Cdl core Files 2015-2016 cdl core Files
Advantage Frontline Extensions
Download 1.69 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The FBI uses drones in a very limited capacity and steps are being taken to ensure responsible use
- ANSWERS TO: Civil Liberties- Impact Framing
- ANSWERS TO: Civil Liberties- Alternate Causalities
- Commercial drones are an alternate casualty- the affirmative cannot regulate private instances of drone surveillance
- ANSWERS TO: Credibility- Global Warming Impact
- ANSWERS TO: Credibility- Hegemony Impact
- ANSWERS TO: Solvency- Extensions
Advantage Frontline ExtensionsANSWERS TO: Inherency- ExtensionsObama’s new drone directive solves the affirmative- it prohibits the use of federal funds for drones that are outside of constitutional boundsForbes 2015- Gregory S. McNeal, contributor “What You Need To Know About The Federal Government's Drone Privacy Rules” http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2015/02/15/the-drones-are-coming-heres-what-president-obama-thinks-about-privacy/ The Executive Order addresses civil liberties mostly by referencing existing laws. Specifically, the Order calls on agencies to ensure they have policies to prohibit collection, use, retention, or dissemination of data in a manner that would violate the First Amendment, or would illegally discriminate based on protected categories like ethnicity, race, gender, etc. It also requires that drone related activities are performed in a manner consistent with the Constitution, applicable laws, Executive Orders, and other Presidential directives. The Order also requires agencies to ensure they have in place a means to receive, investigate, and address privacy, civil rights and civil liberties complaints.¶ Oversight and accountability of Federal drone operations will require creation of new procedures or modification of existing procedures. Agencies will be required to ensure their oversight procedures including audits or assessments, comply with existing policies and regulations. Federal government personnel and contractors who work on drone programs will require rules of conduct and training, and procedures will need to be implemented for reporting suspected cases of misuse or abuse of drone technologies. The FBI uses drones in a very limited capacity and steps are being taken to ensure responsible useAl Jazeera 2013- June 20th “FBI says drones used to monitor people in US” http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/06/20136191854968801.html The US uses drones for surveillance in some limited law-enforcement situations, the head of FBI has said, prompting additional debate about the Obama administration's use of domestic surveillance.¶ Robert Mueller's acknowledgement came in response to questions on Wednesday from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who said they wanted to know more about the federal government's increasing use of unmanned aircraft.¶ "Does the FBI use drones for surveillance on US soil?" Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa asked during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.¶ "Yes," Mueller said, adding that the use was in "a very, very minimal way and very seldom".¶ Mueller did not go into detail, but the FBI later released a statement that said unmanned aircraft were used only to watch stationary subjects and to avoid serious risks to law-enforcement agents.¶ The Federal Aviation Administration approves each use, the statement said.¶ "I will tell you that our footprint is very small," Mueller said in his testimony.¶ "We have very few [drones] and of limited use, and we're exploring not only the use but also the necessary guidelines for that use." ANSWERS TO: Civil Liberties- Impact FramingConsequentialism subsumes their impact framing- even under a deontological framework, one must weigh the costs and benefits of ethical decisions- the judge should adopt this framework when evaluating the round- if we win that our strategy is net-better than the affirmative’s for human flourishing, we should win the debateSpragens 2000 – Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Harvard University (Thomas A., Political Theory and Partisan Politics- "Rationality in Liberal Politics" pg 81-2) My thesis that all three layers/forms of political association are important in a well-ordered liberal democracy also implies the untenability of Rawls's argument that agreement regarding norms of social justice is a possible and sufficient way to overcome the deficiencies of the modus vivendi approach. In the first place, as I have argued in more detail elsewhere, the fundamental unfairness of life and the presence of gratuitous elements in the moral universe make it impossible to settle rationally upon a single set of distributive principles as demonstrably fair (See also, Spragens 1993). Simply put, the problem is that the contingencies of the world ineluctably allocate assets and sufferings quite unfairly. We can cope with and try to compensate for these "natural injustices," but only at the price of introducing other elements of unfairness or compromising other moral values. The other major problem in this context is that real world human beings are not deontologists: their moral intuitions about distributive justice are permeated and influenced by their moral intuitions about the' good. The empirical consequence of these two difficulties is the falsification of Rawls's hermeneutic claims about an overlapping consensus. Rational people of good will with a liberal democratic persuasion will be able to agree that some possible distributive criteria are morally unacceptable. But, as both experience and the literature attest, hopes for a convergence of opinion on definitive principles of distributive justice are chimerical. ANSWERS TO: Civil Liberties- Alternate CausalitiesThe stingray is an instance of government intrusion that the affirmative cannot account for- even without drones the FBI will use other technology to spy on usThe Guardian 2015- April 10, “Stingray spying: FBI's secret deal with police hides phone dragnet from courts” http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/10/stingray-spying-fbi-phone-dragnet-police The FBI is taking extraordinary and potentially unconstitutional measures to keep local and state police forces from exposing the use of so-called “Stingray” surveillance technology across the United States, according to documents obtained separately by the Guardian and the American Civil Liberties Union.¶ Multiple non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) revealed in Florida, New York and Maryland this week show federal authorities effectively binding local law enforcement from disclosing any information – even to judges – about the cellphone dragnet technology, its collection capabilities or its existence.¶ In an arrangement that shocked privacy advocates and local defense attorneys, the secret pact also mandates that police notify the FBI to push for the dismissal of cases if technical specifications of the devices are in danger of being revealed in court.¶ The agreement also contains a clause forcing law enforcement to notify the FBI if freedom of information requests are filed by members of the public or the media for such information, “in order to allow sufficient time for the FBI to seek to prevent disclosure through appropriate channels”.