Court Drones Affirmative - Michigan7 2015

7/25/2019 Court Drones Affirmative - Michigan7 2015

1/150

Court Drones Af - CFFP


2/150

NotesMore advantages will be coming out in Wave 2. Add in your own WOT impacts.


3/150

1AC


4/150

PlanThe United States ederal government should curtail its aerial

surveillance b ruling that such searches constitute a search

!ithin the Fourth Amendment and is unreasonable !ithout a

!arrant" barring e#igent circumstances$


5/150

Surveillance StateDomestic drones are ra%idl ushering in a total surveillance

state

&hoshra 1'(Dr. Saby [!D"# $Domestic Surveillance %ia Drones& 'ooingt!roug! t!e 'ens o) t!e *ourt! Amendment+, Spring 2-/# 'e0is 1A3

T!is Orwellian dystopia is no imagination. 4at!er+ it may be coming sooner t!an anyo) us can imagine.Welcome to t!e post5modern America55w!ere society may be!eading to a )ast trac dissent into t!e abyss o) limitless government surveillance.

T!e domestic drones !ave arrived+ and t!ey are almost ready to intrude upon oursacrosanct 6one o) private seclusion .n2T!e above scenarios are certainly not t!isaut!or7s imagination.T!ey are not bad dreams or morbid )antasies eit!er. 8nstead+t!ey are based on t!e recorded incidences o) iller drones wreaing !avoc in t!ecivilian communitiesin t!e rugged mountains o) aistan+ A)g!anistan+ and 9emen. n/ T!e [:;


6/150

obscured anot!er relevant problem wit! drone surveillanceJdiscriminatory sortingt!roug! discretionary law en)orcement. More precisely+ t!e )ear is $provid[ing" lawen)orcement wit! a swi)t+ eIcient+ invisible+ and c!eap way o) tracing t!emovements o) virtually anyone and everyone t!ey c!oose.,?2 olice+ t!roug!legislative encouragement and Ludicial acGuiescence+ now !ave powerJunmatc!ed

in !istoryJon t!e streets o) t!is country& $a )orm o) paramilitari6ed violence )oundin a rapidly e0panding criminal Lustice5industrial comple0+ wit! bot! ideological andmaterial connections to t!e military industrial comple0.,?/ Drone surveillance is yetanot!er tool in t!e arsenal o) police discretion+ including $surveillance+

Drones remove an %ublic anonmit and create an

omni%resent Pano%ticon

*uro! +,1'(Matt!ew ' [@andidate )or 3D N ew Cngland Sc!ool o) 'aw"# T!eSentinel @louds above t!e ameless @rowd& rosecuting Anonymity )rom DomesticDrones# /B ew Cng. 3. on @rim. P @iv. @on=nement >>/# d)1

Waling down t!e street. Driving a car. Sitting on a par benc!. y t!emselves+ t!ese actions do not e0!ibit an iotao) privacy. T!e individual !as no intention to conceal t!eir movements# no con=dentiality in t!eir purpose. T!eindividual is in t!e open+ enLoying a Guiet day or a peace)ul Sunday drive. 9et as @!ie) 3ustice 4e!nGuist

commented+ t!ere is uneasiness i) an individual suspected t!at t!ese innocuous andbenign movements were being recorded and scrutini6ed )or )uture re)erence.B 8)t!e QuneasyQ reaction to w!ic! t!e @!ie) 3ustice re)erred is not based on a sense o)privacy invasion+ it stems )rom somet!ing very close to it5a sense t!at one !as arig!t to public anonymity. 2- Anonmit is the state o being unnamed$ 2T!erig!t to public anonymity is t!e assurance t!at+w!en in public+ one is unremared andpart o) t!e undiRerentiated crowd as )ar as t!e government is concerned. 22 T!at rig!tis usually surrendered only w!en one does or says somet!ing t!at merits government attention+ w!ic! most o)ten

includes criminal activity. 2/ ut w!en t!at attention is gained by surreptitiously operatedEASs t!at are becoming more aRordable )or local law en)orcement agencies+ 2> Qitevades t!e ordinary c!ecs t!at constrain abusive law en)orcement practices ... &7limited police resources and community !ostility.Q7 2 ; T!is association o) public anonymity and privacy is not new.2? rivacy e0pert and @olumbia Eniversity 'aw pro)essor Alan *. Westin points out t!at Qanonymity [" occurs w!ent!e individual is in public places or per)orming public acts but still sees+ and =nds+ )reedom )rom identi=cation andsurveillance.Q 2 Westin continued by stating t!at& [A person" may be riding a subway+ attending a ball game+ orwaling t!e streets# !e is among people and nows t!at !e is being observed# but unless !e is a well5nowncelebrity+ !e does not e0pect to be personally identi=ed and !eld to t!e )ull rules o) be!avior and role t!at wouldoperate i) !e were nown to t!ose observing !im. 8n t!is state t!e individual is able to merge into t!e Qsituationallandscape.Q 2< W!ile most people would s!are t!e intuition o) @!ie) 3ustice 4e!nGuist and pro)essor Westin t!at

we e0pect some degree o) anonymity in public+ t!ere is no suc! rig!t to be )ound in t!e @onstitution. T!ere)ore +wit! a potentially !andcuRed Ludiciary+ t!e protection o) anonymity )alls to t!elegislature. ased on current trends in tec!nology and a een interest taen by lawen)orcement in t!e advancement o) EAS integration into national airspace+ it isclear t!at drones pose a looming t!reat to Americans7 anonymity . 2B Cven w!en EASs areaut!ori6ed )or noble uses suc! as searc! and rescue missions+ =g!ting wild=res+ and assisting in dangerous tactical

police operations+ EASs are liely to be Guicly embraced by law en)orcement )or morecontroversial purposes. /- W!at )ollows are compelling interdisciplinary reasons w!y t!e legislatures!ould tae up t!e call to protect t!e subspecies o) privacy t!at is anonymity. A. !ilosop!ic& T!e anopticon armetween


7/150

concealed )rom t!e observation o) t!e prisoners ... t!e sentiment o) an invisible omnipresence.Q7// T!e eRect o)suc! arc!itectural brilliance is simple& t!e lone )act t!at t!ere mig!t be a guard watc!ing is enoug! to eep t!eprisoners on t!eir best be!avior. /> As t!e twentiet!5century *renc! p!ilosop!er Mic!el *oucault observed+ t!emaLor eRect o) t!e anopticon is Qto induce in t!e inmate a state o) conscious and permanent visibility t!at assures

t!e automatic )unctioning o) power.Q7/; 8n ent!am7s vision+ t!ere is no need )or prison bars+c!ains or !eavy locs# t!e person w!o is subLected to t!e =eld o) visibility o) t!eomnipresent guard plays bot! roles and !e becomes t!e subLect o) !is ownsubLection. /? *or *oucault+ t!is QpanopticismQ was not necessarily bad w!en compared to ot!er met!ods o)e0ercising control as t!is sort o) Qsubtle coercionQ could lead people to be more productive and eIcient members o)

society. / *ollowing *oucault7s reasoning+ an omnipresent EAS circling above a city may besimilar to a anopticon guard tower and an eRective way o) eeping t!e peace.T!emere t!oug!t o) detection may eep streets sa)er and potential criminals at bay.owever" the im%act on cherished democratic ideals ma be too severe$ *ore0ample+ in a case regarding t!e constitutionally vague city ordinance t!at pro!ibited Qnig!twaling+Q 3usticeDouglas commented on t!e importance o) public vitality and locomotion in America& T!e diIculty is t!at [walingand strolling" are !istorically part o) t!e amenities o) li)e as we !ave nown t!em. T!ey are not mentioned in t!e@onstitution or in t!e ill o) 4ig!ts. T!ese unwritten amenities !ave been in part responsible )or giving our peoplet!e )eeling o) independence and sel)5con=dence+ t!e )eeling o) creativity. T!ese amenities !ave digni=ed t!e rig!t o)dissent and !ave !onored t!e rig!t to be noncon)ormists and t!e rig!t to de)y submissiveness. T!ey !aveencouraged lives o) !ig! spirits rat!er t!an !us!ed+ suRocating silence. /< As 3ustice Douglas understood+

government surveillance sties t!e c!eris!ed ideal o) an American society t!att!rives on )ree5spiritedness in public./B Wit!out t!e rig!t to wal t!e streets inpublic+ )ree )rom t!e )ear o) !ig! surveillance+ our American values !oulddissi%ate into that resembling a totalitarian state t!at attacs t!e idea o)privacy as immoral+ antisocial and part o) t!e dissident cult o) individualism. >-

Dehumani(ation efect o drones is the same t%e that

em%iricall leads to genocidal !arare

*uro! +,1'(Matt!ew ' [@andidate )or 3D N ew Cngland Sc!ool o) 'aw"# T!eSentinel @louds above t!e ameless @rowd& rosecuting Anonymity )rom DomesticDrones# /B ew Cng. 3. on @rim. P @iv. @on=nement >>/# d)1

T!is ote !as e0plored t!e p!ilosop!ical and psyc!ological eRects o) panoptic surveillance and t!e need )or protection.2 2B Amere suspicion o) a EAS ying !ig! in sy can !ave a c!illing eRect on democracyt!at most Americans would consider intolerable. 2/- ut w!at about t!e psyc!ological c!anges EASs willbring about in law en)orcementF T!e )ollowing is an e0cerpt )rom a news report on t!e mindset o) EAS pilots w!o operate military

drones in overseas combat missions& ugsplat is t!e oIcial term used by ES aut!orities w!en!umans are illed by drone missiles .... [8"t is deliberately employed as a psyc!ologicaltactic to de!umanise targets so operatives overcome t!eir in!ibition to ill .... 8t wasitler w!o coined t!is p!raseology in a6i ermany during t!e olocaust .8n Mein Uamp)+itler re)ers to 3ews as vermin (volsunge6ie)er1 or parasites (volssc!tidling1. 8n t!e in)amous a6i =lm+ Der ewige 3ude+ 3ews were

portrayed as !arm)ul pests t!at deserve to die. Similarly+ in t!e 4wandan genocide+ t!e Tutsis weredescribed as Qcocroac!es.QT!is is not to in)er genocidal intent in ES drone war)are+

but rat!er to emp!asise t!e de!umanising eRect o) t!is terminology in a6iermany and t!at t!e very same terms are used by t!e ES in respect o) t!eir aistani targets.2/ Will 3o!n and 3ane Doe5t!e casual saunterer5become part o) t!e ne0t group o)bugs t!at must be swatted in t!e name o) eRective law en)orcementF 8n answering t!atGuestion+ we s!ould loo to t!e sies once again and pray to t!e better angels o) ournature )or a wort!y answer .


