Written by: Manu Meel and Isaiah Sirois #mags lab
Download 0.65 Mb.
|
Drones Aff---Int’l Precedent Domestic curtailment decreases international drone useNedzarek 13 [Rafal Nedzarek- Analyst for Atlantic-Community which is an open think tank on foreign policy, October 2013, “Developing Drone Norms Through Domestic Legislation,” http://www.atlantic-community.org/-/developing-drone-norms-through-domestic-legislation, mm] Any constructive debate on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) ought to begin with an assertion that these platforms are here to stay. As such, they are not just an international issue but will very soon become a national issue, raising concerns about privacy and law enforcement. It is therefore necessary for any norms for drones to first of all be initiated at the national level. Domestic principles and norms should then be transferred to international operations. Already constituting a large part of the US Air Force, drones are also gradually proliferating among other NATO members. UAVs serve as valuable Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) platforms, keeping servicemen out of harm's way for a relatively low price-tag. Although the use of UAVs offers many advantages, it also poses various problems that, if disregarded, could collectively outweigh the overall military utility of these platforms. In the post-Cold War world of trans-border asymmetric threats drones offer a tempting prospect of flexible monitoring and timely interventions without "embroilment." However, chasing this promise has led to a state of affairs which puts the transatlantic partners in a bad light. To many critics, the well-off "core" countries use drones to surveil and castigate – through forcible measures – individual citizens of the countries of the ‘periphery'. Although securing the world's under-governed regions may often seem like the right course of action, this might create an ominous impression of Western domination. An aspect of drone use which seems to be the most detrimental to international reputation is the practice of targeted killing. Although not a novelty, this procedure has grown in frequency in the last decade. As part of a larger initiative targeted killings prove problematic on the legal front. A myriad of largely independent operations are framed collectively as a single coherent campaign of the "global war on terror." Combined with the low intensity of contemporary armed conflicts, this framework obscures judgment on concurrent applicability of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Apart from legal issues, there is also the question of overall fairness of the pursued policies. Conducting covert operations across the globe is bound to result in "blowback." In the case of UAVs, Western governments faced vocal domestic opposition from their own citizens. Popular uneasiness about possible uses of battle-tested systems for domestic purposes has been confirmed by the law-enforcement agencies' growing interest in UAVs. Dystopian visions are reinforced by the rapid development of sophisticated video surveillance platforms offering real-time footage of unprecedented resolution. These unsettling current trends call for greater transparency and democratic oversight. It seems absolutely crucial to discontinue armed drone use by intelligence agencies. Once restricted to respective militaries, the combat use of drones should be further barred from areas outside clearly designated war zones. If targeted killings are to continue, they must be subject to meticulous supervision of relevant congressional or parliamentary committees. Also, information pertaining to the use of targeted killings – including a description of the employed criteria as well as statistics on enemy combatant and civilian casualties – should be made obtainable to citizens within the "freedom of information" framework. Finally, as the use of drones by law-enforcement agencies intensifies, legal regulations will soon need to be imposed on the limits of domestic aerial surveillance. All these improvements are ways of assuring the public opinion that individual liberties will not be threatened and that Western governments respect human rights of the citizens of belligerent countries. Another UAV-related issue that looms on the horizon is the possibility of granting full autonomy to robotic combat platforms. Increasing numbers of critics argue that autonomous drones could deploy force indiscriminately. To avoid this, the installed weapons systems should remain under human control – both to rule out deadly glitches and to prevent the dissolution of legal responsibility. Effective curbs on fully autonomous combat platforms could be introduced relatively easily through domestic legislation. However, there is little chance to introduce any effective international regulations on this matter. There will be no international push for any legally-binding measures until the indiscriminateness of autonomous weapons has been proven on the field of battle. Even then, any possible treaty could share the fate of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, which has not been signed by several major powers. The only positive global influence we will have to contend with is to lead