Mexico Border Crossings Neg

huskyshiveringInternet and Web Development

Dec 11, 2013 (3 years and 10 months ago)

55 views

Mexico Border Crossings Neg



Topicality


1NC


NAD
B
ank (Extra
-
T)



A. Interpretation


“Mexico” means the United Mexican States

Treasury 12



United States Department of the Treasury, “Agreement Between the Department of the
Treasury of the United States of America and the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit of the United
Mexican States to Improve International Tax Compliance Including with

Respect to FATCA”, 11
-
19,
http://www.treasury.gov/resource
-
center/tax
-
policy/treaties/Documents/FATCA
-
Agreement
-
Mexico
-
11
-
19
-
2012.pdf


Article 1

Definitions

1. For purposes of this Agreement and any annexes thereto (“Agreement”),
the following terms shall

have the meanings set
forth below:

a) The term “United States” means the United States of America, including the States thereof; the term, however, does not inc
lude the U.S.
Territories. Any reference to a “State” of the United States includes the Distric
t of Columbia.

b) The term “U.S. Territory” means American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth o
f
Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.

c) The term “IRS” means the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

d)
The term “M
exico” means the United Mexican States.



B. Violation


NADbank
’s jurisdiction includes
area outside of Mexico

NADBank.org, ’12

(official website of the North American Development Bank, “Scope,”
http://www.nadbank.org/about/eligibility.asp, bgm)


Geograph
ic Jurisdiction


NADB is authorized to serve communities in the U.S.
-
Mexico border region,
which extends approximately 2,100 miles from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. Eligible projects
must be located within:
100 kilometers (about 62 miles) nort
h of the international boundary in the
four U.S. states of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas; or

300 kilometers (about 186 miles)
south of the border in the six Mexican states of Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León,
Sonora, and Tamau
lipas.
Projects beyond these areas may be eligible if they remedy a transboundary
environmental or health problem, as determined by the Board of Directors.



C. Standards

1. Ground


we can’t link to our best arguments if the money is spent in the United States. Kills DAs like
China SOI, politics, and diplomatic capital.

2. Gives them an unfair edge


they can read additional advantages based on building infrastructure
outs
ide

the
topic countries
.

3. Extra
-
T


this makes them extra
-
topical because they go beyond the scope of the resolution


this is
an independent reason to vote neg because the whole plan has to be topical and allows them to add
unpredictable plan to outweig
h our offense.


D. Topicality is a voting issue for fairness, education, and jurisdiction



Ext


Violation


NADBank just gave $500k to a town in Arizona

Nowlin 7/22/13
(Sanford Nowlin, reporter for the San Antonio Business Journal covering
energy/utilitie
s, transportation/aviation, and manufacturing, “NADB grant funding will expand water
service in Arizona,”
San Antonio Business Journal
, 7/22/13,
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/blog/2013/07/nadb
-
grant
-
funding
-
will
-
expand
-
water.html
,
Accessed 7/24/13, HN)


North American Development Bank has awarded $500,000 to

the city of
San Luis, Ariz., to boost the
capacity of its water system

so it can co
ver city demands
for the next 10 years.

San Luis will use the
funds to develop a new transmission main that connects two separate water systems.
During the
summer,
the city’s central system operates at maximum capacity

and is subject to low
-
pressure
events
.
Its East Mesa system
, on the other hand,
is underutilized and has available capacity.

“San Luis
is a fast developing city. Our population has doubled over the last ten years,” San Luis Mayor Gerardo
Sanchez says. “This water system interconnection will a
llow development in our core area to continue to
grow without water
-
related restrictions.”
San Antonio
-
based NADB made the grant through its
Community Assistance Program.



1NC


Substantial (Must Mandate)


A. Interpretation


“Substantial” requires a cert
ain mandate

Words and Phrases 64

(40W&P 759)


The words
" outward, open, actual, visible,
substantial
, and exclusive," in connection with a change of possession, mean substantially
the same thing. They
mean not concealed
; not hidden; exposed to view; free from concealment, dissimulation, reserve, or disguise; in
full existence;
denoting that which not merely can be, but is opposed to potential
,

apparent, constructive, and
imaginary; veritable; genuine;
certain
: absolute:
real

at

present

time
, as a matter of fact, not merely nominal; opposed to
form; actually existing; true; not including, admitting, or pertaining to any others; undivided; sole; opposed to inclusive.



B. Violation


the aff does not mandate that the
NADbank
spends any money

on
border infrastructure


C. Standards

1. Ground


we don’t get our best links to econ DAs, politics, etc. because there is no guarantee that any
money is spent

2. Limits


any aff that sets aside money vaguely related to one of t
he topic countries would be topical

3. Effects topicality


if they are topical, it is only by taking a number of untopical steps. Effects topicality
is a voting issue because it allows them to take unpredictable steps we don’t have evidence on and
mixes b
urdens with solvency.


D. Topicality is a voting issue for fairness, education, and jurisdiction.

Case


I
nherency

1. Aff doesn’t meet the burden of Inherency as a stock issue

Ziegelmueller, Kay, Dause 1997

George Ziegelmueller (Prof emeritus Communication,

Wayne State University) Jack Kay (Prof of
Communication Eastern Michigan University) Charles Dause (former Professor of Communication
University of Detroit) Argumentation, Inquiry and Advocacy, 1997 p. 174
-
175.

The advocate

attempting to establish

the bla
me or
inherency

issue
must

be prepared to
demonstrate
one or

more of the following conditions.

First, the advocate may identify structural inherency
.

In this
form of inherency, the advocate offers proof that
the structure of the present system perpetuate
s

certain ills

or

prevents the attainment of certain goals
,

thus demonstrating that the present system
cannot solve the ills or attain the goals.
Second,

the advocate may identify
attitudinal inherency
.

This
form of inherency admits
that the present syst
em has the capability to solve the ills, but claims that the
system will not do so because of a deeply rooted attitude.

Simple
opposition to an idea is not
necessarily attitudinal inherency

the attitude must be one that is not easily subject to change
. O
ften
deep
-
rooted attitudes result from a perverse motive such as bias or self
-
interest. For example,
advocates calling for the nationalization of the health care industry may argue that the reason the poor
are denied medical care is because doctors are gu
ided by perverse motive of greed.
Third,

the advocate
may identify
philosophical inherency
.

This form of inherency requires that
the
advocate identify the
overriding orientation of the existing system
. Very often the philosophical commitment of the
present
system admits that the ills could be solved, but claims that the ills should not be solved because greater
ills would result.


2. Inherency/stock issues are required in Advantage cases

Walton 01

Justin D. Walton, Assistant Professor of Communicatio
n at Cameron University “MAKING THE CASE” TIPS
FOR AFFIRMATIVE CASE CONSTRUCTION” NFL Rostrum Feb 2001
http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/WaltonFeb%2701.pdf

Comparative Advantage Cases. The
comparative advantage format retains

much of
the stock issue
-
dri
ven
arguments

in the traditional case structure, but puts emphasis on the advantages of the
affirmative policy (Pfau, Thomas, & Ulrich, 1987). After detailing the plan,
the affirmative team offers

a
number of
inherent advantages to the policy change
; these

benefits, it is argued, are comparatively
advantageous to other actions. Thus, the affirmative’s advantages exceed status quo measures and
outweigh any potential disadvantages (Freely, 1990). Debaters interested in stressing the utility of the
plan and/ o
r cost
-
benefit analysis of policy principles are advised to use this case type.



