Cdl core Files 2015-2016 cdl core Files


*** Drone Affirmative 1AC



Download 1.69 Mb.
Page15/75
Date18.10.2016
Size1.69 Mb.
#2993
1   ...   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   ...   75

*** Drone Affirmative

1AC

Contention one is Inherency:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is operating drones in over 30 cities in the status quo- these surveillance operations are conducted without warrants


Washington Post 2015 - “FBI behind mysterious surveillance aircraft over US cities”http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-behind-mysterious-surveillance-aircraft-over-us-cities/2015/06/02/030ce2e2-0959-11e5-951e-8e15090d64ae_story.html, June 2

The FBI is operating a small air force with scores of low-flying planes across the country using video and sometimes cellphone surveillance technology — all hidden behind fictitious companies that are fronts for the government, The Associated Press has learned.¶ The surveillance equipment is generally used without a judge’s approval, and the FBI says the flights are used for specific investigations. The agency says it uses front companies to protect the safety of the pilots and aircraft, shielding their identities from would-be suspects on the ground.¶ In a recent 30-day period, an AP review found, the FBI flew above more than 30 cities in 11 states across the country, including parts of Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Seattle, and Southern California.

Additionally, lack of oversight and accountability to the public means drone use will rise exponentially, altering the very character of American life


ACLU 2011- December, American Civil Liberties Union. “Protecting Privacy ¶ From Aerial Surveillance:¶ Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft” https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/protectingprivacyfromaerialsurveillance.pdf

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. ¶ Aerial surveillance from manned aircraft has been ¶ with us for decades. One of the first aircraft the Wright ¶ brothers built was a surveillance aircraft, and it was ¶ sold to the U.S. Army. Many common uses of drone ¶ aircraft—search and rescue, fighting wildfires, dangerous tactical police operations—are beneficial. In the 1980s the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not categorically prohibit the government from carrying out warrantless aerial surveillance of private property. ¶ But manned aircraft are expensive to purchase, operate and maintain, and this expense has ¶ always imposed a natural limit on the government’s aerial surveillance capability. Now that surveillance can be carried out by unmanned aircraft, this natural limit is eroding. The prospect of cheap, small, portable flying video surveillance machines threatens to eradicate existing practical limits on aerial monitoring and allow for pervasive surveillance, police fishing expeditions, and abusive use of these tools in a way that could eventually eliminate the privacy Americans have traditionally enjoyed in their movements and activities.



Thus, the plan: The United States Federal Government should substantially curtail its use of warrantless unpiloted aerial vehicles in the United States

Contention Two is Civil Liberties:




The fourth amendment to the constitution guarantees citizens privacy and freedom from government intrusion and surveillance


O’Brien 2013- Jennifer, Warrantless Government Drone Surveillance: A¶ Challenge to the Fourth Amendment, 30 J.¶ Marshall J. Info. Tech. & Privacy L. 155 (2013) The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology &¶ Privacy Law http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1732&context=jitpl

The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of individuals in their property and of their person by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.104 The Fourth Amendment can be broken down into two clauses.¶ 105 The search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment provides “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.”106 The warrant¶ clause of the Fourth Amendment states “no Warrants shall issue¶ but upon probable cause, supported by Oath and affirmation and particularly¶ describing the place to be searched and the persons or things¶ to be seized.”107 The Fourth Amendment was meant to prohibit courts from issuing general warrants or “writs of assistance”108 instead of providing a specified cause for intruding on a specific individual.109 The Fourth Amendment mandates three requirements for a warrant to be valid: probable cause,110 judicial approval111 and particularity.112 A search or seizure conducted pursuant to a warrant that fails to conform to any of these three requirements is unconstitutional.113 Absent exigent¶ circumstances114 and exemptions,115 evidence secured in violation¶ of these requirements is generally excluded in an effort to deter illegal police conduct and uphold judicial integrity.116 An individual can give¶ his non-coerced consent to a warrantless search under the Fourth¶ Amendment.117¶ In a warrantless search or seizure situation, the inquiry becomes whether the government’s intrusion upon an individual’s privacy and property is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.118 A warrantless¶ search or seizure within an individual’s home is presumed unreasonable¶ and therefore in violation of the Fourth Amendment.119 Generally, a¶ warrantless search or seizure must be within a limited scope and level¶ of intrusiveness.120 Therefore, a search or seizure can become unreasonable if it goes beyond a reasonable scope or level of intrusiveness even if it was reasonable at its inception.121

