Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 Gemini Landsats Neg
AT: Surveillance – Turn – Human Rights
Download 0.58 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT: Surveillance – Turn – Uncertainty Backlash
AT: Surveillance – Turn – Human RightsSurveillance relinquishes all human rights Chance 6 (Gary D., former member of the USAF Security Service, 1/16, http://garydchance.tripod.com/surveillance/, accessed 7-6-11, CH) The worst aspect of surveillance activity is its perversion by an abuse of its power wherein it is used to create the very outcome which it purports to be objectively observing. This is the real danger which has been the essence of this particular surveillance activity throughout its usage. Abuse of the surveillance process itself becomes the critical issue because surveillance operates outside the legitimate democratic institutions putting absolute power into the hands of just a few individuals. That power is easily abused for its own sake. There is no apparent redress for an individual in a democratic society subjected to such surveillance. This means that the basic ideals of democracy are open to subversion from within resulting in the loss of freedom, justice, legitimate law enforcement and the proper function of government. Human rights outweigh war Shattuck 94 (JOHN SHATTUCK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS, 4/19/94 (Federal News Service, l/n) I would like to start my testimony, Mr. Chairman, which I will summarize -- obviously, you have an extended statement, and I do apologize for the fact that it arrived perhaps later than it should have -- I'd like to start by offering some brief observations about what it means to advocate human rights and democracy in the post-Cold- War world, which is where we are today, of course. We are confronted by extraordinary changes all around us that are at once profoundly inspiring and deeply disturbing. Alongside a worldwide movement for human rights and democratization, which I think has transformed in many ways the political shape of the globe, we see stirrings of deep cultural and ethnic tensions. The principle of self-determination is being pursued and yet is itself a source of very deep human rights questions. These are not academic questions. Around the world we are witnessing ugly and violent racial, ethnic and religious conflict in Bosnia, Central Asia, Africa, most vividly, perhaps, right now in Rwanda, in the Sudan, but elsewhere, too, away from the cameras. The international community clearly has not developed an adequate response to these problems. Why, then, if they are so daunting, has this administration made protecting human rights and promoting democracy a major part of our foreign policy agenda? I think the answer lies not only in our American values but in also the strategic benefits to the United States. We know from historical experience that democracies are more likely than other forms of government to respect human rights, to settle conflict peacefully, to observe international law and honor agreements, to go to war with great reluctance, and rarely against other democracies, to respect the rights of ethnic, racial and religious minorities living within their borders, and to provide the social and political basis for free market economics. By contrast, Mr. Chairman, the costs to the world of repression and authoritarianism are painfully clear. In the 20th century, the number of people killed by their own governments under authoritarian regimes is four times the number killed in all this century's wars combined. Repression pushes refugees across borders and triggers wars; unaccountable governments are heedless of environmental destruction, and the agenda for repression goes on in a very negative way. These, then, are the reasons why promoting democracy and human rights are at the forefront of our foreign policy agenda. What are our strategic objectives? In a word, Mr. Chairman, we aim, perhaps not yet successfully, to incorporate human rights and democracy into the mainstream of our foreign policy-making. AT: Surveillance – Turn – Inefficiency More surveillance undermines intel—excess information decreases ability to effectively detect and shift through real threats and kills liberty Greenwald 10 (Glenn, civil rights litigator, Salon, 9/27, http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/27/privacy, accessed 7-6-11, CH) Leave aside the fact that endlessly increasing government surveillance is not only ineffective in detecting Terrorist plots and other crimes, but is actually counterproductive, as it swamps the Government with more data than it can possibly process and manage. What these Obama proposals illustrates is just how far we've descended in the security/liberty debate, where only the former consideration has value, while the latter has none. Whereas it was once axiomatic that the Government should not spy on citizens who have done nothing wrong, that belief is now relegated to the civil libertarian fringes. Concerns about privacy were once the predominant consensus of mainstream American political thought. Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote in dissent in the 1928 case Olmstead v. United States (emphasis added): The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men. AT: Surveillance – Turn – Uncertainty BacklashSecrecy of Landsat usage undermines itself—rivals will assume the worst, triggers their impacts Hecht 6 (Jeff, space reporter, New Scientist, Sept, http://www.spacetransparency.org/Space_Transparency/Home_files/bulletinofatomic.pdf, accessed 7-8-11, CH) Still, despite these concerns, some defense analysts worry less about dual use per se than about how such technology is evolving. “Dual use is great,” says Michael Katz-Hyman, a research associate at the Stimson Center. “NASA should work on how to repair and inspect satellites, but you want to be sure no one misinterprets what you’re doing.” If the United States is unclear about its intentions, other nations may assume the worst. KatzHyman says an international code of conduct is needed to spell out procedures in space, similar to what the 1972 Incidents at Sea Agreement did for maritime concerns. For example, if a nation wanted to send a robot to inspect another country’s spacecraft, it would need to give advance notice and explain its actions. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.58 Mb. Share with your friends:
|