by example through imposing domestic regulations on our own use of unmanned aerial vehicles, autonomous or not. Domestic drone use sets a precedent that causes more drone use abroad- curtailment hurts the precedent Gucciardi 2013 (Anthony Gucciardi, creator of Storyleak, accomplished writer, producer, and seeker of truth. His articles have been read by millions worldwide and are routinely featured on major alternative news websites like the infamous Drudge Report, Infowars, NaturalNews, G Edward Griffin's Reality Zone, and many others, “NEW PRECEDENT: ARMED DOMESTIC DRONE STRIKES WILL SOON BE REALITY”, http://www.storyleak.com/armed-domestic-drone-strikes-reality/, May 23, 2013) A new precedent has been set. Despite extensive denial that drone strikes would endanger Americans, Attorney General Eric Holder has now openly admitted that four US citizens were killed through overseas drone strikes since 2009. While not on United States soil, the deaths of the US citizens in nations like Yemen and Pakistan highlight the new precedent being set by US government heads who wish to use drones as a form of lethal enforcement on US soil. With Holder admitting that Americans have already died via drone strikes following his statements that Obama can already initiate drone strikes on US soil, we are now seeing the way paved to go ahead and announce armed drones to fight terrorism here in the US. We all remember the initial rhetoric that drones were ‘no real threat’, and that they were simply unarmed scouting machines used to save lives overseas. Then, we saw them rapidly enter the nation, and we heard the same tired reassurances. We saw them killing innocents overseas with the high powered weaponry being attached to these ‘scouting’ drones, and we see them still doing so today. But, once again, we’re told not to worry. Political talking heads like Eric Holder assure us that domestic drones, for which over 1,400 permits have been issued, are not meant to be used as weapons. Well, that is unless Obama decides to use the drones as a weapon of war on US soil. ARMED DOMESTIC DRONES IN THE NEAR FUTURE Despite the message of assurance regarding the promise that domestic drones would never turn into government-controlled war machines, Eric Holder decided to go ahead and announce that it would actually be entirely ‘legal’ for Obama to issue a drone strike on a US citizen on domestic soil. In fact, CNN reports that Holder does not ‘rule out’ the possibility of domestic drone strikes, and that a scenario could occur in the future. And to strike someone with a drone, of course, you would need weaponry. You would need an armed drone. In other words, Holder is going against the major promise by the FAA official who ‘promised’ that no armed drones will be flying on domestic soil. But don’t worry, Holder says the government has ‘no intention’ right now of issuing drone strikes on US soil. Just like the government never targeted Constitution and conservative-based groups through the IRS and would never use domestic drones to spy on you. Quite simply, if any power is given to these individuals in government, be sure of one thing: they will use it. And knowing the track record of drone strikes overseas and how they greatly affect the innocent, drone strikes on US soil against citizens is an even more serious threat. The 3,000 plus deaths from drone strikes overseas in Pakistan alone, which vastly affect the innocent and non-threatening, have even prompted Google employees and big firms alike to develop charts and interactive maps to detail the deaths in a manner that portrays the reality of the situation. One design firm known as Pitch recently went and created an interactive chart that, along with detailing how less than 2% of strike victims are high priority targets, documents the drone strike deaths throughout recent years. We continue to hear these major announcements from Holder regarding drone strikes, and each time it pushes the precedent further. Each time, he warps the ‘law’ to justify what is being done with drone attacks, and each time we come closer to the announcement that we ‘need’ to use armed drones against domestic terrorists. Just wait for the next terrorist hunt in the US for a high profile crime case to hear more from Holder and the gang on why we need armed domestic drones to keep us safe. It already happened with Dorner and others. Domestic drone policy shapes international drone policy Regan 13 [John Paul Regan- columnist who focuses on privacy concerns, “How International Drone Policy Shapes Domestic Drone Use” April 2013, http://jurist.org/hotline/2013/04/samar-warsi-drone-policy.php#, mm] For laws to be effective, they must have ascertainable limits. Clear limits are determined by definitions contained within laws and the meanings we attribute to words within those definitions. If international law can be violated through manipulating key conflict definitions, constitutional parameters can be similarly manipulated to encroach on the civil liberties of Americans right here at home. To think that the drone policy overseas has no impact on local policies is misguided, as the "permanent 'war on terror' sets precedents that slowly find their way to be used domestically for largely the same reasons