3.
Independent voting issue for two reasons:

a.

The aff doesn’t meet the minimum burden of proof

they are missing a stock issue

b.

Ground, education and clash

Trumble 2010


David J. Trumble, Saint Anselm College “The Return of Inherency: An Invitation for Relevance in Policy
Debate” National Forensic Association Journal Spring 2010
http://www.nationalforensics.org/journal/vol28no1
-
3.pdf If debaters are aware of inherency a
nd
insist on knowing the root causes of the problem, and are willing to use this knowledge to build their
negative strategies, then they will be able to develop sound plan attacks that are specific to the
affirmative policy.
Having a reasonable inherency

t
heory, as proposed here,
will

help
restore necessary
ground to negative debaters, increase the educational benefits

of the activity through
encouraging
more

debates filled with
clash

on substance, and encourage argumentation at its finest.




Solve
ncy Frontline


No solvency

Banks structure makes it inherently ineffective

Leising 2000

[Matt Leising

reporter for Bloomberg News

“EL PASO: NADBANK,” ,”
reporting on a trip
to Mexico in 2000
http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/border/elpasonadbank.html]


To date, NADBank has loaned only $11.2 million , or not even three percent of its total, to finance
water, wastewater and municipal solid waste projects along the border.

While the bank is

considered
by many of its creators and critics alike as a
groundbreaking and important institution because of its
joint US/Mexican structure,
its focus on sustainable development and its dedication to a 2,000
-
mile
-
long international border, there are many

problems
-

chief among them the way its interest rates are
structured
-

that have rendered it functionally incapable of loaning money to help communities

like
Anapra.



Multi
-
agency red tape means the plan takes years to solve

Vázquez and Villa, ’08

(Jorg
e Luís Leyva, Ph. D.
Servicio Nacional de Inocu
idad y Calidad Agroalimentaria
, SAGARPA

and Juan
Carlos, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System, “OPTIONS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION AT THE MEXICAN BORDER,”

Paper prepared for the FIFTH ANNUA
L NORTH AMERICAN AGRIFOOD MARKET INTEGRATION CONSORTIUM WORKSHOP,
http://naamic.tamu.edu/austin/villa.pdf, bgm)


The construction of additional international crossings requir
es presidential

permits, and the process
to obtain these permits is
lengthy (5 to
10 years). Adding

infrastructure also requires special permits
and involvement of multiple agencies in Mexico and the U.S.

The port of entry at Nogales recently
increased
capacity by adding

lanes and reconfiguring the port of entry. However, these changes
were
not sufficient to cope with peak season exports of fruits and vegetables.

At the Rio Grande
Valley
a
new

international bridge is under construction, but current plans only consider movement of
passenger vehicles through this new bridge

(Anzalduas). C
ombining changes in processes and adding
infras
tructure would provide the best

alternative to improve the border crossing process. The result will
be reduction in congestion and delay, and reduction in costs.



No solvency
-
bank not meant to succeed

only u
sed to buy votes to pass NAFTA

Leising
2000
[Matt Leising

reporter for Bloomberg News

“EL PASO: NADBANK,”
http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/border/elpasonadbank.html
]

,

reporting on a trip to Mexico in
2000


"The only way I was able to push that through was to get the Clinton Administration to agree that
they would take this North American Development Bank concept as a part of the negotiation," Torres
said.
Clinton
agreed to the idea, and
incorporated NADBank into the environmental side
-
agreement
to NAFTA. "They saw it as a trade
-
off for my vote," Torres recalled
.

In a political portent of things to
come
,
the commitment of $225 million of US taxpayer money for a sing
le Congressman's vote on
NAFTA drew a lot of criticism
.

In what the Washington Post called
the Clinton Administration's

"orgy
of deal
-
making" surrounding the
not
-
very
-
subtle vote buying to pass the treaty, Torres' NADBank deal
was singled out
in editorials

and news items across the country . Soon, cries of "nada bank" would
surface as
the bank got to a slow start and disappointed many in the region that saw the institution as
a panacea

-

or simply as a way to bring potable water and infrastructure to places

in need .



Mexico Relations Frontline


Alt cause
-

CIR

Bush et al 09

Jeb Bush and Thomas F. McLarty III, Chairs, Edward Alden, Project Director, Council on Foreign Relations, Independent
Task Force Report No. 63, U.S. Immigration Policy, online, jj


Imm
igration is the most important issue in one of America’s most important bilateral relationships,
with its Mexican neighbor
.
For that reason alone, the United States needs to take a renewed look at
the impact its immigration policies have beyond its borders
. For many in the United States, the immigration issue is
almost entirely about Mexico, and not without some reason.
Mexico is by far the largest source of immigrants to the
United States, both those who come legally and those who come illegally
, and it is

the transit country for many
immigrants from Central America, which is the second biggest source of undocumented migrants. About eleven million Mexicans r
epresent
more than 30 percent of the foreign
-
born population currently living in the United States. A
nd the numbers have grown steadily in recent
decades. As a share of Mexico’s national population, the number of Mexican immigrants living in the United States was just 1.
5 percent in 1970
but more than 10 percent in 2005.80 In 2007, Mexicans living abroad,

mostly in the United States, sent home approximately $24 billion in
remittances.81
The size of the migration flows from Mexico is enough to give it a central place in any
discussion of broader U.S. immigration policies.

Since the enactment of NAFTA in 199
4, the U.S. and Mexican economies have become ever more closely
linked; some 85 percent of Mexico’s exports come to the United States, and Mexico is the second largest
market for U.S. exports after Canada. American companies provide more than 60 percent of

all foreign
direct investment in Mexico, and bilateral trade has tripled in the last two decades. As a result of this
unique combination of large trade and migratory flows to the United

States,
Mexico has been most keenly and deeply affected by the
choices the United States has made
about immigration
. Conversely, the United States has most keenly and deeply felt the impact of Mexican policies that have contributed
to the vast northward migration, in particular that country’s failure to lift its econo
my fast enough to provide enough jobs for its citizens at
home.

Mexico
, along with Canada,
is

also
a vitally important part of U.S. homeland security policies aimed at
keeping terrorists from carrying out another successful attack in the United States
.
The

United States
and Mexico have cooperated closely in trying to make certain that terrorist groups do not use Mexico
as a transit route into this country
. Some of the efforts on this front have not received much public attention, yet both Mexico
and the Uni
ted States have clearly recognized their strong common interest in counterterrorism initiatives. The Mexican government is ac
utely
aware that, were there to be an attack in which terrorists used Mexico as a transit country to the United States, the inevita
ble U.S. reaction
would be enormously damaging to Mexico’s economy. The countries have also deepened their cooperation to deal with the huge an
d
persistent problem of illegal drugs, which has spawned deadly violence on the Mexican side of the border as war
ring drug cartels have found
themselves under greater pressure from the Mexican government. The administration of Mexican president Felipe Calderón has be
en willing to
work more closely with the United States, including military
-
to
-
military cooperation, th
an any previous Mexican government. The United States
in turn has pledged $1.4 billion in weapons and training under the Merida Initiative to help the Mexican government in its wa
r with the drug
cartels, though most of the promised assistance has yet to be

disbursed. The Obama administration recently announced significant new efforts
to stem the flow of cash and weapons from the United States to the cartels in Mexico, and has publicly acknowledged that the
United States
needs to step up efforts to reduce th
e demand for illegal drugs that is fueling the cartels.