8/150

#ecutive.s unettered discretion !ith drones leads to non-

sto% ear and o%%ressive %schological efects

/olmes ,0 ro)essor o) 'aw+ 9E 'aw Sc!ool (Step!en+ $8n @ase o)Cmergency& Misunderstanding TradeoRs in t!e War on Terror+, B @ali).'. 4ev /-+ SC1

8ndeed+ it is $important to remember t!at governments and law en)orcementagencies o)ten abuse t!eir power.,> As resident Obama acnowledged in !is State o) t!e Enionaddress+ $[8"n our democracy+ no one s!ould Lust tae my word )or it t!at weHre doing t!ings t!e rig!t way.,; To besure+ t!e Supreme @ourt !as long recogni6ed t!at t!e *ourt! Amendment $does not contemplate t!e e0ecutiveoIcers o) overnment as neutral and disinterested magistrates.,? aving neutral actors necessarily limits

discretion in order to sa)eguard t!e relations!ip between citi6en and government in a democratic society .iving e0ecutive oIcers discretion over power)ul tec!nology can s!i)t t!is balance.*or e0ample+ drones !ave blaneted t!e sies in aistan since at least 2--BJt!e=rst strie is widely believed to !ave occurred in 2-->.< aistani victims o) E.S.e0traterritorial drone stries live in constant )ear o) t!eir power. One suc! victimrecounts living under drones twenty5)our !ours per day& $8 !ave been seeing drones

since t!e =rst one appeared about )our to =ve years ago.,B e went on to e0plain&$eople are a)raid . . . + t!ey are all psyc!ologically aRected. T!ey loo at t!e sy tosee i) t!ere are drones.,


9/150

2ar on Terror

An emboldened and unchec3ed e#ecutive is leading the

massive e#%ansion o drones in domestic la! enorcement&hoshra 1'(Dr. Saby [!D"# $Domestic Surveillance %ia Drones& 'ooingt!roug! t!e 'ens o) t!e *ourt! Amendment+, Spring 2-/# 'e0is 1A3

nT!is emerging new reality will soon be at t!e !ori6on o) American sociallandscape )or various reasons. *irst+ t!e public proclamation o) success incontaining al5Vaeda n< !as emboldened t!e current administration. T!is !ascreated a )ertile ground )or law en)orcement agencies in various states to deploydrones )or domestic surveillance. nB Second+ previously limited as an aid in borderprotection+ n- drones !ave now become a desirable necessity )or law en)orcementacross t!e nation. n T!ird+ despite t!e )ederal [:;


10/150

also believe t!at t!e e0ecutive is )ar more accountable to t!e public t!an courts+suc! t!at its decisions will be guided and tempered by t!e public will. Ot!ersc!olars+ in contrast+ bemoan t!e absence o) courts )rom t!e playing =eld.; Tot!em+ t!e e0ecutive !as undue incentives to emp!asi6e security values over libertyvalues+ and only a vigorous Ludicial role can counter t!at. More broadly+ t!ese

sc!olars view robust Ludicial de)erence to t!e e0ecutive as weaening a critical toolby w!ic! to in!ibit a single branc! o) government )rom accruing undue power. ot!camps tend to assume+ !owever+ t!at t!e courts do play only a limited role ine0ecutive calculations about appropriate national security policies.

4ulti%le reasons deerence undermines e#ecutive decision-

ma3ing in counterterrorism

First is grou%thin3 the lac3 o a need to 5usti decisions to an

e#ternal actor creates insular decisions driven b con6rmation

bias

/olmes ,0 - Walter C. Meyer ro)essor o) 'aw+ ew 9or Eniversity Sc!ool o)

'aw (Step!en+ B @ali). '. 4ev. /-+ $8n @ase o) Cmergency& Misunderstanding

TradeoRs in t!e War on Terror,+ 'e0is1

The most disastrous result of the Bush administration's hostility to adversarial decision making

was the choice to invade Iraq.None of the manybooks and articles published about the run-up to

the war has managed to discover any trace of a serious debate or discussion even inside the

e!ecutive branch of the pros and cons of the war. Suc! a serious and in)ormed debate did [:/2B" notoccur in @ongress eit!er. Members o) @ongress were presumably reluctant to assume serious responsibility )or suc!

a momentous c!oice+ and t!e voting public+ !aving been led to believe t!at Saddam ussein was some!owresponsible )or B+ would very liely !ave punis!ed any elected representative w!o did not )avor retaliationagainst t!e alleged perpetrators o) t!e attacs. On t!e ot!er !and+ @ongress may not !ave passed t!e AEM* o)2--2 i) certain o) its ey members !ad not been deliberately deceived by e0ecutive5branc! prevarication. n?

To re)ute t!e *ounders7 claim t!at t!e e0ecutive branc! will+ on balance+ per)orm better i) compelled to give plausible reasons )or its

actions+ "ric #osner and $drian %ermeule argue first that &ongress and especially the courts are

less well-informed about terrorism than e!perts in the e!ecutive branch and second that

representatives and udges are subect to the same cognitive biases that plague the president and

his agents. Because udges in particular lack national-security e!pertise they assert non-

deferential review cannot on balance increase e!ecutive effectiveness in the area of

counterterrorism. n() This argument is a non sequitur. That the e!ecutive branch acting alone is

more effective than the udicial or legislative branches acting alone does not imply that the

e!ecutive branch acting alone is more effective than the e!ecutive branch acting in coordination

with the other branches. Indeed the claim that an e!ecutive agency will on balance perform best when it is never observed or critici*ed would notbe worth discussing were it not so vehemently advanced in defense of the e!ecutive-discretion agenda. The liberty which one-sided advocates of e!tralegal e!ecutive

discretion find most odious is the right of citi*ens and their elected representatives to demand that the e!ecutive branch provide plausible reasons for its actions. If a

government no longer has to provide plausible reasons for its actions however it is very likely in the relative short term to stop having plausible reasons for its

actions.n?/


11/150

Its capacity for secrecy and dispatch as mentioned qualifies the e!ecutive branch for acting effectively in a crisis. But such institutional

advantages do not necessarily make the e!ecutive the most qualified branch for understanding the shape and scope of an unprecedented threat. It

is not at all obvious that its hierarchical structure makes the e!ecutive capable in bunkered

isolation from the other branches to analy*e intelligently a changing and comple! national-

+,/ security environment to rank various difficult-to-compare threats according to their

gravity and urgency and to make delicate security-security tradeoffs in a responsible fashion. 8t!as o)ten been insinuated 5 but never proved 5 t!at compelling national5security oIcials to testi)y be)orecongressional committees and to e0plain t!eir interpretation o) t!e country7s national5security environment will!ave a detrimental c!illing eRect on 6ealous counterterrorism eRorts. 4eporting reGuirements can admittedly beonerous. ut t!e assumption t!at legislative oversig!t will+ on balance+reduce t!e t!oug!t)ulness wit! w!ic! t!ee0ecutive branc! approac!es security5security tradeoRs is Guestionable.

It should also be said that the e!ecutive branch cannot hide from &ongress the courts the public

and the press without hiding from itself as well. Indeed one of the main reasons why the Bush administration wasreluctant to e!plain itself to the public was apparently that a small group of fallible individuals inside the 0efense 0epartment and the 1ffice of

the %ice #resident wanted to make sure that their bureaucratic rivals in other e!ecutive agencies such as the 2tate 0epartment did not learn of

game-changing decisions until it was too late to reverse them. 2ecrecy was invoked not only to protect national security but less ustifiably 3to

avoid dissent3 from other e!ecutive-branch officials. n(4 The personal hostility turf warfare and information

hoarding that afflicts $merica's national security bureaucracies is probably more paraly*ing thanthe government's general commitment to due process or checks and balances. 5udge 6ichard

#osner himself contends that intra-e!ecutive pathologies such as bureaucratic fragmentation and

duplication unclear chains of command failure to standardi*e security clearances and

investment in the wrong set of employee skillspose greater obstacles to effective

counterterrorism than congressional or udicial micromanagement. n?; T!e e0tent to w!ic! us!7scounterterrorism policy led e0ecutive agencies to wit!!old important secrets )rom eac! ot!er is startling+ amongot!er reasons+ because t!e us! administration originally singled out t!e wall between national5security agenciesas an important source o) governmental dys)unction in t!e run5up to B.

Second is resource misde%loment - #ecutive deerence in

counterterrorism leads to sstemic analtical ailures andmisuse o resources and inormation

/u7 1+-$ssistant #rofessor of 7aw 8niversity of &hicago 7aw 2chool 9$*i* :. ;2tructural&onstitutionalism as &ounterterrorism< $ugust )=) 7e!is>

C0ecutive primacy !as surprising costs. Cvidence suggests t!at analytic )ailures arecommon in )ederal counterterrorism policy. n; Muc! eRort is currently wasted ormisdirected+ w!ile resources and in)ormation are poorly deployed. @onsider asillustration t!e @!ristmas 2--B attempt by igerian national Emar *arouAbdulmutallab to e0plode a bomb aboard ort!west Airlines *lig!t 2;/ )romAmsterdam to Detroit. Two mont!s earlier+ Saudi oIcials !ad warned E.S.aut!orities t!at an attac o) t!e type Abdulmutallab tried was being planned in

9emen. n;< Wees be)ore t!e attempt+ Abdulmutallab7s )at!er approac!ed t!e @8Ain 'agos to warn t!em o) !is son7s lins to 9emeni terrorist groups. n;B ot!ingwas done. SubseGuent presidential and congressional inGuiries )ound an Qoverallsystemic )ailureQ& intelligence agencies !ad Qdots [t!at" were never connected.Qn?- *ar )rom an isolated incident+ t!is )ailure appears symptomatic. ?ive yearsbeforehand the National &ommission on the Terrorist $ttacks upon the 8nited 2tates reached a similar

diagnosis respecting @A==. It found that 3no one was firmly in charge of managing +threat information/ ...


12/150

and able to draw relevant intelligence from anywhere in the government3 about the @A== attacks. n=(=$

similar failure of analysis preceded the deadly November )@ shootings at ?ort :ood Te!as n=()

where the military intelligence unit tasked with tracking internal threats focused instead on student

associations n=(that were more readily analy*ed but ultimately harmless. It is clear therefore that the

e!ecutive branch has not wholly heeded the @A== &ommission's warnings. To summari*e+ t!e internal

arc!itecture o) national security institutions wit!in t!e e0ecutive branc! can !inderLust as muc! as it can )oster rapid+ in)ormed responses to terrorism. residentialcontrol t!roug! Article 887s assumed unitary !ierarc!y provides no panacea .T!ere is!ence no reason to believe t!at e0ecutive responses to terrorism will eit!er beoptimal or even as accurate+ timely+ and eIcient as is generally believed.T!einstitutional competence logic o) pro5e0ecutive structural constitutionalpresumptions t!us rests on s!ay ground.

All the deerence rationales or counterterrorism %olic are

!rong and uni7uel un!arranted in the domestic s%here

Cover 1) - Assistant Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law;Director, Institute for Global Security Law an Policy

!Avian, Caro"o Law Review, #Presu$e I$$inence% &uicial Ris' Assess$ent in the (ost)

*+ Worl,- . Caro"o L/ Rev/ 0., Le1is+S2P3

Arguments )avoring Ludicial abdication because o) temporary and possibly e0igentcircumstances are less persuasive in lig!t o) t!e seeming permanence o) t!eterrorism t!reat. n2>8t is !ardly clear w!en t!e t!reat [:>;>" o) terrorism willabate. W!ile t!e government may no doubt be viewed as a provider o) security+ it isalso a protector o) civil liberty. n2;W!ere t!e nation is now so )ully consumed byprevention o) catastrop!ic terror attacs and susceptible to cognitive errors+ it isincumbent on Ludges in a perpetual crisis not to presume imminence but to test t!egovernment7s ris assessments.