they are deployed abroad." When it comes to foreign policy, the entire drone narrative has been fraught with ambiguous language, making it difficult for the American public to pin down President Obama's policy. For example, a few weeks ago, the Obama Administration heeded the bi-partisan demand for more information and released a statement [PDF] saying that the president does not have the authority to kill "an American not engaged in combat on American soil." However, what does "not engaged in" truly mean? Then there were the targeted killing "white papers" [PDF]; a thicket of flimsy and ill-defined terms intended to obfuscate any legal criticism of the president's actions. The document raised more questions than it answered: what does it mean to be a "senior" al Qaeda official? What constitutes "operational?" What is "imminent?" What establishes a "threat?" Who is considered a "high-level official" permitted to order the drone strike? What is the criterion for "feasible?" An imminent threat used to be someone who represented a clear and present danger. Now it is someone who appears dangerous. The new "imminent threat" of violence does not require the US to have clear evidence that an attack on the US will take place in the immediate future. Impendency can be decided on the whim of the president. While every definition has parameters, those parameters are usually ascertainable. Here, the definition of impendency is so broad the limits are essentially meaningless. Collateral damage used to be defined as anyone who was not a target — now it is only women and children. The narrowed definition of "collateral damage" renders "all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants ... unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." In effect, we determine whether you were innocent after we kill you. There is justice, after all. In essence, there is a presumption of guilt attached to individuals in physical proximity of al Qaeda members. That the proximity could be due to a number of factors (rescue work, journalism, research and so on) other than involvement in terrorist activities seems to be an irrelevant detail to the administration. There is a power in the use of such partisan language that tends "to embed itself in everyday discourse and, thus, appear natural, neutral and objective. There are "good guys" and "bad guys"; there is "us" versus "them." Who would not want to kill the "bad guys?" Undoubtedly, there are some individuals that should be killed — but, the sweeping and dangerous generalizations occurring at the highest government level make it difficult to tell whom. The result is a fractured and ambiguous policy. A recently leaked White House document, acquired by McClatchy, reveals that "at least 265 of up to 482 people who the US intelligence reports estimated the CIA killed during a 12-month period ending in September 2011 were not senior al Qaeda leaders but instead were 'assessed' as Afghan, Pakistani and unknown extremists." Americans must demand concrete definitions which provide us with ascertainable limits of the international drone program. While the establishment of concrete definitions would not eradicate all inconsistencies in how the US deals with terror threats, it would be a step towards transparency. Details would give the drone program a legitimacy it currently lacks. It would allow us to retroactively analyze how accurate our defense programs are, assess and address policy concerns, truthfully research how our relationships with other countries are developing as a result of such programs and allow families who have been wronged to seek redress and compensation. Without any determinable guidelines, there can be neither objective evaluation nor progress. Failing to ask for ascertainable limits of the international drone program sends one of two messages: 1) we are not paying attention to how the government is manipulating laws, or 2) we know, but we do not care. Either option sets the stage for the manipulation of laws at home. When it comes to the issue of domestic drones, the foreign drone policy sets the tone. In the context of criminal justice, specifically the "war on terror," the use of domestic drones can quickly strip away one's civil liberties under the guise of national security. The Fourth Amendment safeguards the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government. This means police need a warrant to search a person or their property, with a few exceptions. Whether government surveillance constitutes a "search" depends upon the reasonableness test set forth in Justice Harlan's concurrence in Katz v. US. The test considers whether the person has a subjective expectation of privacy in the area to be searched and whether society is prepared to deem that expectation reasonable. One's home always falls within the scope of protected areas under the Fourth Amendment. One exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, explained in National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Rabb, is the "special needs" doctrine which requires the government to demonstrate that the government interest outweighs the intrusion. The "special needs" exception could give law enforcement a free pass to monitor specific homes