The Task Force finds that Mexico represents a special case for U.S. immigration policy.
Because of the size of the cross
-
border
labor flows, its close economic integration with the United States, and
the implications for U.S.
homeland security, the U.S
-
Mexico relationship on migration issues is particularly important for
American foreign policy interests.


Trade Frontline


Mexico trade

sky

high now


aff isn’t key

NAFTA Works, ’13

(website run by Mexic
o’s Ministry of the Economy,
“US
-

Mexico Trade Reached New Highs,”
March, Volume 18,
Issue 3, http://www.naftamexico.net/wp
-
content/uploads/2013/03/mar13.pdf, bgm)


The trade relationship between Mexico and the

United States demonstrated another solid

p
erformance as products traded between both

countries set a new record at $494 billion in 2012.

This past year was also a success as bilateral

trade saw an increase of 7.1%, one of the highest

trade
growth rates among the U.S.’ largest trading

partners
.
Over the 19 years of NAFTA, trade

between
Mexico and the U.S. has sextupled,

growing 10% annually, a rate that exceeds that of

the U.S. trade
with the rest of the world (7%).
The

U.S.


Mexico trade is not only bigger than the

GDP of Belgium,
Poland

or Taiwan, but is also

highly integrated along a complex and dynamic

supply chain that
reflects the way products are

traded in the 21st century.

Since the enactment of NAFTA, Mexican
exports

to the U.S. have multiplied by seven, surpassing

$277 billion in 2012, which maintained
Mexico’s

position as the U.S.’ third largest supplier.

Mexico’s total exports to the U.S. far exceeded

the combined exports of Germany and the UK

($163 billion) in addition to combined amount

from
Japan, South Ko
rea, Taiwan, and

Singapore ($264 billion). That means that out of

every $100 dollars
the U.S. spends abroad, $12

(12.2%) is spent on Mexican goods. For

Mexico, the U.S. is by far its largest
export

market, accounting for more than three
-
quarters

(78%
) of its exports to the world, of which

includes a large amount of intermediate goods

for further processing.

Mexico has traditionally been a
leading export

market for products made in the United States.

However, since NAFTA, U.S. exports to
Mexico

h
ave notably accelerated.
In
2012, U.S. exports

to Mexico surpassed $216 billion, making

Mexico the second largest market for U.S.

products.
During this period, sales of U.S.

products to
Mexico increased by 420%; in

comparison U.S. total exports only g
rew by

232%, making Mexico one
of the most dynamic

markets for U.S. exports.

Last year, Mexico accounted

for 14% of all U.S. exports

worldwide, up from 8.9% in

1993.


In just one year,
from 2011

to 2012, U.S. exports to

Mexico
increased by $18

bil
lion. Thus, dollar for

dollar, the 2012 U.S. sales

growth to Mexico is greater

than
that of any other

market. Mexico also buys

more from the U.S. than the

combined purchases made

by China, India, Russia and

Brazil


the BRIC countries

($187 billio
n)
--
, the European Union’s four
largest economies
--

U.K., Germany, France, and Italy ($150 billion)
--
, and all the rest

of Latin
American countries and the Caribbean ($182 billion).

NAFTA has encouraged U.S. companies to take
advantage of the

complementary resources of both economies by making Mexico

an important partner
to do business with.





Racism K


Shell

Link


The plan leads to xeno
-
racist profiling through increased focus on terrorism
from decreased border congestion

Fekete 04

(Liz,
deputy director of the Institute of Race Relations and senior researcher on

the IRR’s European Race Audit. “Anti
-
Muslim racism and the European security state”.
http://www.soc.iastat
e.edu/soc529a/PDF%20files/Fekete.pdf
) Cass

Europe is, we have been warned, facing a ‘global threat’, posed, post
-


September 11, by ‘Islamic extremism’. In a speech to his
Sedgefield constituency,
Prime Minister Blair spoke in apocalyptic tones

of a


threa
t that is ‘real and
existential’
;
that needs to be fought ‘whatever


the political cost’
.1
Yet

the threat to our ‘values’
, to
nations that are


‘free, democratic and benefiting from economic progress’,
comes not


just from

Blair’s
many
-
headed monster of ‘
international terrorism’
,


but from

a domestic peril of Europe’s own making
.

And,
arguably,
it


will have longer
-
lasting results and inflict greater damage on European


civil society
,
traditional
values and way of life
than any external

danger
.


It derives

from the very way that that danger is conceived
and
, hence,


the measures taken to counter it.
It

is

inherent

in

the

counter
-
terrorism


measures

the EU has

adopted

since

September

11
,
which extend the


definition of terrorism, as it is in the emergency la
ws passed by


member states which
undermine the fundamentals of justice. It marks


the first stages in Europe’s assumption of a fundamentally different


authoritarian paradigm
of the state.
It is based on a concept of national


security that is shot through with xeno
-
racism



which is the
precise


term Sivanandan uses to describe
the

new

racism

that

has

emerged


across

Europe

over

the

last

ten

years

and is directed at those who,


displaced and dispossessed by globalisation, are b
eing thrown up on


Europe’s shores.2
It is xeno
in form in that it is directed against


foreigners irrespective of colour
; it is racism in substance in that it


bears all the
hallmarks of demonisation and exclusion of the old


racism


and the mechanisms t
hat set that foreign
-
ness in situ are legal


and structural and
institutional.


What appears to have happened post
-
September 11, though, is that


the parameters of that
institutionalised xeno
-
racism


anti
-
foreignness




have been expanded to include minor
ity ethnic
communities that have


been settled in Europe for decades


simply because they are Muslim.


Since
Islam now represents ‘threat’ to Europe, its
Muslim residents
,


even though they are citizens, even though they may
be European


born,
are caught
up in the ever
-
expanding loop of xeno
-
racism
.

They


do not merely threaten Europe as
the ‘enemy within’ in the war on


terror, their adherence to Islamic norms and values threatens the


notion of Europeanness itself
.
Under
the guise of patriotism, a wholes
ale


anti
-
Islamic racism has been unleashed which itself threatens to


destroy the fabric of the multicultural society.



Impacts:

Racism is the root cause of civil and international conflict.

Pillay ’12
Navanethem Pillay

is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. EAT IT.


“Leaving prejudice and racism to simmer on the
back burner creates a real risk of conflict erupting”
-

Pillay Statement by the High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay on the
International Day
for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination”


United Nations Human Rights − 20 March 2012 −
http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=1
1984&LangID=E



Accessed 7/18/13 − IS

The

relationship

between

racism

and

conflict

is

a

deep
-
rooted,

well
-
established

one
.

A
number of studies have shown that one of the earliest indicators of potential violence is the chronic
disregard of minority rights.