Second+ proponents argue t!at de)erence is Lusti=ed in t!e national security arenabecause o) )oreign and international relations, which are hi4hly sensitive an e$aniscretion fro$ the e1ecutive branch/ Roberts invo'e this rationale in 5u$anitarian Law

Pro6ect, eferrin4 to the 4overn$ent7s contention that teachin4 (eaceful avocacy to theP88 coul u(set relations with 9ur'ey/n:>

B0. De)erence can =nally be reLected because e0perts are not alwaysrig!t. n2B?8ndeed+ e0perts are o)ten political actors w!ose predictions andassessments may be bot! a product o) )ear o) blame and accountability andobLective analysis. n2BMoreover+ Ludicial review t!at entails an !onest discussiono) ris assessments can play an important role in a democratic society# !ow we dealwit! t!e riss we )ace s!ould not be le)t only to t!e e0perts. n2B


14/150

Solvenc8nl court action on aerial surveillance solves %rivac

bac3sliding" 3ee%s u% !ith technolog" and %rovides la!

enorcement !ith legal bright lines

Celso +,1)(3oel [3D @andidate E o) altimore 'aw"# D4O8 O AOET TC*OE4T AMCDMCT& ADOT8 A 4CASOA'C *OE4T AMCDMCT

3E48S4EDC@C TO 4C%CT E4CASOA'C SCA4@CS 9 EMACD A84@4A*TS9STCMS# >/ E. alt. '. 4ev. >?# d)1

8%. CSE48 A 4CASOA'C *ETE4C 9 4C%CT8 E4CASOA'C EAS SE4%C8''A@C Speaing )or t!eSupreme @ourt in Uyllo+ 3ustice Scalia acnowledged t!at tec!nological advances !ave reduced t!e privacy [:>B-"

T!e Lusti=cation )or t!is rule s!ould be grounded in t!e unprecedented tec!nologicalcapabilities o) EAS and t!e uniGue t!reat t!ey represent to privacy . n2?- Alt!oug! t!eSupreme @ourt !as !eard c!allenges to law en)orcement7s use o) aerial surveillance+ sense en!ancing devices+ andelectronic tracing+ it !as never considered anyt!ing lie EAS+ w!ic! combine all t!ree capabilities. n2?istorically+ t!e cost o) using personnel )or traditional surveillance placed a practical limitation on policesurveillance w!ic! acted to protect privacy. n2?2 T!e aRordability o) EAS could eliminate t!is constraint on

e0cessive police presence and dramatically increase t!e potential )or abuses. n2?/ 8n addition + EAS7 smallsi6e and silent operation allow t!em to operate in relative stealt!. n2?> @iti6ens couldbe observed by law en)orcement wit!out ever nowing t!ey were undersurveillance. n2?; Alt!oug! EAS are not invasive by causing Qundue noise ... wind+ dust+ or t!reat o) inLury+Qt!ey may actually be more intrusive t!an conventional aircra)t. n2?? ecause people will not !ave notice o) EAS7approac! or presence+ t!ey will be unable to eep private t!ose activities w!ic! t!ey do not wis! to e0pose to

public view. n2? EAS tec!nology !as been described as providing law en)orcement wit!Qpermanent+ multi5dimensional+ multi5sensory surveillance o) citi6ens twenty5)our!ours per day.Q n2?< Some !ave gone as )ar as claiming t!at EAS give law en)orcement capabilities reserved)or deities. n2?B As suc!+ EAS present t!e potential )or unprecedented law en)orcementabuses w!ic! would be prevented by t!e warrant reGuirement proposed !ere. [:>B"Not onl !ill this %ro%osed rule ensure that the Fourth Amendment

remains the guarantor o %rivac"but it provides ot!er advantages as well. n2- *irst+ it drawsa brig!t5line rule )or police w!o will not !ave to determine in advance w!et!er or


15/150

not t!eir actions are constitutional eac! time t!ey want to use a EAS in a newconte0t+ or w!en t!ey are armed wit! a new tec!nology. n2 Similarly+ t!e courts will not lag be!indeac! new tec!nological advance in EAS tec!nology because a warrant will alwaysbe reGuired. n22 *inally+ and most importantly+ t!e rule will accomplis! w!at current

Lurisprudence cannot& it will prevent *ourt! Amendment protections )rom being le)t

Qat t!e mercy o) advancing tec!nology.Q n2/ The Su%reme Court has established%recedent or ado%ting the rule %ro%osed here. n2> 8n Uat6+ t!e @ourt s!i)ted t!e basis o)=nding t!at a *ourt! Amendment searc! !ad occurred )rom a p!ysical trespass to an intrusion on a reasonablee0pectation o) privacy. n2; 8n doing so+ t!e @ourt demonstrated its willingness to adopt new rules to ensure t!at

privacy is protected )rom t!reats posed by new tec!nologies. y adopting t!e rule proposed !ere+ t!e courtswould be acting in accordance wit! t!e precedent )rom Uat6 and would guaranteet!at EAS tec!nology remains wit!in t!e scope o) *ourt! Amendment protections.

A Su%reme Court ruling on aerial surveillance is uni7uel 3e

to revitali(ing )th Amendment.s abilit to %rotect %rivac and

to sto% the onslaught o advancing technologiesCelso +,1)(3oel [3D @andidate E o) altimore 'aw"# D4O8 O AOET TC*OE4T AMCDMCT& ADOT8 A 4CASOA'C *OE4T AMCDMCT

3E48S4EDC@C TO 4C%CT E4CASOA'C SCA4@CS 9 EMACD A84@4A*TS9STCMS# >/ E. alt. '. 4ev. >?# d)1

[:>B/" T!e Uat6 reasonable e0pectation o) privacy test !as been critici6ed )or its circular nature. n2 As long as EAS surveillanceremains suIciently rare+ an individual7s e0pectation o) privacy is considered reasonable and it is protected )rom government

intrusion by t!e *ourt! Amendment. n2


16/150

privacy against government t!at e0isted w!en t!e *ourt! Amendment wasadopted.Qn2B Alt!oug! t!e original degree o) privacy is diIcult to ascertain+ allowing t!e government touse a EAS out=tted wit! )acial recognition so)tware or !ig!5powered cameras tosilently trac individuals )or e0tended periods o) time wit!out a warrant !ardlyseems to Guali)y. n2B< CGually unliely is t!e idea t!at @ongress+ rat!er t!an t!e @onstitution+ was e0pected to be t!eguarantor o) privacy protections at t!e time t!e *ourt! Amendment was adopted. n2BB

8t is clear t!at t!e courtsneed a new approac! to t!eir *ourt! Amendment Lurisprudence to protect privacy)rom a tec!nological onslaug!t. 4eGuiring a warrant )or all EAS surveillance willensure t!at even t!e widespread use o) EAS will not erode society7s legitimateprivacy e0pectations.

Prescribed evidentiar standards reverse mis%laced 5udicial

deerence and oster better e#ecutive %robabilit analsis o

terrorism

Cover 1) - Assistant Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law;Director, Institute for Global Security Law an Policy!Avian, #Presu$e I$$inence% &uicial Ris' Assess$ent in the (ost)*+ Worl,- .

Caro"o L/ Rev/ 0., Le1is+S2P3

4esearc!ers )ound+ in a series o) studies+ t!at Ludgments o) blamewort!iness )or)ailing to prevent an attac are )ar more liely to aRect anti5terror budget prioritiest!an probability Ludgments. n/T!e aut!ors o) t!ese studies concluded t!atbecause people blame policy maers more )or !ig! conseGuence events t!an )ormore probable ones+ n/2policy maers will be tempted to Qprevent attacs t!atare more [:>?" severe and more upsetting wit!out suIciently balancing t!eattac7s lieli!ood against its outcome/= nFF9o counteract this e$otional tenency, theseauthors su44este that (olicy $a'ers e1(licitly consier li'elihoo ata in for$ulatin4

counterterroris$ (olicy/ nF0

Si$ilarly, wit!out prescribed evidentiary standards+ courts are liely to cra)t opinionst!at de)er to t!e government7s interpretation o) evidence and ignore probability andimminence+ o)ten by diluting t!e evidentiary reGuirements to t!e point w!ere t!ey)avor t!e government/ Inee, Roberts ecrie the issent7s call in 5u$anitarian LawPro6ect =e$anin4 har (roof ) with =etail,7 =s(ecific facts,7 an =s(ecific evience,7 ) that

the (ro(ose activities will su((ort terrorist attac's/= nF.Rather, it was sufficient to rely onthe ?loo an ?elief)source notion that =a forei4n terrorist or4ani"ation introuce to the

structures of the international le4al syste$ $i4ht use the infor$ation to threaten,$ani(ulate, an isru(t/= nF


17/150

or e1a$(le, the D/C/ Circuit has hel that the 4overn$ent nee only show by a(re(onerance of the evience that a etainee is a $e$ber of Al aea or an associate

force/ nF:Jet, $any of the 6u4es have chafe at the hi4her (re(onerance stanar,avocatin4 a lesser buren of (roof/ nF:urther$ore, at least one D/C/ Circuit $e$ber

has B0


18/150

establis! e0cessively draconian policies as a result.; As @ass Sunstein suggests+ $[T"!eresident !as a strong incentive to tae precautions even i) t!ey are e0cessive and even unconstitutional.,;2Cnsuring some level o) ambiguity about w!et!er a court will step in to review a particular policy !elps counteractt!at bias. @!ristina Wells notes t!at t!e $lac o) predictability regarding a courtHs approac! . . . s!ould )orce t!e

e0ecutive to consider t!at t!e possibility o) rigorous Ludicial review is very real.,;/ 8n !er view+ advancenowledge o) t!e e0istence o) Ludicial review can )orce t!e e0ecutive to assume

some $pre5decisional awareness o) accountability.,;> T!at is+ w!en t!e e0ecutiveunderstands t!at it liely will be )orced to e0plain its reasoning a)ter t!e )act )orparticular security policies it adopts+ it will t!in more care)ully e0 ante about w!att!ose policies s!ould be and weig! a greater number o) alternatives.;; W!ile t!iselement !as procedural aspects to itJ)orcing a more care)ul and consideredprocess o) adopting policyJit also !as important substantive eRects. Assuming t!atcourts as a rule will )avor policies t!at are more rig!ts protective t!an t!ose )avored by t!e e0ecutive + t!isperception o) )uture Ludicial oversig!t will s!i)t t!e substantive policy in a morerig!tssensitive direction.;?

8bserver efect s%ills over to other e#ecutive %olicies"%articularl !hen the triggering case directl im%licates

individual rights

Dee3s .1'(As!ley S.+ attorney5adviser in t!e OIce o) t!e 'egal Adviser at t!eE.S. Department o) State+ advised on t!e law o) armed conict+ including detention+t!e E.S. relations!ip wit! t!e 8nternational @ommittee o) t!e 4ed @ross+ intelligenceissues+ conventional weapons+ and t!e legal )ramewor )or t!e conict wit! al5Vaeda+ $T!e Observer CRect& ational Security 'itigation+ C0ecutive olicy @!anges+and 3udicial De)erence,+ *ord!am 'aw 4eview+ %ol.