Drones threaten our basic fourth amendment rights- warrantless surveillance is becoming the norm among law enforcement


Molko 2013- Robert, “The Drones Are Coming! ¶ WILL THE FOURTH AMENDMENT STOP THEIR ¶ THREAT TO OUR PRIVACY?” http://practicum.brooklaw.edu/sites/default/files/print/pdfs/journals/brooklyn-law-review/volume-78/issue-4/blr_v78iv_1.pdf

Over the years, courts ¶ have permitted aerial ¶ surveillance from navigable airspace where civilian planes or ¶ helicopters routinely fly,¶ 9¶ although they have prohibited such ¶ surveillance if it occurred from unusually low altitudes.¶ 10¶ Today, however, advances in su rveillance and optics technology have made it possible to detect very small objects from high altitudes. 11 In addition to these advances, stealth technology 12 enables drones to hover above us, silently monitoring everything we do in areas exposed to the sky.¶ 13¶



Drone technology, when carried to its extreme, threatens to destroy whatever vestiges of privacy remain in modern society, even in ¶ areas like a secluded, fenced-i¶ n backyard or private estate. ¶ Many local law enforcement agencies have already begun implementing these aerial surveillance technologies. For ¶ example, the city of Lancaster,¶ California recently began using ¶ aerial surveillance to monitor the city’s neighborhoods.¶ 14¶ There, ¶ a plane will fly above the city for up to ten hours a day.¶ 15¶ “Drones are [also] being considered by [San Francisco] Bay ¶ Area law enforcement agencies as¶ a cost-cutting way to replace ¶ helicopters . . . and use technology to fight crime and save ¶ lives.”¶ 16¶ Moreover, North Dakota police recently used a drone to ¶ monitor activity on a ranch to determine when its occupants ¶ would be unarmed in order to avoid a violent shootout when apprehending the suspects. 17¶ Police in Gadsden, Alabama, ¶ bought “a lightweight ¶ drone . . . to help in¶ drug investigations.”¶ 18¶ Authorities in Tampa Bay, Florida, considered using drones for ¶ security surveillance at the 2012 Republican National ¶ Convention.¶ 19¶ The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in Texas ¶ has even considered arming a drone with rubber bullets and ¶ tear gas.¶ 20¶ These represent only a small sampling of local law enforcement agencies that have begun to use drones.¶ 21¶ At the same time, two private software companies, ¶ Apple and Google, used aerial surveillance and military-grade ¶ cameras in a race to create detailed, three-dimensional images ¶ of city and residential streets throughout the world.¶ 22¶ These ¶ cameras are so powerful that “they can show objects just four ¶ inches wide” and “potentially see into homes through skylights ¶ and windows.”¶ 23¶ Apple’s rush to outdo Google led to its ¶ catastrophic premature release of three-dimensional visual ¶ flyovers in Apple Maps in September 2012, which it has been ¶ trying to correct ever since. On the legislative side, on February 14, 2012, President ¶ Obama signed into law the FAA Modernization and Reform Act ¶ of 2012.¶ 25¶ This law requires the FAA to expedite the process of authorizing both public and private use of drones in the national navigable airspace.¶ 26¶ This statutory mandate will inevitably reduce our privacy through increased aerial surveillance of neighborhoods and public places by law enforcement drones, bringing us ever closer to an Orwellian state.¶ 27¶ Indeed, “[t]he ¶ government has predicted that as many as 30,000 drones will be ¶ flying over U.S. skies by the end of the decade.”¶ 28¶ Some experts ¶ predict that those drones will be¶ used by “journalists, police ¶ departments, disaster rescue te¶ ams, scientists, real estate ¶ agents, and private citizens.”¶ 29

Privacy rights are key to a meaningful life- it forms the basis of the social contract between individuals and the state