One survey by an international non
-
governmental organization indicated that
more than 55 per
cent of violent conflicts

of a significant intensity between 2007 and 2009
had violations of minority rights or tensions
between communities at their core.

Last y
ear alone, we saw many terrible examples of ethnic violence
in the midst of several conflicts in a number of countries around the world.

Last week, on a visit to Guatemala, I
saw for myself the tragic and longstanding consequences of historical practices o
f racism against indigenous peoples and Afro
-
descendants.
Guatemala is still addressing the legacy of 36 years of armed conflict. Prevention of such conflict is clearly more desirable

than later attempts to
douse the flames and begin difficult processes of

rebuilding, reconciliation and justice


not to mention the human and social costs. But
the

problem

is

that

the

earliest

warnings

of

prejudice

and

discord

are

so

often

ignored
, and it is only
when the later, more sinister signs begin to emerge that the St
ate and the international community
react.

Twenty years ago, the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minoriti
es
recognized clearly the link between political and social stability and the promotion
and protection of the rights of national, ethnic, religious and
linguistic minorities. States also recognized in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action that
racism

and

racial

discrimination

are

among

the

root

causes

of

many

internal

and

internation
al

conflicts
.

A look through
the early warning files and reports of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is a
tragic reading of the kinds of conflicts that could have been prevented had those early warnings been
heeded.

On this Interna
tional Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, I call on States to heed the early warnings of prejudice,
stereotypes, ignorance and xenophobia. I call on them to address, urgently, the marginalization and exclusion of individuals
belonging to
cer
tain communities from political and economic decision
-
making. I call for a process of consultation and constant dialogue with all sectors of
society, a redoubling of efforts to ensure that access to jobs, to land, to political and economic rights is not co
ntingent on one’s colour, ethnic,
national or racial background, and that development projects do not disproportionately disadvantage a particular community. T
hese are not
new obligations on governments, but have long been part of the universally agreed hu
man rights commitments made by States
.

Leaving

the

dangerous

societal

problems

of

prejudice

and

racism

to

simmer

on

the

back

burner

creates

a

real

risk

of

explosive

conflicts

erupting,

years

or

decades

later
.

Racism and prejudice can provide, propel
and pe
rpetuate the narratives that create and sustain conflict


whether in the developed or
developing world.

Let us not wait until grievances turn to violence or prejudice turns to genocide before we take action.


Profiling creates a self
-
fulfilling prophecy


turns case

Beck 02

(Ulrich, Professor of Sociology at the University of Munich and British

Journal of Sociology Visiting Centennial Professor at the London School of

Economics and Political Science. Theory Culture Society 19; 39.
http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/19/4/39.abstract
) Cass

The main question is:
who defines the identity of a

‘transnational


terrorist’
?

Neither judges, nor international
courts, but
powerful governments and states
. They
empower themselves by defining who is their
terrorist


enemy
,

their bin Laden. The fundamental distinctions between war and peace, attack and self
-
defence collapse.
Terrorist
enemy images are deterritorialized,

de
-
nationalized and
flexible state c
onstructions that legitimize


the
global intervention of military powers as ‘self
-
defence’
. President
George


W. Bush painted a frightening
picture of ‘tens of thousands’ of al
-
Qaida

trained


terrorists ‘in at least a dozen countries’.

Bush uses the
most e
xpansive interpretation: ‘They are to be destroyed.’
Bush’s
alarmism has a paradoxical effect: it gives Islamic

terrorists what they want most


a recognition of their power
. Bush has encouraged the terrorists to
believe that


the United States really ca
n be badly hurt by terrorist actions like these. So


there is

a
hidden mutual enforcement between

Bush’s empowerment and

the


empowerment of the

terrorists
.


US intelligence agencies are increasingly concerned that future


attempts by terrorists to attack
the
United States may involve Asian or


African al
-
Qaida members
, a tactic intended to elude the racial profiles developed
by US security personnel. Thus
the internal law enforcement

and the external counter
-
threat of US intervention not only
focus
on

Ar
ab faces, but possibly on
Indonesian, Filipino, Malaysian or African faces. In order


to broaden terrorist
enemy images,
which, to a large extent, are a one
-
sided construction of the powerful US state, expanded parameters are being
developed so as to in
clude networks and individuals who may be connected to Asian and African terrorist organizations.
This way,
Washington constructs the threat as immense
. Bush insists that permanent mobilization of the


American nation is required,

that the military budge
t be vastly increased, that civil liberties be restricted and that critics be chided
as unpatriotic. So there is another difference:
the pluralization of experts and expert


rationalities,

which characterizes
ecological and financial risks,
is then


repl
aced by the gross simplification of enemy images, constructed by
governments


and intelligence agencies

without and
beyond
public discourse and
democratic participation.

So
there are huge differences between the external risks of ecological conflicts
, the internal risks of financial conflicts and the intentional terrorist
threat. Another big difference is the speed of acknowledgement. Global environmental and financial risks are still not truly

recognized. But
with the


horrific images of New York a
nd Washington, terrorist groups instantly


established
themselves as new global players competing with nations,

the economy and civil society in the eyes of the world.
The
terrorist threat, of


course, is reproduced by the global media.

To summarize the
specific characteristics of terrorist
threat: (bad) intention replaces accident, active trust becomes active mistrust, the context of individual risk is replaced

by the context of
systemic risks, private insurance is (partly) replaced by state insurance
, the power of definition of experts has been replaced by that of states
and intelligence agencies; and the pluralization of expert rationalities has turned into the simplification of enemy images
.1 Having outlined
their differences, it should be no su
rprise that the three kinds of global risk, that is ecological, financial and terrorist threat, also interact. And
terrorism again is the focal point. On the one hand,
the


dangers from terrorism increase exponentially with technical
progress.


Advances
in financial and communication technology are what made global


terrorism
possible in the first place. And the same innovations that have


individualized financial risks have also
individualized war.

But the most horrifying connection is that
all the risk

conflicts that are


stored away as
potential could now be intentionally unleashed. Every advance from gene technology to
nanotechnology opens a ‘Pandora’s box’


that could be used as a terrorist’s toolkit.

Thus
the terrorist
threat has made everyone into

a disaster

movie scriptwriter
,
now
condemned to imagine the effects
of a home
-
made atomic bomb

assembled with the help of gene or nanotechnology;
or the collapse of global
computer networks

by the introduction


of squads of viruses and so on.


ALT: Reje
ct the A
FFs racist representation of terrorism.

We have a moral imperative to
reject each instance of racism and racial discrimination.

Ateek ’07
Naim Ateek has Ph.D from San Francisco Theological Seminary. He has also received honorary Doctors of Divinity

from the
Church Divinity School of the Pacific, Berkeley, California and the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts


“The moral
imperative of confronting and dismantling Apartheid
-
like policies in Israel
-
Palestine”


Friends of Sabeel: Nor
th America − October 27, 2007 −
http://www.fosna.org/content/moral
-
imperative
-
confronting
-
and
-
dismantling
-
apartheid
-
policies
-
israel
-
palestine − Accessed 7/18/13

− IS

We have a(n)
faith
imperative

to

struggle

against

any

form

of

racism.