19/150

Potential 1AC Advantages


20/150

conom


21/150

1AC 4oduleA recession is imminent" onl gro!th no! can 3ee% it rom

s%iraling out o control

The conomist +,19(Watc! out& 8t is only a matter o) time be)ore t!e ne0trecession stries. T!e ric! world is not ready# 3un /#www.economist.comnewsleaders2?;>-;/5it5only5matter5time5ne0t5recession5stries5ric!5world5not5ready5watc!F)srcscntwXecwatc!Xout# d)1

TC struggle !as been longand arduous. ut ga6ing across t!e battered economies o)t!eric! worldit is time to declare t!at t!e =g!t against =nancial c!aos and deation iswon. 8n 2-;+ t!e 8M* says+ )or t!e =rst time since 2-- every advanced economy wille0pand. 4ic!5world growt! s!ould e0ceed 2Y )or t!e =rst time since 2-- and AmericaHs central ban is liely toraise its roc5bottom interest rates. owever+ t!e global economy still )aces all manner o)!a6ards+ )rom t!e ree debtsaga to @!inaHss!ay marets. *ew economies !ave ever gone aslong as a decade wit!out tipping into recessionJAmericaHs started growing in 2--B. SodHs law decrees t!at+ sooner

or later+ policymaers will )ace anot!er downturn. T!e danger is t!at + !aving used up t!eirarsenal+ governments and central bans will not !ave t!e ammunition to =g!t t!e ne0trecession. arado0ically+ reducing t!at ris reGuires a willingness to eep policy looser )or longer today. T!esmoe is clearing T!e good news comes mainly )rom America+ w!ic! leads t!e ric!5world pac. 8ts une0pectedcontraction in t!e =rst Guarter loos lie a blip+ owing a lot to )actors lie t!e weat!er (see article1. T!e most recentdata+ including surging ve!icle sales and anot!er round o) robust employment =gures+ s!ow t!at t!e pace o) growt!is rebounding. American =rms too on 2


22/150

State regs are grounding all drones no! because o %ublic

outrage:ederal action that mandates !arrants reverses the

trend

Sorcher +,1'(Sara [Deputy editor o) @SMasscode+ covering security P privacyin t!e digital age"# T!e baclas! against drones# *eb 2#

www.nationalLournal.commaga6inet!e5baclas!5against5drones52-/-22# d)1

T!e Seattle olice DepartmentHs planned demonstration o) its small surveillance drones Guicly devolved into a noisy protest. Angry

residents attending t!e community meeting in October c!anted $o dronesZ, drowning out oIcersHattempts to e0plain !ow t!e unmanned aerial ve!icleswould support certain criminalinvestigations+ !elp out during natural disasters+ and assist in searc!5and5rescueoperations. ow itHs clear t!at SeattleHs drones+ purc!ased wit! )ederal grants+ wonHt be ying over t!e metro area anytimesoon. Amid baclas! )rom civil5liberties advocates and citi6ens worried about government invasion o) t!eir privacy+ t!e mayor earlier

t!is mont! tabled any drone ambitionsJ)or now. ublic concerns are not limited to Seattle. 'awmaers in at least states want to restrict t!e use o) drones because o) )ears t!ey will spy onAmericans+ and some are pus!ing to reGuire warrants be)ore t!e robots collectevidence in investigations. 3ust t!is mont!+ t!e %irginia eneral Assembly passed a two5year moratorium on drones.

T!e outcry comes a)ter t!e Clectronic *rontier *oundation sued last year )or a list o) drone applicants wit!in t!e E.S. W!en t!atin)ormation went public+ staR attorney 3enni)er 'ync! says+ $it really got people up in arms about !ow drones are being used+ andgot people to Guestion t!eir city councils and local law5en)orcement agencies to as )or appropriate policies to be put in place to

regulate drone usage., Drones c!ange t!e game& early continuous surveillance could bepossible wit!out a p!ysical intrusion suc! as a property searc! or an implantedlistening device. T!e ying robots can carry !ig!5powered cameras+ even )acial5recognition so)tware or t!ermal imaging to $see, t!roug! walls. T!ey can !over+ potentiallyundetected+ )or !ours or days at a time. As o) yet+ !owever" there are no la!s governing the use o

domestic drones !hen it comes to %rivac. Enless @ongress or t!e e0ecutivebranc! moves to regulate t!e robotsH use be)ore t!ey tae to t!e sies en masse+states will liely continue to try to limit or ban drone use altoget!er+ w!ic! couldstymie t!eir potential )or ot!er+ bene=cial uses. And )ailing to enact privacy limits

only increases t!e lieli!ood o) an incident in w!ic! t!e public perceives t!at t!etec!nology is being misused. T!e *ederal Aviation Administration+ w!ic! is c!arged wit! overseeing droneimplementation in t!e E.S.+ says its )ocus is $totally on sa)ety+, not privacy worries. $We are concerned about !ow itHs being usedonly to t!e e0tent it would aRect t!e sa)ety o) t!e operation+, says *AA spoesman 'es Dorr. As it !appens+ domestic droneoperations are relatively limited because o) sa)ety concerns. T!e *AA !as issued nearly +;-- permits since 2-- )or t!e use o)drones by public entities+ suc! as law en)orcement or =re departments+ or by universities conducting researc!. O) t!ose+ /2 areactive. *or e0ample+ @ustoms and order rotection uses drones to eep tabs on t!e border wit! Me0ico+ and ASA deploys t!em to

monitor !urricanes. ut t!e sy will open to drones in 2-;. A )ederal law signed last year directs t!e *AA tosa)ely integrate t!e unmanned ve!icles into t!e E.S. airspace by t!en+ paving t!e way )or businesses and ot!er private entities toy t!eir own drones. Wit! t!e agency estimating t!at some -+--- commercial drones could be ying by 2-+ picture t!is& newsoutlets surveying damage )rom natural disasters+ or papara66i snooping on celebrities. And all


23/150

person !as no reasonable e0pectation o) privacy in public + or )rom a public vantage point+ suc! as)rom an aircra)t over!ead+ @alo says. T!ere are signs+ !owever+ t!at t!e Supreme @ourt is ree0amining t!is doctrine. 8n a casedecided last term+ =ve o) t!e Lustices obLected to police aI0ing a S device to a car wit!out a warrant+ and )our more obLected to

t!e continuous surveillance o) a suspect. Drones can ac!ieve t!e same goals wit!out touc!ing a ve!icle. @alo t!us believes that

drones could be the catalst or much-needed changes to %rivac la!s in a

nation in !hich targeted+ unc!eced surveillance is becoming increasingly

possible$ The danger lies in it becoming the norm$

States bans on drones crush the econom

2olgang +,1' (en# Drone industry predicts e0plosive economic boost# Mar2# www.was!ingtontimes.comnews2-/mar2drone5industry5predicts5e0plosive5economic5boostFpageall# d)1

Drones as weapons and drones as spies remain matters o) intense debate across t!e country+ butt!e controversial aircra)t are poised to mae an impact as somet!ing else& economicengines. rivate5sector drones J also called unmanned aerial systems or EA%s J will create more t!an-+--- Lobs wit!in t!ree years and will pump more t!an \.> million in ta0 revenue and see more t!an \>?- million in overall economicactivity by 2-+ t!e report says. %irginia would gain t!e eig!t!5most Lobs o) any state as a result o) drone integration.Maryland isnHt )ar be!ind+ wit! proLections o) more t!an +-- new Lobs by 2-. @ali)ornia would be by )ar t!ebiggest winner in terms o) Lobs+ wit! more t!an 2+--- e0pected . *lorida+ Te0as+ ew 9or+Was!ington+ @onnecticut+ Uansas+ Ari6ona and ennsylvania are also e0pected to be bene=t greatly )rom t!e coming drone economy.

$T!is is an incredibly e0citing time )or an industry developing tec!nology t!at willbene=t society+ as well as t!e economy+, said Mic!ael Toscano+ president and @CO o) t!e Association )or

Enmanned %e!icle Systems 8nternational+ a trade group t!at !as e0isted )or more t!an >- years but !as come into t!e public eyeonly recently. Drone e0pansion $means t!e creation o) Guality+ !ig!5paying American

Lobs+,Mr. Toscano continued. ut t!e motivation be!ind TuesdayHs report J arguably t!e most sweeping loo ever at t!eeconomic potential o) drones J runs deeper t!an Lust dollars and cents. T!e industry )aces an uncertain )uture in lig!t o) growingpublic paranoia surrounding t!e cra)t J paranoia t!at !as only been !eig!tened by t!e debate over w!et!er t!e Obamaadministration would ever consider using a drone to ill an American on E.S. soil. W!ile t!e drones t!at will be employed by E.S.companies or law en)orcement agencies are )ar diRerent t!an t!e military5style EA%s eGuipped wit! ell=re missiles+ t!osedistinctions arenHt always clear. TuesdayHs report not only oRered t!e industry a c!ance to s!ine t!e spotlig!t on dronesH positiveuses and economic potential+ but also served as an opportunity J or+ per!aps a warning J to lawmaers seeing to limit EA%s. Moret!an 2- states are considering bills to establis! strict guidelines )or w!at drones can do. %irginia is mulling a measure t!at would puta two5year moratorium on all government use o) drones. Suc! a measure would be especially !ars! because =rst5responders suc!

as police and =re departments are e0pected to be one o) t!e largest marets )or EA%s. 'ie ot!er growing andt!riving sectors o) t!e economy+ t!e drone business liely will set up s!op in )riendlyenvironments. $W!ile we proLect more t!an --+--- new Lobs by 2-2;+ states t!at create )avorable regulatory and businessenvironments )or t!e industry and t!e tec!nology will liely sip!on Lobs away )rom states t!at do not+, said Mr. 3enins+ t!e reportHs

lead aut!or w!o used to !ead eorge Was!ington EniversityHs Aviation 8nstitute and also is a )ormer pro)essor at Cmbry54iddleEniversity. On anot!er )ront+ t!e *AA appears to be in danger o) missing t!e congressionally mandated 2-; deadline )or droneintegration. T!e agency Lust recently began taing applications )or its test5site program+ w!ere drones will be studied to see !owt!ey respond in diRerent climate conditions and at diRerent altitudes. More t!an /- states !ave e0pressed interest in t!e program+

but itHs unclear w!en it will be )ully establis!ed# )urt!er delays put t!e 2-; date in even greater Leopardy. $Cvery year t!atwe delay integration+ t!e E.S. will lose more t!an \- billion in total economicimpact+, Mr. 3enins said.


24/150

Aviation industr 3e to U$S$ econ

*ristol 1)(Teri '. [@!ie) Operating OIcer Air TraIc Organi6ation *ederal AviationAdministration"# T!e Cconomic 8mpact o) @ivil Aviation on t!e E.S. Cconomy# 3une2-># !ttps&www.)aa.govairXtraIcpublicationsmedia2->5economic5impact5report.pd)# Lw1

*lying is an inspiring part o) American li)e. 8tHs a symbol o) our )reedom+ pioneering spirit+ and economic success.