Foster 2008- Oxford University Press, Human Rights and Civil Liberties pg. 159 ¶

The right to privacy, or the right to private life, is at the heart of individual freedom and the right to be free from arbitrary state interference. Traditionally, the right to privacy referred to the right to be let alone and the right to enjoy one's individual space, which the state or other individuals should not penetrate. This includes the right to enjoy one's property as well as being free from physical interference and thus allows the individual to enjoy an individual and private existence within a state; although in Niemietz v Germany (1992) 16 EMIR 97 the European Court held that the notion of private life was not restricted to the person’s inner circle, but includes the right to develop and establish relationships with other human beings. The enjoyment of privacy and private life is, therefore, essential in honoring the 'social contract', whereby the state allows the individual basic individual rights irrespective of their allegiance to and dependence on the state. Privacy or private life may also refer to the right of personal autonomy and human dignity, demanding the individual has the right to make choices about the, life, such as whom they marry, whether they should undertake medical treatment, or whether they have the right to die (Pretty v United Kingdom (2002)35 EHRR 1). Equally, the right to private life can be used alongside the right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment and thus protect a person from attacks on their person or personal dignity (Costello-Roberts United Kingdom (1993) 19 EHRR 112). More specifically, the right to private life, referred to in this context as the light to privacy, includes the right to choose and practice one's sexual orientation free from undue interference or prosuiption by the state, and privacy is often referred to in connection to the right to lit free from press intrusion or the right to withhold, or access, personal information.

This is the most important impact in the debate- the judge must reject all invasions of liberty


Petro 1974 - 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.



Contention 3 is Innovation:




Drone technology is inevitable- the plan ensures that it is used responsibly. This increases public confidence in drones, enabling commercial innovation


The National Journal 2013- February 21, “The Backlash Against Drones” http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-backlash-against-drones-20130221

The Seattle Police Department’s planned demonstration of its small surveillance drones quickly devolved into a noisy protest. Angry residents attending the community meeting in October chanted “No drones!” drowning out officers’ attempts to explain how the unmanned aerial vehicles would support certain criminal investigations, help out during natural disasters, and assist in search-and-rescue operations. Now it’s clear that Seattle’s drones, purchased with federal grants, won’t be flying over the metro area anytime soon. Amid backlash from civil-liberties advocates and citizens worried about government invasion of their privacy, the mayor earlier this month tabled any drone ambitions—for now. 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.¶ The Federal Aviation Administration, which is charged with overseeing drone implementation in the U.S., says its focus is “totally on safety,” not privacy worries. “We are concerned about how it’s being used only to the extent it would affect the safety of the operation,” says FAA spokesman Les Dorr.

Commercial drones are the lynchpin of U.S. growth and leadership- addressing privacy concerns will reduce bureaucratic pressure and enable innovation

Washington Monthly 2015-


“Why is American Losing the Commercial Drone Wars?” http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust_2015/features/why_is_america_losing_the_comm055894.php?page=all

Commercial drones, then, could be a fundamental technology driving innovation and growth in coming years. As the world’s traditional leader in aviation technology (and, for better or worse, the world’s foremost military drone pioneer), the U.S. ought to command this industry. There’s only one hitch: companies like Airware can’t sell many of their products in the U.S. That’s because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been slow to write the regulations drone makers need to test and operate in U.S. airspace. This past February, after years of missed deadlines, the FAA finally published a draft version of regulations for small drones—a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), in Washington argot. The finished version of the rule probably won’t be ready until late 2016 or early 2017, according to the Government Accountability Office. Meanwhile, countries such as the UK, France, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan have had rules for testing and using drones on the books for several years—rules significantly less restrictive than those in the FAA’s recent NPRM.¶ As a result, American firms are being lured abroad by the more flexible regulatory frameworks of foreign governments. Google is testing package delivery drone technology in Australia. Amazon is doing the same in Canada. Airware is busy selling its products to drone companies in Australia and Europe. Meanwhile, a company called DJI, based in Shenzhen, China, now dominates the world market for smaller, lower-cost commercial drones.¶ The business press and tech websites are filled with stories slamming the FAA’s tardy and constricted regulations. It seems like a classic example of incompetent federal bureaucracy getting in the way of economic progress. Conservatives certainly see it that way. “The FAA is failing big time,” writes Marc Scribner, a fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, because the agency is “mired in its own bureaucracy.” “The FAA is adopting a hyper-precautionary principle position that is holding back innovation,” Adam Thierer, a fellow at the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University, has written.¶ Of course, there’s good reason to be careful and deliberate when it comes to easing restrictions on commercial drones. Nobody wants unmanned aircraft snooping through bedroom windows or getting sucked into jet engines. Still, conservative critics have a point. Other advanced countries have already found ways to allow this industry to grow, with no notable safety problems so far. Why is the FAA lagging?