It is not only a moral
imperative. It is equally a
theological and

spiritual imperative
.

In our own context of life, we need to confront and do
everything we can to dismantle the Israeli
-
form of apartheid. What are some of the basic tenets of this faith imperative? We are all equally
created by God and in the image of God. Any racism is an in
sult to God the loving creator.
We are all human beings. Any time
we classify people on the scale of more human and less human it is a violation of the equal human
rights to which we are all entitled.

Any time, our sacred books imply that discrimination or

racist attitudes are attributed to God,
such texts must be condemned and rejected. They reflect human writing and prejudice and cannot be attributed to God. We do no
t believe in a
racist God. We do not believe in a God who favors one people over another.
Such a theology might reflect one stage in the development of a
primitive human theology of God. For us Christians, it cannot reflect a theology of God whom we have come to know in Jesus Ch
rist. The God
we believe in is a God who loves all people unconditi
onally. Our worst forms of racism are due to a bad theology of God, to a narrow
interpretation of our sacred texts. We need an inclusive theology of God that can help us interpret our holy books in an incl
usive way.
We

need

to

reject

the violence of god tr
adition and the
racism

of god tradition in the Bible.
Any

form

of

racism

is

evil and
we have a
God
-
given

mandate to struggle against evil in our world today
.

These four
foundational moral

and
theological
tenets must help us to
champion

the

rights

and

digni
ty

of

all

people

and furnish us with
the imperative to work against all forms of racism and discrimination.




Addon Impact


Gov’t surveillance
doesn’t solve terrorism − it only allows more gov’t oppression

Adam

Geller 6/8/13

National Writer
at
Associated Press
, card is referencing experts
http://bigstory.a
p.org/article/nsa
-
revelations
-
force
-
question
-
what
-
do
-
we
-
want accessed 7/24/13

AP

Americans may have largely accepted the idea of sharing personal information with businesses or in
open forums

as the necessary tradeoff for the use of new technologies.

But t
hey have done so without stopping to
consider what those businesses are doing with it or how police or security officials might tap into it.
"We've allowed surveillance of all kinds to be normalized, domesticated, such that we frequently fail
to tell the d
ifference between harmful and helpful surveillance," said

David Lyon,
director of the
Surveillance Studies Centre at Queen's University in Kingston,

Ontario. "And
we assume all too easily
that if it's high tech, it's better.
"

In interviews in recent days,
many people described a growing sense
of unease about the trade
-
offs between privacy, technology and the desire for safety
.

In Chicago, Joey
Leonard, a clerk at the Board of Trade,
sat outside at lunch hour checking apps on his smart phone and rumin
ated about the government's
actions. Leonard, a recent college graduate, noted that he was just 11 at the time of the 2001 terrorist attacks. He approved

of the heightened
security measures to prevent a recurrence. But he said
it has also becomes clear tha
t
terrorists

will act even if the
government is watching, raising questions about the tradeoffs. "Society is changing and technology is
changing. I understand there are threats but I do think this is a little too much
,"
Leonard said
. "
The
government is trying to control everything. I feel like I'm being watched 24/7. ... It's like they're trying
to get their fingers in every aspect of your life and I don't think it's helping
. "

The terminal impact of statism is individual and collective

extinction.

Beres, 99

( Louis, professor of political science and international law at Purdue, “Death, The herd, and human survival”, September 199
9,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20753213)


Perhaps, over time, humankind will envisage the eternal and detac
h its affections from the world of
flux
,

but that time is far in the future.
For now, we must rely on something else, something far less awesome and
far more mundane. We must rely on an expanding awareness that
states in general, and the U
nited
S
tates
in p
articular
,
are

not the Hegelian "march of God in the world,55 but
the vicars of

annihilation

and that
the triumph of the herd in world politics can only hasten the prospect of

individual death
.
This,
then, is an altogether differ ent kind of understanding
.

Rather than rescue American foreign policy by freeing the citizenry
from fear of death, it recommends educating this populace to the truth of an incontestable
relationship between death and geopolitics.
By surrendering ourselves to states, we

en courage n
ot
immortality but extinction
.

It is a relationship that can be more widely understood. There are great ironies involved.
Although the

corrosive
calculus of geo politics has now made possible the deliberate killing of all

life, populations

all over the pla
net
turn increasingly to states for security
. It is
the dreadfiil in

genuity of states

that
makes possible death in the millions, but it is in
the expressions of
that

ingenuity that people seek
safety
. Indeed,
as the threat of nuclear annihilation looms

ever
larger
,
the citizens of nuclear states
reaffirm their

segmented

loyalties,
moved by the persistent unreason that is, after all, the most
indelible badge of humankind. It follows from this that increasing

human uncertainty brought about
by an unpreced
ented vulnerability to disappearance is likely to undermine rather than support the
education we require.

Curiously, therefore, before we can implement such education we will need to reduce the perceived threat of We must rely on
an expanding awareness tha
t states in general, and the United States in particular, are not the Hegelian "march of God in the world," but the vicars of

anni hilation
and that the triumph of the herd in world politics can only hasten the pros pect of individual death. 18 INTERNATION
AL JOURNAL ON WORLD PEACE VOL. XVI NO. 3
SEPTEMBER 1999 DEATH, THE HERD AND HUMAN SURVIVAL nuclear war and enlarge the belief that nuclear stability (as a short
-
term objective) is within our grasp.
To make this possible we must continue to make progress on

the usual and mainstream arms control
measures and on the associated strategies of international cooperation and reconciliation.


Extensions to Addon

Now is key to redraw the lines on security
-

The gov’t manipulates the public’s fear of
terrorism and uses

it to justify invasions of privacy and suppressions of individual
freedoms progressively turning America into an Orwellian society

Adam

Geller 6/8/13

National Writer
at
Associated Press
, card is referencing experts
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nsa
-
revelations
-
force
-
question
-
what
-
do
-
we
-
want accessed 7/24/13

AP

NEW YORK (AP)


For more than a decade now, Americans have made peace with the uneasy knowledge that someone


government,
business or both


might be watching. We knew that the technology was there. We knew that the law might allow it. As we stood unde
r a
security camera at a street corner, connected with friends online or talked on a smartphone equipped with GPS,
we knew
,

too,

it was
conceivable that we might be monitored
.
Now, though, paranoid fantasies have come face to face
with modern reality
:
The
government IS collecting our phone records
.
The technological marvels of our age have
opened the door to the National Security Agency's sweeping surveillance of Americans' calls.

Torn between our desires for
privacy and protection, we're now forced to deci
de what we really want.

"
We are living in an age of
surveillance
,"
said Neil Richards, a professor at Washington University's School of Law in St. Louis who studies privacy law and civil
liberties
. "
There's much more watching and much more monitoring, and
I think we have a series of
important choices to make as a society


about how much watching we want
. “
But the only way to
make those choices meaningful
, he
and others said
,
is to lift the secrecy shrouding the watchers
. "
I don't
think that people routinel
y accept the idea that government should be able to do what it wants to
do
,"
said

Marc Rotenberg
,
president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "It's not just about
privacy. It's about responsibili
ty

...
and you only get to evaluate that when gov
ernment is more public about its conduct. "
The
NSA
,
officials acknowledged this week,

has been collecting phone records of hundreds of millions of U.S. phone
customers.