As t!e nation continues to revitali6e itsel) )ollowing t!e most recent recession+ civilaviation !as outpaced t!e national economy. 8n 2-2+ aviation accounted )or ;.>Yo) our gross domestic product (D1+ contributed \.; trillion in total economicactivity+ and supported .< million Lobs.Aviation manu)acturing also continues tobe t!e nationHs top net e0port. T!e nationHs economic success depends on !aving avibrant civil aviation industry.To support t!is eRort+ t!e *AA remains committed to ensuring t!e sa)est+most eIcient aerospace system in t!e world. WeHre )ocused on t!e )ollowing )our strategic priorities& maingaviation sa)er and smarter+ delivering bene=ts t!roug! tec!nology and in)rastructure+ en!ancing global leaders!ip+and empowering t!e *AAHs wor)orce so we can innovate. WeHre in t!e process o) trans)orming t!e airspace systemby deploying t!e e0t eneration Air Transportation System (e0ten1. e0ten will mae aviation more )uel and

cost eIcient+ and more environmentally )riendly.T!is concise report+ ideal )or policymaers and

industry oIcials+ oRers t!e latest data on t!e economic impact o) civil aviation. 8tdiscusses t!e economic bene=ts o) passenger and cargo transportation+ )rom activities by commercial airlines+ aircouriers+ airports+ tourism+ and manu)acturing. T!is version also estimates t!e economic impact o) general aviation+a uniGuely American ac!ievement. 8n addition to 2-2+ t!is report also includes revised economic impact estimates)or t!e years 2--- to 2--B and newly estimated economic impacts )or 2-- and 2-. *lying remains an economic)rontier )or America. We see unmanned aircra)t and commercial space launc!es on t!e !ori6on. T!roug! t!ese

innovations+ civil aviation will continue to inspire t!e ne0t generation+ and bringeconomic prosperity to our lives.

conomic decline causes e#tinction

4ic!ard . /aass 1'+ resident o) t!e @ouncil on *oreign 4elations+ >/-/+ $T!eWorld Wit!out America+, !ttp&www.proLect5syndicate.orgcommentaryrepairing5

t!e5roots5o)5american5power5by5ric!ard5n55!aass'et me posit a radical idea&T!e most critical t!reat )acing t!e Enited States now and )or t!e )oreseeable)uture is nota rising @!ina+ a recless ort! Uorea+ a nuclear 8ran+ modern terrorism+ or climatec!ange. Alt!oug! all o) t!ese constitute potential or actual t!reats+ t!e biggest c!allenges)acing t!e ES are itsburgeoningdebt+ crumbling in)rastructure+ second5rate primary and secondary sc!ools+ outdated immigration system+ andslo!economic gro!th] in s!ort+ t!edomestic oundations o American %o!er. 4eaders inot!er countries may be tempted to react to t!is Ludgment wit! a dose o) sc!aden)reude+ =nding more t!an a little satis)action in AmericaHs diIculties.Suc! a response s!ould not be surprising. T!e ES and t!ose representing it !ave been guilty o) !ubris (t!e ES may o)ten be t!e indispensable nation+ butit would be better i) ot!ers pointed t!is out1+ and e0amples o) inconsistency between AmericaHs practices and its principles understandably provoec!arges o) !ypocrisy. W!en America does not ad!ere to t!e principles t!at it preac!es to ot!ers+ it breeds resentment. ut+ lie most temptations+ t!eurge to gloat at AmericaHs imper)ections and struggles oug!t to be resisted. eople around t!e globe s!ould be care)ul w!at t!ey wis! )or.

AmericaHs )ailure to deal wit! its internal c!allenges would come at a steep price .8ndeed+ t!e rest o) t!e worldHs stae in American success is nearly as large as t!at o) t!e ES itsel). art o) t!e reason is economic. T!e ES economy still

accounts )or about one5Guarter o) global output. 8) ES growt! accelerates+ AmericaHs capacity to consumeot!er countriesH goods and services will increase + t!ereby boosting growt! around t!e

world. At a time w!en Curope is dri)ting and Asia is slowing + only t!e ES (or+ more broadly+ ort!

America1 !as t!e potential todrive global economic recovery . T!e ES remains a uniGue source o) innovation.Most o) t!e worldHs citi6ens communicate wit! mobile devices based on tec!nology developed in Silicon %alley# liewise+ t!e 8nternet was made inAmerica. More recently+ new tec!nologies developed in t!e ES greatly increase t!e ability to e0tract oil and natural gas )rom underground )ormations. T!istec!nology is now maing its way around t!e globe+ allowing ot!er societies to increase t!eir energy production and decrease bot! t!eir reliance on costlyimports and t!eir carbon emissions. T!e ES is also an invaluable source o) ideas. 8ts world5class universities educate a signi=cant percentage o) )uture

world leaders. More )undamentally+ t!e ES !aslong been a leading e0ample o) w!at maret economiesand democratic politics can accomplis! . eople and governments around t!e world are )ar
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/2014-economic-impact-report.pdfhttps://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/2014-economic-impact-report.pdfhttp://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/repairing-the-roots-of-american-power-by-richard-n--haasshttp://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/repairing-the-roots-of-american-power-by-richard-n--haasshttps://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/2014-economic-impact-report.pdfhttps://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/2014-economic-impact-report.pdfhttp://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/repairing-the-roots-of-american-power-by-richard-n--haasshttp://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/repairing-the-roots-of-american-power-by-richard-n--haass


25/150

more liely to become more open i) t!e American model is perceived to besucceeding. *inally+ t!e world )acesmany serious c!allenges+ ranging )romt!e need to !alt t!e s%reado !eapons o) mass destruction+ =g!t climate c!ange+ andmaintain a )unctioning worldeconomic order t!at promotes trade and investment to regulatingpractices in

cberspace+ improving global !ealt!+ and preventing armed con;icts.T!ese

problems will not simply go away or sort t!emselves out . W!ile Adam Smit!Hs $invisible!and, may ensure t!e success o) )ree marets+ it ispowerless in t!e world o) geopolitics . Order reGuires

t!e visible !and o) leadershi% to )ormulate and reali6e global res%onses to globalc!allenges. DonHt get me wrong& one o) t!is is meant to suggest t!at t!e ES can deal eRectively wit! t!e worldHs problems on its own.Enilateralism rarely wors. 8t is not Lust t!at t!e ES lacs t!e means# t!e very nature o) contemporary global problems suggests t!at only collective

responses stand a good c!ance o) succeeding. ut multilateralism is muc! easier to advocate t!an to design and

implement. 4ig!t now t!ere is only one candidate )or t!is role& t!e ES. o ot!er country

!as t!e necessary combination o) capability and outloo . T!is brings me bac to t!e argument t!at t!e

ES must put its !ouse in order] economically+ p!ysically+ socially+ and politically ] i) it is to !ave t!e

resources needed to promote order in t!e world . Cveryone s!ould !ope t!at it does&T!e alternativeto

a world led by t!e ES is not a world led by @!ina+ Curope+ 4ussia+ 3apan+ 8ndia+ or any ot!er

country+ butrat!er a world t!at is not led at all . Suc! a world would almost certainly be c!aracteri6ed bychronic crisis and con;ict. T!at would be bad not Lust )or Americans+ but )or t!evast maLority o) t!e %lanetHsin!abitants.


26/150


27/150

1AC 4oduleDomestic drones !ill have a hugel dis%ro%ortionate im%act on

communities o color

*ernd +,19(@andice# roposed 4ules 4egulating Domestic Drone Ese 'ac

olice Warrant 4eGuirement# *eb 2># www.trut!5out.orgnewsitem2B2;-5proposed5rules5regulating5domestic5drone5use5lac5police5warrant5reGuirement# d)1

Q9ou7re not Lust taling about t!e p!ysical border+ you7re taling about an area t!atencompasses many maLor cities t!at !ave large minority populations+ and t!e idea t!att!ese drones can be own wit! little or no privacy protections really mean t!at+ people+ Lust by virtue o) living in

t!at region are some!ow accepting t!at t!ey !ave a rig!t to less privacy+Q s!e said. A)rican5Americancommunities could well )eel t!e disproportionate impacts o) t!e integrated use o)domestic drones and ot!er surveillance in t!e coming years+ as tec!nologies suc!as Sting4ay are already being used mostly in t!e ongoing war on drugs to tract!ose suspected o) selling and buying drugs .T!e drug war !as long negativelyimpacted communities o) color+ based on raciali6ed drug policies and racial

discrimination by law en)orcement #two5t!irds o) all t!ose convicted o) drug crimesare people o) color+ despite similar rates o) drug use among w!ites and people o)color.T!ese already5e0isting racial disparities in intrusive policing tactics anddeployment o) surveillance tec!nologies are one o) t!e primary reasons civilliberties e0perts are saying t!e government o)ten gets it bacward w!en t!iningabout privacy issues& deploying intrusive tec!nologies =rst+ and coming up wit! privacy policies governingt!eir use a)terward (w!en t!ey may already be violating many people7s civil rig!ts1. QW!at we see wit! Sting4ays ist!e same p!enomenon t!at we7re seeing wit! [EAS"+ w!ere )ederal agencies are using t!em+Q uliani said. QStateand local agencies are using t!em. T!ere7s )ederal dollars t!at are going to buy t!em+ and we7re ind o) !aving t!eprivacy debate a)ter t!e )act wit! very little in)ormation.Q

Drones are uni7uel enabling the militari(ed industrial

com%le# to s!itl e#%and through discriminator surveillanceand %aramilitari(ed violence

Talai 1) (Andrew+ $T!e *ourt! Amendment and olice Discretion in t!eDigital Age+, -2 @al. '. 4ev. 2B+ 'e0isSC1

'aw en)orcement agencies !ave begun deploying drones )or routine domesticsurveillance operations+ unrestrained by constitutional scrutiny.8ndeed+ @ongress !asmandated a compre!ensive integration o) unmanned aerial systems into t!enational airspace no later t!an September /-+ 2-; .ut does t!e *ourt! Amendment to t!e EnitedStates @onstitution proscribe suc! drone surveillance as an unreasonable searc!F W!ile t!is Guestion cannot be easily answeredunder conventional precedents+ doctrinal inconsistency raises t!is @ommentHs central Guestion& W!at role will t!e *ourt!Amendment play in an age o) pervasive digital surveillance and limited privacy rig!tsF 8n t!e last )ew decades+ t!e Supreme @ourt!as narrowed its vision o) *ourt! Amendment rig!ts to an opaGue privacy rationale. T!e @ourt !as muddled doctrine and strained toavoid diIcult issues involving tec!nological progress. A recent e0ample o) t!is p!enomenon came in t!e 2-2 decision+ EnitedStates v. 3ones+ w!ere t!e @ourt parado0ically revived t!e common law trespass test )or *ourt! Amendment searc!es+ as a pro0y )ort!e $degree o) privacy t!at e0isted, at t!e )ounding. T!is @omment argues+ instead+ )or a $pluralist, approac! to understanding*ourt! Amendment searc!es t!at wouldJin addition to securing privacy and propertyJproscribe any searc! t!at @opyrig!t K 2->@ali)ornia 'aw 4eview+ 8nc. @ali)ornia 'aw 4eview+ 8nc. (@'41 is a @ali)ornia nonpro=t corporation. @'4 and t!e aut!ors are solelyresponsible )or t!e content o) publications. : 3.D.+ Eniversity o) @ali)ornia+ ereley+ Sc!ool o) 'aw+ 2-># .A.+

As suc!+ t!is @ommentHs maLor concern wit! domestic drone surveillance is not $privacy., 8n t!e vast maLority o)cases+ police will not use drones to observe $at w!at !our eac! nig!t t!e lady o) t!e !ouse taes !er daily saunaand bat!.,?- Alt!oug! t!is @omment does not )ocus on $voyeuristic, or eeping Tom drones+? intimate privacyconcerns are relevant *ourt! Amendment values t!at deserve protection. To be sure+ one can imagine suc!


