alejandro Lares wants to use the patrol drones to prevent crime in his
city. Chief Lares has stated that he is not hiding the drones from the public and wants anyone who lives or visits the city to know that they will
be safe because the police are watching day and night with the drones. The drone cameras are capable of night-vision operations so Chief Lares
is promising 24/7 drone police patrol coverage when his fleet of drones are fully operational. At this point, they are still experimenting and
working out policies and tactics for how best to use the drone platforms for observation and crime prevention. The Tijuana 3D Robotics drones
can be programmed to fly a specific pattern or manually flown by a trained operator. Chief Lares stated that one
drone is equivalent
to 20 police officers patrolling. As the Tijuana experiment continues, early signs indicate that Chief Lares is correct in the fact
that his agency is experiencing quicker response times to crimes because of the drone’s capability of offering
real-time observation and reporting. U.S. Law Enforcement Drone Possibilities The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agency has
deployed unarmed and unmanned drones along the U.S. and Mexican border. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has given permission
to the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agency to use unarmed and unmanned military Predator drones for observation, but have restricted the
flight area to the border areas for monitoring only. Chaotic Moon Studios is a mobile software and design and development company from
Austin, Texas. They have experimented with an unmanned drone carrying Taser technology that can deploy a non-lethal stunning shock to a
suspect. The combining of these technologies has a lot of promise for domestic law enforcement patrol. Such technology could be used by the
Department of Corrections to patrol prison exercise yards and stop violence when it occurs, without having to deploy deadly force to stop a
prison fight or riot. U.S. Laws on Small Unmanned Commercial Aircraft On March 6, 2014, National Safety Transportation Board (NTSB) Law
Judge Patrick Geraghty ruled that the
FAA policy banning the commercial operation of unmanned aircraft
(drones) is unenforceable. The ruling effectively lifts the ban on commercial operation of small
unmanned drone and aircraft that meet the description of a model aircraft or helicopter. This ruling now
opens the door for departments wishing to experiment with using small unmanned drones under 400
feet to enhance patrol procedures in their jurisdictions. The FAA even admits that they have struggled to
enforce their ban on small unmanned commercial aircraft. The FAA did respond to the ruling stating that they would have
a formal policy in place for these aircraft by the end of the year. As technologies progress that could benefit U.S. domestic law enforcement
U.S. lawmakers will have to weigh in with concerns over privacy issues and the pending new FAA
policy on unmanned drones flying over American national airspace.
efforts,
AT : States CP
Most states are reluctant to pass any legislation to restrict drone use and thus can
survey without warrants – airspace is federal government responsibility
Waddell 15 [Kaveh, “Few Privacy Limitations Exist on How Police Use Drones” National Journal
February 5, 2015 http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/few-privacy-limitations-exist-on-how-policeuse-drones-20150205 c.shack]
As drones become cheaper and more capable, more police departments across the country are asking
for and getting federal approval to use them for law enforcement. But the Federal Aviation
Administration only takes safety into consideration when it grants a law enforcement agency approval
to use drones, leaving privacy protections to legislation—which, depending on the state in question,
may or may not exist. Agencies as large as the Michigan State Police and as small as the Grand Forks County [N.D.] Sheriff's Department
have received FAA approval to use drones. Most departments use them for missions like search-and-rescue or for photographing a crime scene
or an accident site. But unless
a law enforcement agency is within one of the 14 states that have passed
privacy legislation limiting how police can use drones, there's little in theory keeping it from using a drone
for a less innocuous end—such as surveillance without a warrant. "While the federal government retains
responsibility for the airspace, under most circumstances a state/local government can impose restrictions on the agencies for which
it's responsible," an FAA spokesperson said in an emailed statement. Members in the House and Senate introduced bills in the previous
Congress that would have required police everywhere in the country to obtain a warrant before using drones for surveillance, but the bills died
at the end of the year. "In the states that don't require warrants, it's pretty much a Wild West" in terms of what's allowed, says Jay Stanley,
senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union. "There's nothing stopping a police department from using [drones] in all kinds of
ways to spy, except for the Constitution." Within that unregulated "Wild West," police have very different approaches to their drone programs.
One of the longest-running law enforcement drone programs is at the Mesa County Sheriff's Office in Colorado. Ben Miller, its director, says the
department has a 17-page policy that outlines when and how it can use drones and for how long it retains data. The department has never run
a surveillance mission with its drones, Miller says, which are generally used for search-and-rescue and crime-scene photography. "If we had a
need to look into an area where someone would have a legitimate expectation of privacy, we'd get a warrant," he says. Colorado is one of the
states without any legislation about drones at all, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which means that the limitations
on the Mesa County drone program were instituted at the department's prerogative. Unlike the Mesa County Sheriff's Office, some law
enforcement agencies have been less than forthcoming with their drone programs. Last year, the San Jose Police
Department in
California secretly bought a $7,000 drone, and was faced with uproar in the community when freedomof-information requests brought the purchase to light six months later. The police department said the drone was
meant for helping bomb technicians access hard-to-reach places, but left the door open for using the drone to address "dangers such as active
shooters, hostage taking, or other such tactical situations where lives might be in immediate danger." And this December, the
sheriff in
Alameda County, Calif., revealed that he spent $97,000 of his own department's money to buy a pair of
drones after he was barred from using federal funds to make the purchase. The sheriff told the San
Francisco Chronicle that the drone won't be used for surveillance "in any shape, manner or form," but
California, like Colorado, has no state law that requires warrants for surveillance. The California state assembly
passed a bill last year that would have required police to obtain a warrant to fly drones in any event other than an "emergency situation." But
Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it in September, because he said the exceptions the bill allowed "appear to be too narrow." While advocates are
worried that law enforcement could use drones in ways that violate citizens' privacy, there's little fear that they're being abused yet. "Safety
restrictions are so strict that most police departments are still using them in quite limited ways," the ACLU's Stanley said. "This is still an issue of
looking down the road to what we know is coming." The technology is new enough that police groups are still grappling with its implications
and limitations. "We're doing some research right now to come up with some model policy," said John Thompson, deputy executive director of
the National Sheriffs' Association. "We don't have a statement or opinion on it at this point." Miller, who runs the drone program at the sheriff's
office in Mesa County, says he often hears from other law enforcement agencies who need help getting their drone program off the ground.
But there's no formal coordination: "It's all very word-of-mouth," he said, and suggested that others find him simply by searching the Internet.
For the time being, privacy advocates are not focusing on fighting for federal legislation. "For activists, it's generally easier to do things at the
local and state level," says Nadia Kayyali of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy and free speech advocacy organization. "Any fight at
the local level is more likely to see results, but also does take a much more significant investment in time."