when looking for domestic terror threats. Without written guidelines, law enforcement could justify any number of surveillance initiatives under the pretext of fighting the "war on terror." In addition, given the political and social stigmatization of Islam, the potential for misuse of the "special needs" exception to disproportionately target American Muslims is great. Last year's unlawful surveillance of Muslims throughout New York by the New York Police Department is evidence of this risk. It is imperative to have clear and unambiguous written policies regarding the parameters of domestic drone use. As Noam Chomsky famously stated, we must engage in "intellectual self-defense" by staying informed. Specifically, we must scrutinize words, their meanings and their implications. Words create perceptions which form the basis for government policy, create narratives that contribute to public complacency and most importantly, dictate the scope of laws. Samar Warsi is a Senior Volunteer Attorney for the Muslim Civil Liberties Union. She holds a BA in Political Science from McMaster University and graduated with a JD from the Oklahoma City University School of Law. She is admitted to practice in the state bar of Texas. ---Market Curtailing drone surveillance undermines the drone sector – funding Wolfgang 13 [Ben Wolfgang- reporters for Washington times and cites experts, “Drone Industry Predicts Explosive Economic boost,” March 2013, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/12/drone-industry-predicts-explosive-economic-boost/?page=all, mm] Drones as weapons and drones as spies remain matters of intense debate across the country, but the controversial aircraft are poised to make an impact as something else: economic engines. Private-sector drones — also called unmanned aerial systems or UAVs — will create more than 70,000 jobs within three years and will pump more than $82 billion into the U.S. economy by 2025, according to a major new study commissioned by the industry’s leading trade group. But the report, authored by aerospace specialist and former George Washington University professor Darryl Jenkins, assumes that the White House and Congress stick to the current schedule and have in place the necessary legal and regulatory frameworks. Current law calls for full drone integration into U.S. airspace by September 2015, but many key privacy questions surrounding UAVs have yet to be answered. There’s also growing doubt that the Federal Aviation Administration can meet the congressionally mandated timetable. If deadlines are met and drones become commonplace in American skies, some states will be especially big winners. Virginia, for example, stands to gain nearly 2,500 jobs by 2017. It also could take in $4.4 million in tax revenue and see more than $460 million in overall economic activity by 2017, the report says. Virginia would gain the eighth-most jobs of any state as a result of drone integration. Maryland isn’t far behind, with projections of more than 1,700 new jobs by 2017. California would be by far the biggest winner in terms of jobs, with more than 12,000 expected. Florida, Texas, New York, Washington, Connecticut, Kansas, Arizona and Pennsylvania are also expected to be benefit greatly from the coming drone economy. “This is an incredibly exciting time for an industry developing technology that will benefit society, as well as the economy,” said Michael Toscano, president and CEO of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a trade group that has existed for more than 40 years but has come into the public eye only recently. Drone expansion “means the creation of quality, high-paying American jobs,” Mr. Toscano continued. But the motivation behind Tuesday’s report — arguably the most sweeping look ever at the economic potential of drones — runs deeper than just dollars and cents. The industry faces an uncertain future in light of growing public paranoia surrounding the craft — paranoia that has only been heightened by the debate over whether the Obama administration would ever consider using a drone to kill an American on U.S. soil. While the drones that will be employed by U.S. companies or law enforcement agencies are far different than the military-style UAVs equipped with Hellfire missiles, those distinctions aren’t always clear. Tuesday’s report not only offered the industry a chance to shine the spotlight on drones’ positive uses and economic potential, but also served as an opportunity — or, perhaps a warning — to lawmakers seeking to limit UAVs. More than 20 states are considering bills to establish strict guidelines for what drones can do. Virginia is mulling a measure that would put a two-year moratorium on all government use of drones. Such a measure would be especially harsh because first-responders such as police and fire departments are expected to be one of the largest markets for UAVs. Like other growing and thriving sectors of the economy, the drone business likely will set up shop in friendly environments. “While we project more than 100,000 new jobs by 2025, states that create favorable regulatory and business environments for the industry and the technology will likely siphon jobs away from states that do not,” said Mr. Jenkins, the