28/150

distaste)ul surveillance being used )or blacmail and persuasion (among ot!er t!ings1+ even )rom public vantage

points. owever+ t!ose privacy concerns are being trumpeted so loudly t!at t!ey !aveobscured anot!er relevant problem wit! drone surveillanceJdiscriminatory sortingt!roug! discretionary law en)orcement. More precisely+ t!e )ear is $provid[ing" lawen)orcement wit! a swi)t+ eIcient+ invisible+ and c!eap way o) tracing t!emovements o) virtually anyone and everyone t!ey c!oose.,?2 olice+ t!roug!legislative encouragement and Ludicial acGuiescence+ now !ave powerJunmatc!edin !istoryJon t!e streets o) t!is country& $a )orm o) paramilitari6ed violence )oundin a rapidly e0panding criminal Lustice5industrial comple0+ wit! bot! ideological andmaterial connections to t!e military industrial comple0.,?/ Drone surveillance is yetanot!er tool in t!e arsenal o) police discretion+ including $surveillance+


29/150

Drones>


30/150

bullets+ tasers+ and tear gas. T!ey will use )usion centers. Originally designed to increase interagencycollaboration )or t!e purposes o) counterterrorism+ t!ese !ave instead become t!e local arm o) t!e intelligencecommunity. According to Clectronic *rontier *oundation+ t!ere are currently seventy5eig!t on record. T!ey are t!eclearing!ouse )or increasingly used $suspicious activity reports,Jdescribed as $oIcial documentation o) observedbe!avior reasonably indicative o) pre5operational planning related to terrorism or ot!er criminal activity., T!esereports and ot!er collected data are o)ten stored in massive databases lie e5%eri)y and rism. As anybody w!oHsever dealt wit! gang databases nows+ itHs almost impossible to get oR a )ederal or state database+ even w!en t!e

data collected is incorrect or no longer true. redictive policing doesnHt Lust lead to racial andreligious pro=lingJit relies on it.3ust as stop and )ris legitimi6ed an initial+ unwarranted contactbetween police and people o) color+ almost B- percent o) w!om turn out to be innocent o) any crime+ suspiciousactivities reporting and t!e dragnet approac! o) )usion centers target communitieso) color. One review o) suc! reports collected in 'os Angeles s!ows appro0imately ; percent were o) people o)color. T!is is t!e )uture o) policing in America+ and it s!ould terri)y you as muc! as it terri=es me. En)ortunately+ it

probably doesnHt+ because my li)e is at )ar greater ris t!an t!e lives o) w!ite Americans +especially t!ose reporting on t!e issue in t!e media or advocating in t!e !alls o) power. One o) t!e most terri)ying

aspects o) !ig!5tec! surveillance is t!e invisibility o) t!ose it disproportionately impacts.T!e SA and *8!ave engaged local law en)orcement agencies and electronic surveillancetec!nologies to spy on Muslims living in t!e Enited States. According to *8 training materialsuncovered by Wired in 2-+ t!e bureau taug!t agents to treat $mainstream, Muslims as supporters o) terrorism+ to

view c!aritable donations by Muslims as $a )unding mec!anism )or combat+, and to view 8slam itsel) as a $Deat!Star, t!at must be destroyed i) terrorism is to be contained. *rom ew 9or @ity to @!icago and beyond+ local lawen)orcement agencies !ave e0panded unlaw)ul and covert racial and religious pro=ling against Muslims notsuspected o) any crime. T!ere is no national security reason to pro=le all Muslims. At t!e same time+ almost>;-+--- migrants are in detention )acilities t!roug!out t!e Enited States+ including survivors o) torture+ asylumseeers+ )amilies wit! small c!ildren+ and t!e elderly. Endocumented migrant communities enLoy )ew legalprotections+ and are t!ere)ore subLect to brutal policing practices+ including illegal surveillance practices. Accordingto t!e Sentencing roLect+ o) t!e more t!an 2 million people incarcerated in t!e Enited States+ more t!an ?- percentare racial and et!nic minorities. ut by )ar+ t!e widest net is cast over blac communities. lac people alonerepresent >- percent o) t!ose incarcerated. More blac men are incarcerated t!an were !eld in slavery in


31/150

Add-8ns


32/150

?APD@m%osing regulations on drone use can efectivel balance

%rivac concerns and hel% combat terrorismcrimeNe!ton +,1)Cditor and Writer at t!e 'os Angeles Times (3im+ $Drones and t!e

'AD,+ !ttp&www.latimes.comopinionop5edla5oe5newton5column5lapd5drones52->5column.!tml1

T!e 'AD acGuired a pair o) small drones a )ew mont!s ago )rom t!e Seattle olice Department+ w!ic! dropped its plans to use t!em a)ter publicobLections. 'os Angeles !as not yet deployed t!e drones J t!ey remain+ as @!ie) @!arlie ec told me last wee+ $in t!e bo0., ec says !e7s waiting )or

direction )rom t!e olice @ommission on w!at will be allowed+ but t!e drones could be deployed in situations w!eresuspects are barricaded or !olding !ostages and w!ere an aerial view mig!t be!elp)ul. 8t7s !ard to argue wit! t!at J w!o wouldn7t want police to !ave better in)ormation be)ore trying to subdue a !ostage taerF ut t!e dronesare Lust one aspect o) a pro)ound reconsideration o) t!e relations!ip between policing and privacy. Cspecially in t!e area o6ghting terrorism" %olice are moving rom solving crimes to antici%ating

them+ aided by data mining and ot!er tec!nologies. T!e new tec!niGues carry wit! t!em t!e possibility o)en!ancing public sa)ety+ but t!ey give some people t!e creeps. 3amie arcia and amid Ua!n are two o) t!ose people. T!ey and t!eirorgani6ation Stop 'AD Spying are leading an eRort to stop t!e department )rom using drones. At t!eir oIces near sid row last wee+ t!ey warned o)w!at t!ey see as police militari6ation. Ot!er communities are wrestling wit! similar issues+ but arcia and Ua!n note t!at t!e 'AD7s !istory o) policespying maes t!e debate especially important !ere. 8n one sense+ drones are not t!at big a deal. Enlie unmanned aircra)t operated by t!e military and@8A+ t!ese don7t carry missiles+ and because t!ey !over above ground+ t!ey can7t see muc! t!at isn7t already visible to a police !elicopter or even asatellite. A drone+ !owever+ is smaller and more readily deployed+ and )or many people it c!anges t!e notion o) w!at7s private. Most o) us regard ourbacyards+ )or e0ample+ as private space+ but is t!at a reasonable e0pectation now t!at a !elicopter+ a satellite or a drone can peer into it wit!out enteringt!e propertyF Only t!e 'A times would give t!ese two radical clowns space. T!ey say Drones invade privacy issues yet t!e group o) 2- )or t!is group go tomeetings+ yell+ scream+ verbally assault+ t!reaten anyone w!o doesn7t agree wit! t!em. T!ey attend police commission meetings all t!e time cause...Similarly+ a national eRort to collect data on $suspicious activity, can )eel aw)ully invasive. Activity as innocent as taing a p!otograp! o) a governmentbuilding or engaging in law)ul+ peace)ul protest can trigger alarm in post5B America. $We7re all concerned about sa)ety+, Ua!n told me last wee+ $butat w!at priceF, T!e policing paradigm+ !e and arcia argued+ !as s!i)ted )rom solving crimes to gat!ering+ storing and s!aring in)ormation. T!e result isan overbearing+ waste)ul attempt to !ead oR )uture crimes. Signi=cant numbers o) people agree+ and 2+--- !ave so )ar signed a petition circulated byStop 'AD Spying urging t!e department not to use its new drones. @lear+ t!oug!t)ul rules are needed )or recordings by 'AD @lear+ t!oug!t)ul rules areneeded )or recordings by 'AD ec is well aware o) t!e uneasiness t!at tec!nology creates J and not Lust in a law en)orcement conte0t. As !e pointed

out in our conversation+ t!e erosion o) privacy is playing out in every sector o) modern li)e . @amerasare ubiGuitous+ online activity creates in)ormation t!at is use)ul )or commercial purposes and stores collect data to target advertising. $obody nowsmore about me t!an t!e %ons w!ere 8 s!op+, ec said. $We are very rapidly entering a time w!en everyone will now everyt!ing about everybody.,

T!ere is+!owever+ a special burden on law en)orcement to gat!er and use in)ormation

wit! care. T!e local %ons may now a lot about its customers+ but it can7t arrest t!em. 4ecogni6ing t!at J and aware t!at t!e 'AD in t!e B


33/150

indicated by @S news earlier t!is year+ w!at would !appen i) a an attac actually too place on a citystreet downtown+ lie 'os Angeles + t!e center o) t!e @S reportF9ou7re caug!t in t!e middle o) aQ!ot 6oneQ 55 people are being illed+ terrorists wit! AU5>s are e0ecuting men+women+ and c!ildren. S!ots y over !ead and glass s!atters in nearby windows. 'AD& e On t!e 'oo Out )or e6bolla!+ 8ranian Special*orces @S aIliate in 'os Angeles reported August 2B+ 2-2 t!at 'AD is actively on t!e loo out )or e6bolla!

lined terror groups

believed to be plotting attacs on Sout!ern @ali)ornia. See (@S aIliate1&

'AD& 7Active7 Terror lots 'ined To 8ran+ e6bolla!+ 7Sovereign @iti6ens7 T!e 'AD !as it7s own counter5terrorism unit+ in )act. @S reports at t!e =rst linabove& Q78n t!is region we !ave active terrorist plots+ in t!is region+ rig!t now+7 said Deputy @!ie) Mic!ael Downing+ commanding oIcer o) t!e 'AD7scounter5terrorism unit. T!e Department is currently tracing 7government o) 8ran operatives+ e6bolla!+ sovereign citi6en+ !omegrown violent e0tremists+animal rig!ts groups7 and ot!ers+ Downing said. e added t!at 8ranian or e6bolla! agents may initiate attacs locally i) war erupts between t!e E.S. and

8ran.Q W!at would an attac by 8ranian e6bolla! agents loo lieF T!is ind o) terrorist attac probably won7t loo liean Al5Vaeda suicide bomberwit! limited training and no lengt!y military e0perience. @t ma loo3 a lot moreli3e an attac3 b Nav Seals 55 but instead o) avy Seals+ t!e attac3 !ill come rom highl

trained soldiers o @ranian and /e(bollah s%ecial orces -- going or

Bma#imum im%actB$Ma0imum 8mpact Terrorist Attacs *or t!ose o) you )amiliar wit! special )orces training+ it would be lie t!e local

police (per!aps /- 5 >- cops in t!e vicinity o) a terrorist attac1 going up against ; or more Spet6na6 (4ussian trained special )orces1. QSpecial)orcesQ means t!ey7re trained )or t!e most dangerous assignments 55 t!ey are swi)t+ strong+ e0celin !and to !and combat+ automatic weapons+ )earless =g!ting+ and s!eer brutality. ?ocal %olice !ould be no match55 notunless t!ey could round up /-- !eavily armed cops to tae on ; Spet6na6 (wit!in minutes o) an attac1 w!o are armed wit! )ully automatic weapons and

possibly s!oulder =red missiles and grenades 55 and still t!at mig!t not be enoug!. T!e )act is t!is 55 a small group o) !ig!ly trained =g!ters ()oreignspecial )orces1 can tae down larger groups o) =g!ters (local police1 not prepared )or t!is ind o) =g!t. 'os Angeles Terrorist Attacs *irst+ let7s consider