Commercial drones are key to agriculture- data collection provides vital information to protect against food shortages

Washington Monthly 2015-


“Why is American Losing the Commercial Drone Wars?” http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust_2015/features/why_is_america_losing_the_comm055894.php?page=all

But perhaps the most important immediate application is agriculture. Drones could “provide detailed scouting information on weed emergence, insect infestations, and potential nutrient shortages,” Jeff Vanderwerff of the American Farm Bureau Federation told the U.S. Senate this spring. This valuable information allows the farmer to catch these threats “before they develop into significant and catastrophic problems.” Down the road, drones could also enable so-called field-based phenotyping. This involves flying drones over test fields and taking images of experimental varieties of crops designed to, say, build more biomass or thrive in the heavy-rains-followed-by-drought conditions that climate change is causing. Plant geneticists would then analyze the data from the drones to see which tweaks they’ve made to the plants’ DNA actually work best under real-life conditions. This, in theory, could dramatically speed up the process and lower the cost of developing new and better crop strains. “Maybe ‘Holy Grail’ is overstating it,” says Sam Fiorello, CEO of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, which provides cutting-edge research for AgTech startups, “but it’s a huge advance in plant research.”

The prospect of food insecurity alone causes conflict


Klare 2013, Michael T., April 22, Author and Professor of Peace and World-Security Studies, Hampshire College, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/resource-scarcity-climate-change_b_3132268.html

Start with one simple given: the prospect of future scarcities of vital natural resources, including energy, water, land, food, and critical minerals. This in itself would guarantee social unrest, geopolitical friction, and war. It is important to note that absolute scarcity doesn’t have to be on the horizon in any given resource category for this scenario to kick in. A lack of adequate supplies to meet the needs of a growing, ever more urbanized and industrialized global population is enough. Given the wave of extinctions that scientists are recording, some resources -- particular species of fish, animals, and trees, for example -- will become less abundant in the decades to come, and may even disappear altogether. But key materials for modern civilization like oil, uranium, and copper will simply prove harder and more costly to acquire, leading to supply bottlenecks and periodic shortages. Oil -- the single most important commodity in the international economy -- provides an apt example. Although global oil supplies may actually grow in the coming decades, many experts doubt that they can be expanded sufficiently to meet the needs of a rising global middle class that is, for instance, expected to buy millions of new cars in the near future. In its 2011 World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency claimed that an anticipated global oil demand of 104 million barrels per day in 2035 will be satisfied. This, the report suggested, would be thanks in large part to additional supplies of “unconventional oil” (Canadian tar sands, shale oil, and so on), as well as 55 million barrels of new oil from fields “yet to be found” and “yet to be developed.” However, many analysts scoff at this optimistic assessment, arguing that rising production costs (for energy that will be ever more difficult and costly to extract), environmental opposition, warfare, corruption, and other impediments will make it extremely difficult to achieve increases of this magnitude. In other words, even if production manages for a time to top the 2010 level of 87 million barrels per day, the goal of 104 million barrels will never be reached and the world’s major consumers will face virtual, if not absolute, scarcity. Water provides another potent example. On an annual basis, the supply of drinking water provided by natural precipitation remains more or less constant: about 40,000 cubic kilometers. But much of this precipitation lands on Greenland, Antarctica, Siberia, and inner Amazonia where there are very few people, so the supply available to major concentrations of humanity is often surprisingly limited. In many regions with high population levels, water supplies are already relatively sparse. This is especially true of North Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East, where the demand for water continues to grow as a result of rising populations, urbanization, and the emergence of new water-intensive industries. The result, even when the supply remains constant, is an environment of increasing scarcity. Wherever you look, the picture is roughly the same: supplies of critical resources may be rising or falling, but rarely do they appear to be outpacing demand, producing a sense of widespread and systemic scarcity. However generated, a perception of scarcity -- or imminent scarcity -- regularly leads to anxiety, resentment, hostility, and contentiousness. This pattern is very well understood, and has been evident throughout human history. In his book Constant Battles, for example, Steven LeBlanc, director of collections for Harvard’s Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, notes that many ancient civilizations experienced higher levels of warfare when faced with resource shortages brought about by population growth, crop failures, or persistent drought. Jared Diamond, author of the bestseller Collapse, has detected a similar pattern in Mayan civilization and the Anasazi culture of New Mexico’s Chaco Canyon. More recently, concern over adequate food for the home population was a significant factor in Japan’s invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and Germany’s invasions of Poland in 1939 and the Soviet Union in 1941, according to Lizzie Collingham, author of The Taste of War. Although the global supply of most basic commodities has grown enormously since the end of World War II, analysts see the persistence of resource-related conflict in areas where materials remain scarce or there is anxiety about the future reliability of supplies. Many experts believe, for example, that the fighting in Darfur and other war-ravaged areas of North Africa has been driven, at least in part, by competition among desert tribes for access to scarce water supplies, exacerbated in some cases by rising population levels.