In another program, it collects

audio, video, email, photographic and Internet search
usage of
foreign nationals oversea
s

who use any of the nine major Internet providers, including Microsoft,
Google, Apple and Yahoo.
In interviews across the country in recent days,

Americans said they were startled by the
NSA's actions
.
Abraham Ismail, a 2
5
-
year
-
old software designer taking advantage of the free Wi
-
Fi outside a Starbucks in Raleigh, N.C.,
said in retrospect
,
fears had prompted Americans to give up too much privacy
.

"
It shouldn't be so just effortless," he
said, snapping his fingers for emph
asis, "to pull people's information and get court orders to be able to database every single call, email. I mean,
it's crazy. "The clash between security and privacy is far from new. In 1878, it played out in a court battle over whether go
vernment official
s
could open letters sent through the mail. In 1967, lines were drawn over government wiretapping.

Government used surveillance
to ferret out Communists

during the 1950s
and to spy on Martin Luther King and other civil rights
leaders

during the 1960s. But
in earlier times, courts, lawmakers and the public eventually demanded
curbs on such watching. Those efforts didn't stop improper government monitoring,

but they restrained it,
said Christian Parenti, author of "The Soft Cage: Surveillance in America from
Slavery to the War on Terror
. “
The difference now
, he
and other experts say,
is that enormous advances in personal technology and the public's broad
tolerance of monitoring because of shifting attitudes about terrorism

and online privacy

have given
governm
ent

and private companies

significantly more power


and leeway


to monitor individual
behavior. The tolerance of government monitoring stems in large part from the wave of fear that
swept the country after the 2001 attacks
,

when Americans granted officia
ls broad new powers under the PATRIOT Act. But
those attitudes are nuanced and shifting
.
In a 2011 poll by The Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public
Affairs Research, 54 percent of those surveyed felt protecting citizens' rights and freedoms shou
ld be
a higher priority for the government than keeping people safe from terrorists
.

At the same time, 64 percent said
it was sometimes necessary to sacrifice some rights and freedoms to fight terrorism. "Whenever something like 9/11 happens, i
t does tend
to
cause people to change their minds," Richards said. "But I think what's interesting is it has to be a long
-
term conversation
.
We can't,
whenever we're scared, change the rules forever.

"But up
until now, there's been only limited debate
about where and
how to redraw the lines on surveillance
.

At the same time, explosive growth in social networking,
online commerce, smart
-
phone technology, and data harvesting for targeted marketing have introduced many Americans to all sorts of rich
new experiences and co
nveniences
.
People have become enamored with the newest technology and media
without giving hard thought to the risks or tradeoffs
, experts say.
"This ... has really dulled our sense
of what privacy is, why it's important
,"
Parenti said. "The fact of the m
atter is that millions of people are actively participating in
keeping dossiers on themselves."It can, at first glance, seem a leap to draw a line between the way we share our private live
s on Facebook or
our search habits with Google and concerns about go
vernment surveillance. But

surrendering privacy
,
whether to business or
government
,
fundamentally shifts the balance of power from the watched to the watchers,

experts say.

Statism destroys individual rights.

Dick ’08

(John Dick, Writer about Capitalism and Statism, October 12, 2008, http://capitalism
-
vs
-
statism.blogspot.com/2008/10/14
-
title.html)

Statism encourages

and promotes those
irrational self
-
interests, decisions, and actions



in conjunction with
destructive,
collective societal
-
public
-
political interests forced by the government


that do violate and infringe upon

the
individual and economic freedom of any and all individuals and businesses
.
Statism

encourages and
promotes

those irrational self
-
interests that
show
no recognition of, no regard for, no respect for
,
and
no protection of the freedom and rights of individuals and businesses
.


Statism also encourages, promotes, and
forces: DUTY (see Emmanuel Kant), meaning that the individual must sacrifice and give
himself/herself


meaning their life, their work, and
their freedom


totally and completely to the preservation and maintenance of the state, meaning the nation, the government, the society,
the community, the ruling group, the religion, the national cult
ure, the environment, “mother” earth or nature, the mob, etc.
In this
vain, Statism also encourages one to “feel” guilty (Statism encourages guilt) for pursuing one’s own
rational self
-
interests, in both individual and business matters
. Self
-
sacrifice by a
nd of the individual (altruism) is the
necessary and required practice to ensure the preservation and survival of Statism
.


In order for Statism to function and
exist, a statist government

(or ruling group)
must

deceptively
persuade and then

ultimately
for
ce the
citizenry, including business, to accept the idea

that an individual’s life and work belongs to the state
,
and that the citizen’s (the individual’s) and the business’ duty is solely to the state (government or ruling group) and its
benefit
-

to sacr
ifice
themselves, their lives, their work, and their freedom to the function, preservation, and survival of that statist system and

its government,
meaning the statist government’s total political structure
-

its politicians, its officials, its directors,
its employees, its policies, programs,
projects, departments, agencies, divisions, etc. (whether they are needed or not), including all the crony capitalists, their

businesses, and
associated practices that come into
existence due to the interference, mani
pulation, restriction, regulation, mandating, and control of the
economy by the statist
-
oriented government.


Statism encourages
and promotes

those
irrational, self
-
serving social
-
political ideas, agenda
, policies
, programs, projects, and interests
-

both of individual and/or of group
orientation
-

that violate, control
, and destroy individual and economic freedom and choice, and that

also
violate, control, and destroy individual rights, property rights, and
deriva
tive

freedoms,
and do so
because
such irrational,

self
-
serving social
-
political ideas, agenda, policies, programs, projects, and
interests usually end up having to be implemented through government force and control over the
citizenry and economy
.


Statism

encourages and promotes irrational, destructive, collective, and
forceful societal
-
public
-
political interests

that are both dependent and parasitic upon all individuals and businesses of a
society, either
through some form of taxation, regulation, and con
trol
.


Statism eliminates all value to life

Beres, 99

Louis Beres, professor of political science and international law at Purdue, “Death, The herd, and human
survival”, International Journal of World Peace vol 16 no. 3 September 1999,
http://www.jstor.org
/stable/20753213)

Today the state assumes its own rationale. Holding its will as preeminent, it has become
intent upon sacrificing private interests and personal life at the altar of global competition.

A new
god, the state is now a providence of which eve
rything is accepted and nothing expected.
The fact that
it is prepared to become an executioner state is not hard to reconcile with its commitment to
"Goodness,53 as war can be a legitimate expression of the sacred.

The problem of the omnivorous state,
subordinating all individual sensibilities to the idea of
unlimited internal and external jurisdiction
, was foreseen brilliantly in the 1930s by Jose Ortega y
Gasset. In his The Revolt of the Masses, Ortega correctly identifies
the state as "the greatest d
anger,55
mustering its immense and unassailable resources "to crush beneath it any creative minority which
disturbs it disturbs it in any order of things: in politics, in ideas, in industry.
55 Set in motion by
individuals whom it has already rendered anony
mous,
the state establishes its machinery above society
so that humankind comes to live for the state, for the governmental apparatus
:

And as, after all, it is only a machine whose existence and maintenance depend on the vital
supports around it,
the St
ate, after sucking out the very marrow of society, will be left bloodless, a
skeleton, dead with that rusty death of machinery, more gruesome than the death of a living
organism
.