!ow local police mig!t react once t!e initial calls come in. MaLor police departments in 'os Angelesand ew 9or @itynowadays !ave counter5terrorism sGuads+ but t!ey also !ave Swat Teams+ as do most ot!er E.S. cities wit! a population o);-+--- or more. E.S. Swat Teams are armed to t!e teet! wit! men !ig!ly trained )or arrests and tae downs o) dangerous criminals.3i!adistterror cells )rom 8ran and e6bolla! !ave !ig!ly trained men also 55 men trained to ill )or 8slamicideals+ men trained wit! weapons and e0plosives. Some o) t!ese men may be 8ranian special )orces55 special )orces a lotlie our own avy Seals and Airborne 4angers !ere at !ome. Many are !ig!ly trained+ deadly accurate wit! weapons+ dangerous in !and to !and combat.ow t!ese two groups (Swat Teams and 3i!adist terror cells1 aren7t running into one anot!er rig!t now w!en t!e terror t!reat level is so !ig! in America

reveals one t!ing 55 terror groups(we now t!ey7re !ere+ t!ere7s no doubt about t!at1 are communicating wit! oneanot!er at a level t!at is beating America7s surveillance !ere at !ome. 3i!ad& Superior@ommunications o y5lists+ email and p!one surveillance+ E.S. mosGues in=ltrated by government in)ormants 55 staeouts by t!e *8 and ot!erundercover government teams are not getting anyw!ere+ it seems. ot to say t!at t!e *8 isn7t good at w!at t!ey do 55 t!ey !ave done a great Lob wit!tracing down and breaing up large scale organi6ed crime rings in t!e past# t!ey7ve arrested t!e leaders o) street gangs and motorcycle clubs+ as well as

a number o) large drug rings t!at can trace t!eir origins all t!e way to Sout! American drug lords. 8n any o) t!ese groups+ do6ens and sometimes !undredso) arrests can tae place at one time in a large *8 sting 55 ut it7s not !appening wit! 3i!adist terror cells. 4is o) Terrorist Attac 4emains ig! Wit! or

wit!out arrests o) terrorist cells+ t!e ris remains !ig! )or a series o) simultaneous terrorist attacstimed to create Qma0imum terrorQ in America# terrorists most li3el !ant todisru%t our alread sha3 economand are liely to do t!at by plotting attacs t!at cause mass5)ear across t!eEnited States population. Swat Team Ep in *lames W!at about t!e local Swat TeamF *oreign special )orces may already !ave a plan )or taing on t!e localSwat Team 55 t!ey mig!t blow up t!eir armored ve!icle as it leaves base 55 t!e entire Swat Team murdered be)ore t!ey can pose any t!reat. Or t!ey mig!t!ave snipers waiting near t!e scene+ ready to pic oR Swat Team members and any ot!ers t!at pose a t!reat to an active terror attac. 'earning *rom a4eal Terrorist Attac wit! AU5>s 8n 2--s waled into a train station and began illing people. 8n all+ Lust in t!at train station+ t!ey illed ;< peopleand inLured ->. T!en t!ey le)t t!e train station+ s!ooting at pedestrians and police+ illing eig!t police oIcers. T!ey passed a police station but t!e policeinside were smart 55 out gunned+ t!ey !ad secured t!e gates and s!ut oR all t!e lig!ts and !id. T!e attacers ignored t!e police station and continued

t!eir attac in t!e city. Clsew!ere in Mumbai...Two terrorists armed wit! AU5>s storm a ca)e+ illing atleast - people+ inLuring several more . Multiple ot!er terrorists sei6e two !otels+ T!e TaLMa!al and t!e Oberoi Trident# several people are illed+ many more are inLured. ostages are taen at bot! !otels# many ee )rom windows as =re =g!terswit! ladders outside t!e !otels !elp several people escape. A 3ewis! outreac! center (t!e ariman !ouse1 is sei6ed by terrorists+ !ostages are taen# a )ewpeople end up illed by t!e time t!e attac is broen up by counter terrorism teams w!o are dropped on to t!e roo) by !elicopter and covered by nearbysnipers. 8ndia7s counter terrorism )orces eventually are able to in=ltrate eac! location terrorists !ad sei6ed and !ad taen !ostages# during rescues a )ewpeople are illed+ including counter terrorism )orces# all but one terrorist (arrested and taen into custody1 die. Down in t!e Mumbai !arbor police sei6ed a

boat carrying guns and e0plosives 55 it7s possible t!at t!ere !ad been a bigger attac planned+ t!ust!e reason )or t!e e0cess weapons stored at t!e docs.


34/150

Cber!ar


35/150

+AC Cber 2ar turnFederal regulation o drones is necessar to build saeguards

against cber !ar

*ernd +,1'(@andice [assistant editorreporter wit! Trut!out"# T!e @oming

Domestic Drone Wars# Sep B# www.trut!5out.orgnewsitem2?B-deganit5paiowsy5and5gil5baramspace5warsFcidrss5rssX0ml5

spaceXwars5------# d)1

8nSeptember 2->+ !acers)rom @!ina broe int ot!e E.S. ational Oceanic and Atmosp!eric Administration(OAA1 networ in an attempt to disrupt data related to disaster planning+ aviation+ and muc!mor ecoming )rom E.S. satellites.T!isbreac! was t!e latest in a series o) cyberattacs on spacesystems+e0posing t!e Ac!illesH !eel o) suc! tec!nology& t!e vulnerability o) its computers and t!e in)ormation it creates andtransmits. @yberattacs +w!ic! are on t!e rise in every industry+ pose particularly signi=cant t!reats tospace systems as t!ey are used so ubiGuitously in corporate and military operations+ maing t!em increasingly attractivetargets )or !acers. Alt!oug! only about a do6en countries !ave t!e capability to launc! a satellite into space+ billions o)


36/150

people around t!e world rely on space systems )or nearly every aspect o) modernli)e.Satellitesare used to supportp!ones+ t!e 8nternet+ and baning systems. T!ey are also used tomonitor land+ air+ and maritime traIc# )acilitate global communication s#transmit mass media in real time#monitor t!e eart! )or climate changeor severe weat!er t!reats and natural disasters# gat!erintelligence# and send early warnings o) incoming ballistic missiles . 8t is no wonder+ t!en+ t!at

the global econom de%ends on communication satellites "navigation systems+ and

eart!5observation satellites. T!e bacbone o) all t!ese services consists o) +2-- operational satellites currently orbiting t!e eart!+w!ic! !ave t!e potential to cause signi=cant tangible damage by attacing national or global space systems across countries andcontinents. Cven a small glitc! can wrea !avoc. *or e0ample+ in April 2->+ t!e lonass System+ t!e 4ussian eGuivalent o) t!eAmerican5designed S+ mal)unctioned due to two small mat!ematical mistaes in t!e so)tware. Signi=cantly+ =0ing t!e systemtoo more t!an / !ours+ and t!e !al)5day breadown led to severe disruption o) lonass receivers+ w!ic! aRected i!one; users.

W!ile t!e disruption was not caused by ambitious !acers+ it is easy to see w!y space systems are t!e brass ringo) cybercrimes& T!ey are low eRort and !ig! return .T!ere)ore+ a relatively simple !accan inict considerable damage. 8t is easy to see w!y space systems are t!e brass ring o) cybercrimes& T!ey arelow eRort and !ig! return. T!ere)ore+ a relatively simple !ac can inict considerable damage. CAS9 4C9 Alt!oug! a space systemis composed o) t!ree connected segmentsJsatellites and spacecra)t t!at orbit t!e eart!+ ground stations+ and t!e communicationsystems t!at lin t!e twoJcybercriminals only need to =nd t!e vulnerabilities in one o) t!ese segments. *or e0ample+ )or a )ew!undred dollars+ a !acer can buy a small Lamming device on t!e 8nternet to inter)ere wit! satellite signals. $We !ave to mae it(satellite navigation systems1 more robust+, warned @olonel rad)ord arinson+ w!o led t!e creation o) t!e S. $Our cellp!onetowers are timed wit! S. 8) t!ey lose t!at time+ t!ey lose sync and pretty soon t!ey donHt operate. Our power grid is sync!roni6ed

wit! S [and" so is our baning system.,

Space systems !ave become t!e target o) !acing.8n 3uly o)

last year+ t!e Enited States identi=ed a 2+ a number o) t!in5tans+ )rom t!e @ouncil on *oreign 4elationsto 'ondon5based @!at!am ouse+ as well as t!e in)ormation5security =rm 8OActive+ sounded t!e alarm on !ow vulnerable spacesystems are to cyberattacs. T!ese reports warned o) t!e ease wit! w!ic! bacdoors in so)twareJan undetected remote access to acomputerJcan be e0ploited+ and o) t!e prevalence o) unsecured so)tware+ non5protected protocols+ and unencrypted c!annels. One

o) t!e studiesH recommendations was to immediately remove so)tware updates )rom t!e public websites o) various companies t!atprovide satellite services and eGuipment+ in order to prevent !acers )rom reverse5engineering t!e source code. owever+ despite

t!ese warnings+ t!e space industry is barely aware o) t!ese riss and its responses areslow. erein lies a c!allenge& to produce and put into practice standards and regulations regarding multinational and commercialactivities in space tec!nology and e0ploration. MO%8 *O4WA4D 8n t!e past year+ several space5)aring nations !ave begun totacle t!e issue. T!ree mont!s ago+ t!e E.S. Air *orce announced t!at it !opes to develop tec!nologies t!at would prevent !acers)rom Lamming its satellites. 4ussia intends to signi=cantly update t!e robustness and security o) its military and government satellitecommunication system by 2-2;. Despite t!ese positive steps+ national governments and international bodies !ave more ground tocover. *irst+ governments need to increase t!eir eRorts to raise awareness regarding t!e growing t!reat o) cyberattacs against bot!government and commercial space systems. Second+ in order to provide better protection+ governments and corporations s!ouldtae a !olistic rat!er t!an piecemeal approac! regarding t!e protection o) all segments o) t!eir systems+ and wor toward solutionst!at will ensure t!e per)ormance o) t!e systems and t!eir services+ rat!er t!an protecting a speci=c asset. *or e0ample+ satellitesare and will continue to be damaged by cyberattacs# but t!e ability o) an entire system to operate smoot!ly and recover rapidly ismore crucial t!an t!e security and sa)ety o) a single satellite. T!ird+ military+ civil+ and commercial actors s!ould engage in moredialogue in order to strengt!en overall protection. T!ey can do so by s!aring in)ormation and woring Lointly toward betterstandards and regulations. *ourt!+ governments and international bodies s!ould try to standardi6e protocols )or protecting space

systems. *or e0ample+ w!en OAA was breac!ed in September+ t!e 8nspector eneral )or t!e @ommerce Department+ w!ic!oversees t!e networ+ !ad Lust critici6ed it )or an array o) $!ig!5ris vulnerabilities, in t!e security o) its satellite in)ormation andweat!er service systems. 8t too nearly a mont! )or OAA to admit it !ad been !aced. iding suc! in)ormation !ampersmeaning)ul and timely discussion about t!e issue and delays t!e development o) preventive measures. Cn)orcing a standardprotocol could !elp alleviate t!is problem. And =nally+ protecting space systems must be an international eRort. Space5)aring nationss!ould wor toget!er to ac!ieve international cooperation on all o) t!e areas mentioned above& raising awareness+ s!aring

in)ormation+ and developing muc!5needed standards.T!e potential )or colossal damage and t!erelative ease o) launc!ing a cyberattac on space systems mae t!em tantali6ingtarget s )or cybercriminals.T!e t!reat is already at our doorstep+ and it will only getbigger. 8t is time )or t!e international space community to muster t!e political will to rise to t!is growing c!allenge.