Contention 4 is Credibility:

Warrantless drone surveillance eliminates the right to personal privacy- the plan ensures these rights are preserved


Paul 2012- Rand, Senator, June 15, CNN, “Don't let drones invade our privacy” http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/14/opinion/rand-paul-drones/

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."¶ Sen. Rand Paul¶ 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.¶ Poll: Don't use drones for speeding tickets¶ 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 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 police-state 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.¶ 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.¶ 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?

Failure to upload privacy protections undermines international human rights regimes- the U.S. is a key signatory, and other countries will model us


Electronic Frontier Foundation 2014- leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/03/how-un-human-rights-committee-should-apply-international-law-nsa-spying

This past Monday, the Human Rights Committee commenced its one hundredth and tenth session in Geneva from March 10-28. During this session, the Committee will review the reports of several countries on how they are implementing the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), an international human rights treaty and one of the bedrocks of human rights protections.Countries that have ratified the ICCPR are required to protect and preserve basic human rights through various means including administrative, judicial, and legislative measures. Additionally, these countries are required to submit a report to the Human Rights Committee, a body of independent experts who monitor the implementation of States’ human rights obligations, every four years. The United States ratified the ICCPR in 1992 and is thus tied to these obligations, and required to regard the treaty the same as it would any domestic law. The Human Rights Committee will review the US’s human rights records on Thursday, March 13. In particular, the Committee will be scrutinizing the US’s mass surveillance practices and its compliance with Article 17 on the right to privacy.¶ At the opening session of the Human Rights Committee meeting, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, made it clear that the topic of privacy and surveillance is a priority: ¶ “Powerful new technologies offer the promise of improved enjoyment of human rights, but they are vulnerable to mass electronic surveillance and interception. This threatens the right to privacy and freedom of expression and association.”¶ We are pleased that the Human Rights Committee has the opportunity to clarify the scope of United States legal obligations under Article 17 on the right to privacy, especially in light of the recent revelations on mass surveillance leaked by Edward Snowden. Worldwide, the general public is privy to the fact that several US programs have the potential for serious privacy rights violations in the form of mass surveillance both at home and abroad; a blatant violation of the United States' ICCPR obligations.


Strong human rights regimes prevent every scenario for conflict


Burke-White 2014- William W., 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.

Additionally, a demonstrated commitment to human rights regimes increases overall U.S. hegemony and legitimacy on global warming prevention


Schulz 2008 (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.

Global Warming Causes extinction


Mazo 2010 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA

(Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,” pg. 122)//BB



The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century." Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.

Lack of U.S. hegemony causes great power war


Zhang and Shi 2011 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-a-harbinger-of-conflict-and-rivalry/

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 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 seriously challenge the US military. Under these circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear, 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.

Contention 5 is Solvency:

Requiring warrants for drone surveillance resolves privacy concerns while allowing for drone use in critical national security matters- this no links all disadvantages


Congress.gov 2012- “H. R. 5925” https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/5925/text

To protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones, and for other purposes. ¶ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, ¶ SECTION 1. Short title. ¶ This Act may be cited as the “Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012”. ¶ SEC. 2. Prohibited use of drones. ¶ Except as provided in section 3, a person or entity acting under the authority of the United States shall not use a drone to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant issued under the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶ SEC. 3. Exceptions. ¶ This Act does not prohibit any of the following: (1) PATROL OF BORDERS.—The use of a drone to patrol national borders to prevent or deter illegal entry of any immigrants or illegal substances. (2) EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES.—The use of a drone by a law enforcement party when exigent circumstances exist. For the purposes of this paragraph, exigent circumstances exist when the law enforcement party possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. (3) HIGH RISK.—The use of a drone to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization, when the Secretary of Homeland Security determines credible intelligence indicates there is such a risk. ¶ SEC. 4. Remedies for violation. ¶ Any aggrieved party may in a civil action obtain all appropriate relief to prevent or remedy a violation of this Act. ¶ SEC. 5. Definitions. ¶ In this Act: ¶ (1) The term “drone” means any powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload. ¶ (2) The term “law enforcement party” means a person or entity authorized by law to investigate or prosecute offenses against the United States.





Download 1.69 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   ...   75



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review