Impact Extensions

Racism breeds war and repression.

Baroud ‘07

Ramzy Baroud is an Al
-
Jazeera editor and teaches Mass Communication at Australia's Curtin University of Technology. He is Editor
-
in
-
Chief of
the Palestine Chronicle. Also Noam Chomsky commended him.


“Racism and War” − Global Research − Septemb
er 22, 2007 −
http://www.globalresearch.ca/racism
-
and
-
war/6846 − Accessed 7/18/13

− IS

Racism is, among many things, convenient. It provides simplified, definite and
ready
-
to
-
serve
answers to complex and compounded questions.
Racists
, in turn,
come from all walks of life
; their
motivation and the root causes behind their contemptible views of others may differ,
but the outcome

of these views
is predictably the same



r
acial

discrimination,

social

and

political

oppression,

religious

persecution

and

war.

The textual definition of racism pertains only to race, but in practice
racism is

a
consequence of groupthink
,
whereby a group of people decides to designate itself as a
collective

and
starts delineating its relationship with other collectives


or other people in general


with a sense of
supremacy. When coupled with economic and/or political dominance, supremacy translates into

various forms of
subjugation

and

cruelty.


Racism must be rejected in every instance


necessary to avert violence and ultimately
destruction
.

Memmi 2000

Albert, Professor Emeritus of Sociology Qa U of Pans,
Naiteire Racism,
Translated

by Steve Martinot, 163
-
165

The struggle against racism will be
long, difficult, without intermission, without remission
,

probably
never achieved.
Yet for this very reason.
it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without

concessionss One cannot be indulgent toward racjsm; one must not
even
let the monste
r in the house,
especially not in a mask. To
give

it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial

pan
in us

and in
other people,
which is to diminish what is human
.

To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice and
v
iolence. it is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider

will always be a possible victim (and which
(person) man is not [themself) himself an outsider relative to someone else?).
Racism
illustrates

in sum, the inevitable negativity of
the condition of the dominated
; that is, it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human conditions
The
anti
-
racist struggle,

difficult though it
is.

and always in question. is nevertheless one of the
prologues

to
the ultjmate passage from animality to humanity
. In that sense,
we cannot fail to rise to the racist
challenge.

However. it remains true that one's moral conduct only emerges from a choice; one has to
want its it is a choice among other choice
s, and always debatable in its foundations and its
consequences. Let us

say.
broadly speaking, that the choke to conduct oneself morally is the condition for
the establishment of a human order, for which racism is the very negations

This is almost a redund
ancy. One cannot
found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on racism, because racism signifies the exclusion of the other and his or

her subjection to violence and
domination.
From an ethical point of view if one can deploy a little religious lan
guage, racism is "the truly
capital sin."fn22

it is not an accident that almost all of humanity's spiritual traditions counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, o
r strangerss it is
not just a question of theoretical counsel respect for the weak, '
for orphans, widows, or strangers. it is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested
commandmentss Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments.
All things considered,
we have an
interest in

banishing iniustice. because injustice engenders violence and death
.
Of course this is debatable.

There
are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and
ors of is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining
the strongest. One str
ongest. One da
the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its
own death.

It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. "Recall," says the Bible, 'that you
were once a strang
er in
Egypt," which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becomi
ng once again someday. It is an
ethical and a practical appeal
--
indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. in sh
ort
the refusal of racism is the condition for all
theoretical and practical morality
. Because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice
a just society must be a society accepted by alls
if
this

contractual

principle is not accepted, th
en only
conflict, violence, and destruction will be our

lot. if it is accepted we can hope someday to live in peace
True. it is a waiter, but the stakes are irresistible.


Ext


Plan Racist




Plan is inherently racist


caused by increased terrorist focus

Hathaway
04

(Robert M., director of the Asia Program at the Woodrow Wilson

International Center for Scholars. “ISLAMIZATION AND THE

PAKISTANI ECONOMY”. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
http://www.chicagobooth.edu/alumni/clubs/pakistan/docs/Islamizationandpakistanieconomy
-
2004
-
woodrowwilsoncenter.pdf
) Cass

In t
he aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade


Center and the Pentagon and the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq,
it is


more important than ever that Americans develop a more

nuanced


understanding of Islam

and the Islamic world
. Notwithst
anding its enormous


power
, the U
nited
S
tates
can no longer afford to remain
uninformed


about the people, culture, and values of the countries where Islam


exerts a
predominant influence.
Thinking in stereotypes or blindly

lumping


all Muslims into one
-
si
ze
-
fits
-
all
mental categories will not help win


the war on

terrorism
. More broadly,
fostering an undifferentiated
image of


Islam and the nations where Islam

prevails is counterproductive to the


achievement of a
range of important U.S. interests
, and vio
lates American


values of inclusiveness and fair
-
mindedness.


AT: Deon bad

Consider d
eontological principles of rights first


other interpretations are assigned no
moral value if conflicting with the principles of rights because viewing the debate from
a
deontological perspective is the only way to guarantee freedom

Freeman 94

Avalon Professor in the Humanities at the University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. Harvard University, J.D. University of North
Carolina (Samuel, “Utilitarianism, Deontology, and the Priori
ty of Right,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 4, Autumn, pp. 313
-
349,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265463)

The priority of right asserts then that the reasons supplied by moral motives
-
principles of right
and their institutional
requirements
-
have absolute precedence over all other considerations
.

As such,
moral motives must occupy a separate dimension in practical reasoning.
Suppose

then a supplementary stage of practical reasoning,
where the interests and pursuits that figure int
o ordinary deliberation and

which define
our conception of
the good are checked against principles of right and justice. At this stage of reasoning, any ends that
directly conflict with these moral principles (e.g., racist ends or the wish to dominate othe
rs
), or whose
pursuit would undermine the efficacy of principles of right (e.g., desires for unlimited accumulation of wealth whatever the
consequences for
others),
are assigned no moral value, no matter how intensely felt or important they may otherwise b
e.

Being without moral value, they count for nothing in deliberation.
Consequently, their pursuit is prohibited or curtailed
by the priority given to principles of right.

The priority of right then describes the hierarchical subordination in practical
deli
beration of the desires, interests, and plans that define a person's rational good, to the substantive demands of principles
of right.32
Purposes and pursuits that are incompatible with these principles must be abandoned or revised. The same idea carries t
hrough to social and
political deliberations on the general good. In political deliberative procedures, the priority of right means that desires a
nd interests of
individuals or groups that conflict with the institutional requirements of principles of right

and justice have no legitimate claim to satisfaction,
no matter how intense peoples' feelings or how large the majority sharing these aims. Constitutional restrictions on majority

rule exhibit the
priority of right. In democratic procedures, majorities ca
nnot violate constitutional rights and procedures to promote, say, the Christian religion,
or any other aspect of their good that undermines others' basic rights and opportunities. Similarly, the institutional requir
ements of Rawls's
difference principle l
imit, for example, property owners' desires for tax exemptions for capital gains, and the just savings principle limits curre
nt
majorities' wishes to deplete natural resources. These desires are curtailed in political contexts, no matter how intense or
wid
ely held, because
of the priority of principles of right over individual and general good.33 The priority of right enables Rawls to define a no
tion of admissible
conceptions of the good: of those desires, interests and plans of life that may legitimately b
e pursued for political purposes.
Only
admissible conceptions of the good establish a basis for legitimate claims in political procedures

(cf. TJ,
p. 449).
That certain desires and pursuits are permissible, and political claims based on them are
legitimate
, while others are not, presupposes antecedently established principles of right and justice
.