report’s lead author who used to head George Washington University’s Aviation Institute and also is a former professor at Embry-Riddle University. On another front, the FAA appears to be in danger of missing the congressionally mandated 2015 deadline for drone integration. The agency just recently began taking applications for its test-site program, where drones will be studied to see how they respond in different climate conditions and at different altitudes. More than 30 states have expressed interest in the program, but it’s unclear when it will be fully established; further delays put the 2015 date in even greater jeopardy. “Every year that we delay integration, the U.S. will lose more than $10 billion in total economic impact,” Mr. Jenkins said. Restrictions will hamper drone growth – especially law Toesland, 15 Finbarr Toesland, Web Content Editor, “Global commercial drone market sees US State Department set new guidelines for exporting drones,” Companies and Markets, 3/2/15, http://www.companiesandmarkets.com/News/Information-Technology/Global-commercial-drone-market-sees-US-State-Department-set-new-guidelines-for-exporting-drones/NI10114 // IS The global commercial drone market is expected to total about US$1.3bn by 2020, with a CAGR of 109%, due to constantly improving technology and design. The main end-users of commercial drones are retail, media, advertisement companies and environmental surveillance. As drones gain new features, such as HD video, improved operating ranges and more functional designs, they will become more useful to a broad variety of consumers.Global commercial drone market The global commercial drone market is currently in its growth stage, with increasing awareness of the many uses drones have boosting this market. However, there are a number of factors that will hamper overall growth in the market, such as increasing government policy restrictions, based around safety issues. The key growth segment in the commercial drone market is the law enforcement sector, which is forecast to control around 25% of the market. Law enforcement is key to continued drone market growth Palermo, 14 Elizabeth Palermo, Staff Writer, citing analysts at the Teal Group, “Drones Could Grow to $11 Billion Industry by 2024,” livescience, 7/29/14, http://www.livescience.com/47071-drone-industry-spending-report.html // IS The growth of the drone market is mostly fueled by military organizations in the United States and other countries, according to the report. The United States already uses a wide range of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) systems — ranging from micro UAVs small enough to fit in the palm of a soldier's hand, to large UAVs such as the Air Force's Predator drone, which is used for both reconnaissance and air attacks. This latter type of drone, known as a "hunter-killer" UAV, is where the analysts at Teal Group expect the U.S. military will be investing most of its drone dollars over the next decade. The United States has already developed unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) that could one day replace conventional warplanes, such as piloted fighter jets, according to the report. Boeing's X-45 Phantom Ray, developed for the U.S. Air Force, and Northrop Grumman's X-47 Pegasus are just two examples of UCAVs that have already been designed and built for the military. Information on how these drone projects are progressing is hard to come by, the report notes, most likely because the U.S. military has deemed the projects classified. Civilian drones According to the report, drones used for nonmilitary purposes make up a relatively small portion of today's UAV market, with only 11 percent of all drone technologies currently being developed and produced for civilian uses. However, the report states that by the end of the decade, the share of the market devoted to nonmilitary drones is expected to grow to at least 14 percent of the total market for drones. "Our coverage of the civil UAV market continues to grow with each annual report, mirroring the gradual increase in the civil market itself," Philip Finnegan, one of the authors of the study and director of corporate analysis with the Teal Group, said in a statement. The report breaks down civilian use of drones into three main categories: Government UAVs: In the next decade, the world can expect to see more drones used for things like border control, law enforcement and wildlife research. Commercial UAVs: Agriculture, mapping and natural resource extraction are expected to see increased drone use. Hobbyist UAVs: The report finds that the number of mass-produced drones, ranging in cost from several hundred to several thousand dollars, will also likely increase in the coming decade. These drones will be used by hobbyists and certain professionals, such as real estate agents looking to showcase homes. While Teal Group analysts expect growth in all three of these sectors over the next decade, the group said that the government is the most likely sector to increase investment in UAV systems in the years to come. Law enforcement agencies and other civil government organizations will have to spend more on drones than will hobbyists, for example, because the types of drones these organizations