¶ The strikingly similar NDAs, taken together with documents connecting police to the technology’s manufacturer and federal approval guidelines obtained by the Guardian, suggest a state-by-state chain of secrecy surrounding widespread use of the sophisticated cellphone spying devices known best by the brand of one such device: the Stingray. Commercial drones are an alternate casualty- the affirmative cannot regulate private instances of drone surveillanceSlate 2015- February 2015 “The Rules of the Sky” http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/02/faa_small_commercial_drone_rules_don_t_adequately_address_privacy_concerns.html But what about privacy? Drones—including small drones, and especially those driven by commercial motives to voraciously gather all kinds of information—can pose significant privacy threats. They see from new vantage points, they are far lower-cost than older aerial technologies, and they can move over boundaries that otherwise protect activity from sight. These are only a few reasons why drones have been predicted to be a “privacy catalyst”—the drivers of robust discussions about the enactment of new privacy regulations.¶ The FAA has very little to say about privacy, which might not be surprising. It is primarily an agency concerned with aircraft safety. When the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a public interest group focused on privacy policy, petitioned the FAA in 2012 to address the threat from drones to privacy and civil liberties, the FAA responded that it “prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on issues that are crucial to the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public.” Similarly, in the required privacy impact assessment that accompanied the FAA’s draft drone rules, the FAA acknowledge privacy concerns over drone operations but pointed elsewhere for legal solutions. ANSWERS TO: Credibility- Global Warming ImpactGlobal warming data is flawed- latest studies proveForbes 2011- “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism” http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/ NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.¶ Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.¶ “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”¶ In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.¶ The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.¶ Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is “not much”). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.¶ The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.¶ In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.¶ When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are. ANSWERS TO: Credibility- Hegemony ImpactA loss of U.S. hegemony wouldn’t cause great power war- the conflicts would be small and manageableHaas, 2008 (Richard Haas (president of the Council on Foreign Relations, former director of policy planning for the Department of State, former vice president and director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, the Sol M. Linowitz visiting professor of international studies at Hamilton College, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a lecturer in public policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and a research associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies) April 2008 “Ask the Expert: What Comes After Unipolarity?” http://www.cfr.org/publication/16063/ask_the_expert.html) Does a non polar world increase or reduce the chances of another world war? Will nuclear deterrence continue to prevent a large scale conflict? Sivananda Rajaram, UK Richard Haass: I believe the chance of a world war, i.e., one involving the major powers of the day, is remote and likely to stay that way. This reflects more than anything else the absence of disputes or goals that could lead to such a conflict. Nuclear deterrence might be a contributing factor in the sense that no conceivable dispute among the major powers would justify any use of nuclear weapons, but again, I believe the fundamental reason great power relations are relatively good is that all hold a stake in sustaining an international order that supports trade and financial flows and avoids large-scale conflict. The danger in a nonpolar world is not global conflict as we feared during the Cold War but smaller but still highly costly conflicts involving terrorist groups, militias, rogue states, etc. ANSWERS TO: Solvency- ExtensionsThe affirmative does nothing to regulate piloted aerial surveillance- this is more dangerous than dronesMcNeal 2014- Gregory, professor, Pepperdine University, School of Law, “Drones and ¶ Aerial Surveillance: ¶ Considerations For Legislators” Brookings Institute http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2014/10/drones-aerial-surveillance-legislators/Drones_Aerial_Surveillance_McNeal_FINAL.pdf?la=en Privacy advocates contend that with drones, the government will be able to engage in widespread pervasive surveillance because drones are cheaper to operate than their manned counterparts. While drones are cheaper to operate, the drones most law enforcement agencies can afford are currently far less capable than their manned counterparts (oftentimes these drones are small remote controlled helicopters or airplanes, capable of a flight time of less than one hour). The surveillance equipment that can be placed on these drones is also far less intrusive than that which can be mounted to manned aircraft. Moreover, the term “unmanned aircraft” is also misleading as there are no systems currently available to law enforcement that can conduct fully autonomous operations, all systems need an operator for part of the mission. Thus, in almost all instances drones are less capable than manned aerial surveillance platforms, and while the platform is cheaper (but less capable), the personnel costs still remain constant as an officer is required to operate the drone. Granted, there are very sophisticated systems used by the military, but even if law enforcement agencies were able to afford the highly sophisticated multi-million dollar Predator and Reaper systems like those used for surveillance on battlefields, those systems (both the aircraft and the ground control station) are more expensive than manned helicopters, require a ground crew to launch and recover the aircraft, and require both a pilot and a camera operator. In light of these facts, the legislation being pushed by privacy advocates has been explicitly directed at drone technology, not because the technology represents an actual threat to civil liberties, but because someday in the future, the technology may be intrusive.[7] Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2015 2015 -> Police Militarization 2015 -> 2015 ihbb championships: hs history Bowl Round 4 – Prelims First Quarter 2015 -> Wrtp/big step · 3841 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, wi 53208 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 December 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Darton College 2015 -> Training Workshop on Planning and Implementation of Multi-Sectoral Development Programme (MsDP) in Bihar Date : 6th 2015 -> Rao bulletin 15 June 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 September 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 August 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Science, and transportation united states senate Download 1.69 Mb. Share with your friends:
|