Racist conceptions of the good are not politically admissible; actions done in their pursuit are either prohibited or discour
aged by a just social
scheme, and the
y provide no basis for legitimate claims in political procedures. Excellences such as knowledge, creativity, and aesthetic
contemplation are permissible ends for individuals so long as they are pursued in accordance with the constraints of principl
es of ri
ght. Suppose
these perfectionist principles state intrinsic values that it is the duty of everyone to pursue. (Rawls leaves this question
open. cf. TJ, p. 328.)
Still, they cannot supply a basis for legitimate political claims and expectations; they cannot

be
appealed to in political contexts to justify limiting others' freedom, or even the coercive redistribution
of income and wealth

(cf. TJ, pp. 331
-
32). This is because of the priority of right over the good. Now return to Kymlicka's argument.
Kymlicka sa
ys both Rawls and utilitarians agree on the premise of giving equal consideration to everyone's interests, and that because
utilitarians afford equal consideration, "they must recognize, rather than deny, that individuals are distinct persons with t
heir ow
n rightful
claims. That is, in Rawls's classification, a position that affirms the priority of the right over the good" (LCC, p. 26). Si
nce "Rawls treats the right
as a spelling
-
out of the requirement that each person's good be given equal consideration,"
there is no debate between Rawls and utilitarians
over the priority of the right or the good (LCC, p. 40).


Deontology achieves the same result as utilitarianism without compromising the
individual

Schroeder 86

Professor of Law at Duke (Christopher H., “R
ights Against Risks,”, April, Columbia Law Review, pp. 495
-
562,
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1122636)

The rights tradition and utilitarianism, the two grand opponents in American jurisprudence, clash on many different issues an
d
fronts.235 There are, however,

many ways to classify ethical theories, and in one crucial respect these two belong together. They seek the
same kind of answer to the question of conflicting values. For its part, utilitarianism aspires to clear and unique answers f
or every question of
p
ublic choice. If only we can determine the various utility functions of individuals affected by those decisions
-
a heroic assumption
-
the
absolutely correct action will be known
.
Utilitarianism employs a method for producing that absolute answer that
threate
ns to obliterate the individual, and hence rights theories reject that method. In affirming the
primacy of the individual
,

however,
those theories do not abandon utilitarianism's ultimate objective to
identify absolutes
-
clear and definite answers
-
to guide
social choice or to determine the constraints of
justice.
In this respect, such theories still live in utilitarianism's shadow.

Deontology outweighs nuclear extinction


maintaining proper moral values is the
only way to obtain a free society

Shue 89 (
Hen
ry, Professor of Ethics and Public Life, Princeton University, “Nuclear Deterrence and
Moral Restraint, pp. 134
-
5)


But is it realistic to suppose that American citizens would risk not just their own lives but their families and their nation

in using nucle
ar
weapons to save Western Europe and other free societies from Soviet domination, especially if the United States’ allies are n
ot willing to risk
nuclear destruction themselves? According to one 1984 poll, 74 percent of Americans queried believe “the U.S.

should not use nuclear weapons
if the Russians invade Western Europe.” Nuclear Protectionists, however, would reply that further public debate might convin
ce more
Americans that deterrence cannot be had on the moral cheap.
If the United States is determi
ned to deter a Soviet attack
on Europe, it must have a moral nuclear strategy that it is willing to implement
. Without effective population
defenses
,
such a strategy could require that the United States accept an unequal risk of nuclear
destruction to ensu
re the survival of free society.

In the extreme, this could mean that
the United States must be
willing to sacrifice itself for values higher than its own national survival.

Thus, Nuclear Protectionism views both
Just War morality and national “self
-
center
ed” as unworkable foundations for U.S. security policy.


AT: No Self
-
fulfilling Prophecy

Empirics


Anti
-
terrorism policies are creating more terrorism


US must change its
policies

Beat 12
(Matt Beat, history teacher and writer for Kansas City Underground Examiner, 3/24/12, “Our Government is Causing More
Terrorism,”
http://trainwreckdsociety.com/2012/03/24/our
-
government
-
is
-
causing
-
more
-
terrororism
-
by
-
matt
-
beat
-
guest
-
wreckers/
).

Accessed 7/24/13 AP

The terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001, did not win on that horrible day. But they have won every day s
ince then.
They have created a fear not seen since the early days of the Cold War. They have turned our politicians into people who make

every major
decision based on fear.
The “War on Terror” has, in fact, created more terror.

That’s right
, after the deat
h of
around 9,000 Americans, after the death of millions of people in other countries

(but, really, who cares about
them? ha!),
and after $1.28 Trillion spent

(keep raising that debt ceiling!),
we are less safe now than before the
War on Terror began.


But

it’s not just the War on Terror. It’s also the War on Drugs. President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs
40 years ago, and we now spend $42 billion a year fighting drugs (just illegal ones
-

alcohol, nicotine, oxycontin, morphine, those are fine) and
m
ore people use drugs now than ever before. The Global Commission on Drug Policy has recently affirmed what many of us already

know. The
war on drugs has failed.


Terror and Drugs have existed since the dawn of civilization, but recently our government deci
ded to declare war on
the two. Oh, and directly or indirectly kill millions and spend trillions of dollars since declaring both wars.
It’s important to
specifically look at how the

two
wars have created more terrorism
.


The

main reason why we are less safe now is
simply because
many people passionately hate us,

and no, they don’t hate us for our freedom. They hate us for various reasons
that I won’t get into, but
the biggest reason of all is our foreign policy,

and there is
overwhelming evidence to support this. As
a mostly Christian nation of people, our foreign policy blatantly contradicts the “golden rule.” Remember that one? That was
the “treat others
as you would want to be treated” rule that Jesus of Nazareth preached a
nd popularized.
For every military action we have
made during the War on Terror, we have failed to ask ourselves, “what would we do if another
country conducted such military action to us?”

For example, if an unmanned aerial vehicle from Pakistan secretly
dropped a
bomb on a house where suspected enemy combatants lived (they’re innocent until proven dead!), killing an entire family except

for an 8
-
year
old, which country would that 8
-
year old grow up to hate? If Germany decided to build a permanent military

base in Texas in the name of
“national security,” how would Americans react?


You can distract yourselves with “So You Think You Can Dance” and “Celebrity Apprentice”
every night, but the fact remains that while you watch those “reality” TV shows, the rea
l reality is that
civilians are accidentally
killed everyday by the United States military and NATO. The real reality is that the United States has
over 1000 permanent military bases outside of its borders. The real reality is that new terrorists are
creat
ed because of the invasion and occupation of foreign countries by our military
.