37/150


38/150

S8P2arrants revitali(es the se%aration o %o!ers


39/150

*irst+America7s mature political institutions organi6ed around t!e rule o) law !avemade it a relatively predictable and cooperative !egemon. T!e pluralistic and regulari6edway in w!ic! E.S. )oreign and security policy is made reduces surprises and allows ot!er states to build long5term+

mutually bene=cial relations. T!egovernmental separation o) powers creates a s!areddecision5maing system t!at opens up t!e process and reduces t!e ability o) anyone leader to mae abrupt or aggressive moves toward ot!er states . An active press andcompetitive party system also provide a service to outside states by generating in)ormation about E.S. policy anddetermining its seriousness o) purpose. T!e messiness o) a democracy can+ indeed+ )rustrate American diplomats

and con)use )oreign observers. ut over t!e long term+ democratic institutions produce moreconsistent and credible policies55policies t!at do not reect t!e capricious andidiosyncratic w!ims o) an autocrat. T!in o) t!e Enited States as a giant corporation t!at sees )oreigninvestors. 8t is more liely to attract investors i) it can demonstrate t!at it operates according to accepted

accounting and =duciary principles.T!e rule o) law and t!e institutions o) policymaing in ademocracy are t!e political eGuivalent o) corporate transparency and accountability .S!arp s!i)ts in policy must ultimately be vetted wit!in t!e policy process and pass muster by an array o)

investigatory and decision5maing bodies.ecause it is a constitutional+ rule5based democracy+outside states are more willing to wor wit! t!e E nited S tates5or+ to return to t!ecorporate metap!or+ to invest in ongoing partners!ips.


40/150

international legitimacy# on t!e contrary+ esc!ewing legitimacy was part o) t!e plan. *rom t!e start+ us! Administration oIcials derided t!e idea t!atAmerican power s!ould answer to international norms. %ice resident Dic @!eney resisted calls by Secretary o) State @olin owell to bring Was!ingtonHscase against 8raG to t!e E+ Ludging suc! diplomatic mac!inations a waste o) time. T!e Administration even sometimes seemed to suggest+ perversely+

t!at i) leading Curopean nations or t!e E were involved+ results would be slower and less eRective.` Endoing t!is damage is aprecondition )or setting E.S. )oreign policy bac on course . 8nternational legitimacy+ viewedby t!e us! Administration as constraining American power+ must now be recogni6ed as anindis%ensable tool or ortiing and e#tending it. As we looto a post5us!)oreignpolicy+ %rogressives need to recogni(e that a concerted efort to reconstituteAmerica.s legitimac is the best !a to saeguard American su%er%o!erdom

in t!e long term.` T!e istory o) 'egitimacy T!e increasing importance o) internationallegitimacy and t!e rise o) t!e Enited States as a global power go !and5in5!and . Duringt!e colonial era o) great power politics+ military prowess and territorial control ruled t!e day# countries wit! resources and armies did not worry muc!about t!e court o) international opinion. ut a)ter World War 88+ as leading nations grappled wit! !ow to administer war5ravaged Curope and 3apan and !owto prevent )uture world wars+ legitima-cy moved to t!e )ore)ront. 8nternational law was e0pounded t!roug! treaty5based organi6ations lie t!e E+ ATO+and t!e retton Woods institutions. T!e dismantling o) )ar5ung colonial empires and t!e emergence o) t!e principle o) sel)5determination !elped )ul=ll t!e

widening belie) t!at power needed to be made accountable to peoples aRected by it.`T!e Enited States enLoyed a greatdeal o) legitimacy in t!e postwar period . T!e conservative sc!olar 4obert Uagan argued in *oreign ARairs t!at E.S.legitimacy derived mainly )rom t!e @old War itsel)& Among Western Curopean governments and publics American actions were seen as Lusti=ed to )acedown a totalitarian menace. W!ile violent pro0y wars in 'atin America and Asia !ad some corrupting eRects on AmericaHs image+ t!ey did not outweig!

t!e perception o) credibility in t!e @old WarHs primary battleground o) Curope. 8n contrast+ political scientists4obertTucer andDavid endricson contend t!at AmericaHs legitimacy derived not )rom its struggle against communism perse+ but rat!er )rom t!e respectresident arryTruman and !is successors s!owed )orinternational law and norms.` T!e end o) t!e @old War scrambled t!e situation. On t!e one !and+ it le)t t!e Enited States as t!eworldHs sole remaining superpower. Wit! liberal democracy ascendant+ American values]including t!e maret capitalism t!at muc! o) t!e world once sawas synonymous wit! imperialist e0ploitation]now enLoyed wide acceptance in Castern Curope+ Asia+ and elsew!ere. Wit! t!e Soviet Enion gone+ w!atUagan identi=ed as t!e $legitimi6ing eRect, o) t!e @old War struggle evaporated. At t!e same time+ AmericaHs legitimacy also came under closer scrutiny.T!is imbalance led to concern over t!e unparalleled degree o) E.S. inuence over t!e world economy+ decision5maing at t!e E+ and oil supplies in t!eMiddle Cast. Septics impugned American motives and met!ods by pointing to e0amples o) Was!ingtonHs !ypocritical support )or oil5ric! oligarc!ies in t!eMiddle Cast+ uneven commitment to global )ree trade+ and insuIciently aggressive eRorts to !alt green!ouse gas emissions.` T!e @linton Administration!andled t!ese concerns t!roug! balanced policies and a degree o) sel)5regulation. 8t s!owed enoug! respect )or t!e views o) allies and )or t!e E to getaway wit! circumventing international rules )rom time to time]as w!en it )ailed )or many years (due to congressional resistance1 to pay its dues to t!e Eor )ailed to rati)y t!e 8nternational @riminal @ourt (8@@1 . During t!e @linton era+ conservatives s!arpened t!eir longstanding critiGue o) t!e idea t!atAmerican )oreign policy needed to enLoy international legitimacy. Many o) t!ese t!iners and politicians !ad+ during t!e @old War+ seen internationalinstitutions lie t!e E as Soviet5inuenced impediments to American interests. ow t!ey argued t!at America must not be constricted by e0ternal normso) legitimacy+ particularly i) legitimacy mig!t be arbitrated by international institutions lie t!e E t!at+ despite t!e Soviet EnionHs collapse+ still counteddictators!ips and tyrannies among t!eir rans.` Suc! an argument was implicit in Uagan and William UristolHs BB? call )or a )oreign policy based on$benevolent !egemony,]a concept t!at continued to animate neoconservatives t!roug! t!e 2--/ 8raG invasion. 4ooted in t!e @old War e0perience inw!ic! Castern Curopean peoples drew inspiration )rom Western liberal ideals+ benevolent !egemony !eld t!at i) t!e Enited States acted )rom passionateconviction+ its moral rectitude would be recogni6ed and )ollowed+ i) not immediately t!en in t!e long run. T!e concept o) benevolent !egemony guided t!e

us! AdministrationHs )oreign policy even be)ore September ]evident+ )or e0ample+ in its decision in late 2-- to wit!draw )rom t!e Anti5allistic MissileTreaty. T!e Administration new t!e action would initially be derided+ but it believed t!at t!e world would come to recogni6e t!at t!e creation o) a ort!

American missile s!ield would ultimately en!ance not Lust American security+ but also $t!e interests )or peace in t!e world.,` A)terSeptember + us!Hs decision to )rame t!e battle against terrorism as one o) goodversus evil also drew on assumptions o) benevolent !egemony . us! e0pected t!at t!e sel)5evidentlymoral basis o) t!e =g!t against al Vaeda would insulate t!e Enited States )rom any potential Guestions about t!e legitimacy o) its actions+ muc! as t!ebattle against Soviet totalitarianism !ad once done in many Guarters. *or a s!ort time a)ter September + t!at logic seemed to prevail broadly+ uniting

t!e world in swi)t approval )or t!e E.S.5led invasion o) A)g!anistan and ot!er aggressive steps to clamp down on global terrorism. ut w!ile t!e2-- terrorist attacs temporarily legitimi6ed an aggressive American )oreignpolicy+ t!ey also emboldened t!e conservative critiGue o) legitimacy itsel). @onservatives]suc! as Attorney eneral 3o!n As!cro)t and !is Deputy 3o!n 9oo]cra)ted arguments on t!e premise t!at to be constrained by internationally accepted legalconstructs a)ter t!e attacs would be to s!ort5c!ange E.S. security and abdicate AmericaHs natural rig!t to de)end itsel) as it saw =t. us! and !is

supporters summoned t!e visceral patriotism o) a wounded nation to argue t!at t!eEnited States must uns!acle itsel) )rom t!e constraints o) international rules t!atcould tie its !ands.T!e embrace o) t!e doctrine o) preemptive war in t!e 2--2 ational Security Strategy was a deliberate signal to t!eworld t!at t!e Enited States no longer saw itsel) constrained by norms o) legitimacy+ arrogating )or itsel) a unilateral rig!t wit! no articulated Lusti=cationas to w!y it alone was aut!ori6ed to preempt t!reats wit! )orce.` T!us t!e Administration approac!ed t!e 8raG conict wit! broad con=dence in t!eworldHs belie) in AmericaHs benevolent !egemony and a dismissive attitude toward t!e constraints o) legitimacy. Alt!oug! owell managed to convince t!eAdministration to mae a pitstop at t!e E Security @ouncil to see approval )or its planned invasion+ t!e E members!ip (and muc! o) t!e Americanpublic1 correctly suspected t!e decision !ad already been made. And indeed+ w!en t!e Security @ouncil baled at us!Hs case+ t!e Administration moved)orward anyway+ constrained by neit!er t!e !oles in its case )or intervention nor by t!e worldHs resistance. Was!ington was convinced t!at its rig!tness+even i) not rati=ed in advance+ would be revealed a)ter t!e )act.` ut instead t!e opposite !appened. As *rancis *uuyama describes in America at t!e

@rossroads+ it became apparent soon a)ter t!e invasion t!at benevolence would notcome to AmericaHs rescue. 8nstead o) welcoming American soldiers wit! sweets and owers+ 8raGi society e0ploded into a comple0civil war. E.S. )orces )ailed to =nd weapons o) mass destruction+ debasing t!e warHs central aim in bot! domestic and )oreign eyes. And !ig!5pro=le caseso) prisoner abuse and war crimes against civilians made a mocery o) us!Hs lo)ty vision o) bringing liberty and democracy to t!e Middle Cast. ot! at

7/25/2019 Court Drones A

Documents

Court Drones Affirmative - Michigan7 2015