use will probably be much more expensive. Law enforcement key – statistics Markets and Markets, 15 Markets and Markets, “UAV Drone Market for Commercial Applications by Type (Fixed Wing, Rotary Blade, Quad Rotor), Technology (Energy & Propulsion System, Automation, Collision Avoidance), Application (Government, Agriculture, Manufacturing, Retail) & Geography - Global Forecast to 2020 – Summary,” February 2015, Markets and Markets, http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/commercial-drones-market-195137996.html // IS The global commercial drones market is estimated to grow at a CAGR of 109.31% to reach $1.27 billion by 2020. The UAVs have been evolving over the years with improved design, significant operating ranges and tenure, and better data processing capabilities. They can transfer high-resolution video and images, and other surveillance data to base station in real-time. The various applications of commercial drones not only help the end-user save big in terms of cost and time of operation but also mitigate the risk of human involvement. The commercial drone industry has also been expanding in applications such as retail industry, environmental surveillance, and the media and advertisement industry. The key applications included in the report are law enforcement, energy and power, manufacturing, infrastructure, media and entertainment, agriculture, and scientific research. Among all, the law enforcement application is expected to hold the largest share of the market at ~25%. The commercial drones market has also been segmented by technology into energy and propulsion systems, automation system, collision avoidance system, cyber-security and jamming, on-board data processing, and communication data links and radio frequency spectrum capacity. The report also segments the Commercial drones market based on geography into the Americas, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and Rest of the World (RoW). In 2014, the Americas comprised the largest region in terms of market revenue for the commercial drone market and are projected to grow at the highest CAGR of 111.93% between 2014 and 2020 Law is the lynchpin of the market – studies StorageServers, 15 StorageServers, “Commercial drone market to be $1.27 billion worth by 2020!” StorageServers, 4/13/15, https://storageservers.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/commercial-drone-market-to-be-1-27-billion-worth-by-2020/ // IS Commercial drone market will be $1.27 billion worth by the year 2020 and this was predicted by a research firm MarketsandMarkets. The study also confirmed that the total commercial drones market was valued at $15.22 million, which is expected to rise to $1.27 billion, at an estimated CAGR of 109.31%. Commercial drones are the unmanned flying vehicles which are either operated with human induced intelligence or via remote management services. The increase in demand for drones in law enforcement applications such as security surveillance and technological advancement are the key drives pumping this market. -----AT: UQ Overwhelms Drones are at risk from regulation – law enforcement is key to market stability Markets and Markets, 15 Markets and Markets, “UAV Drone Market for Commercial Applications by Type (Fixed Wing, Rotary Blade, Quad Rotor), Technology (Energy & Propulsion System, Automation, Collision Avoidance), Application (Government, Agriculture, Manufacturing, Retail) & Geography - Global Forecast to 2020 – Report Description,” February 2015, Markets and Markets, http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/commercial-drones-market-195137996.html // IS The major drivers identified for the growth of the commercial drones market are the increase in demand from commercial applications, significant technological advancements over the last few years, and effective adoption of drones for law enforcements. There are also some factors which act as a restraint on the growth of the market, such as stringent government regulations along with, security and safety issues. However, overall, the market is expected to witness a prominent growth during the forecast period, primarily due to the increasing adoption of commercial drones for law enforcement applications. Drone growth isn’t inevitable – regulations are concerns Kleinman, 15 Zoe Kleinman, Technology reporter at BBC, ‘CES 2015: Why the future of drones is up in the air,” 1/8/15, BBC News, http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30721339 // IS In a few years the trade group expects it to be a billion-dollar market. But not all is stable in the world of drones. Two key issues are dogging the field - regulation and power. In the US the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) has very strict rules around their commercial use. Jim Williams, manager of the FAA's integration office, said its regulations for commercial use were strict for good reasons. "People who are being paid to do a job are more likely to take risks to accomplish that," he said. Away from commercial use, there is much anxiety around the world about amateur drones and privacy, as most of the craft come equipped with cameras. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 0.65 Mb. Share with your friends:
|