1

Framing policy in terms of economic competitiveness

translates the role of the government into a manager of
economic growth and makes capital accumulation the only
political value that normalizes neoliberal ontology which
guarantees inequality and crisis prioritize systemic critique
over the hypothetical implementation of the plan
Brown, Poli Sci Prof @ Cal Berkeley, 15
(Wendy, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution, pg. 24-27)
Remaking the State. President Obama opened his second term in office with apparently renewed concern for those
left out of the Amer- ican dream by virtue of class, race, sexuality, gender, disability, or immigration status. His "We
the People" inauguration speech in Jan- uary 2013 sounded those concerns loudly; combined with his State of the
Union address three weeks later, the president seemed to have rediscovered his Left base or perhaps even his own
justice-minded spirit after a centrist, compromising, deal-making first term in office. Perhaps Occupy Wall Street
could even claim a minor victory in shift- ing popular discourse on who and what America was for. Certainly, it is
true that the two speeches featured Obama's "evo- lution" on gay marriage and renewed determination to extricate
the United States from its military quagmires in the Middle East. They expressed concern, too, with those left
behind in the neoliberal race to riches while "corporate profits.. .rocketed to all-time highs."12 In these ways, it
seemed that the light of "hope and change" on which Obama had glided to power in 2008 had indeed been
reignited. Close consideration of the State of the Union address, however, reveals a dif- ferent placing of the accent

While Obama called for protecting Medicare; progressive tax reform; increasing
government investment in science and technology research, clean energy, home
ownership, and education; immigration reform; fighting sex discrimination and domestic violence; and
raising the minimum wage, each of these issues was framed in terms of its
contribution to economic growth or American competitiveness .13 "A growing
marks.

economy that creates good, middle-class jobsthat must be the North Star that guides our efforts" the president
intoned. "Every day," he added, "we must ask ourselves three questions as a nation." 14 What are these
supervenient guides to law and policy for- mation, to collective and individual conduct? "How do we attract more
jobs to our shores? How do we equip our people with the skills needed to do those jobs? And how do we make sure

Attracting investors and developing an

adequately remunerated skilled workforcethese are the goals of the
world's oldest democracy led by a justice-minded president in the twentyfirst century. Success in these areas would in turn realize the ultimate goal
of the nation and the government that stewards it, "broad-based growth"
for the economy as a whole. More importantly, every progressive valuefrom decreasing
domestic violence to slowing climate change Obama represented as not
that hard work leads to a decent living? "15

merely reconcilable with economic growth , but as driving it.

Clean energy would

keep us competitive"as long as countries like China keep going all-in on clean energy, so must we." 16 Fixing our
aging infrastructure would "prove that there is no better place to do business than the United States of America."17
More accessible mort- gages enabling "responsible young families" to buy their first home will "help our economy
grow."18 Investing in education would reduce the drags on growth caused by teen pregnancy and violent crime, put
"kids on a path to a good job," allow them to "work their way into the middle class," and provide the skills that
would make the econ- omy competitive. Schools should be rewarded for partnering with "colleges and employers"
and for creating "classes that focus on sci- ence, technology, engineering and maththe skills today's employers
are looking for."19 Immigration reform will "harness the talents and ingenuity of striving, hopeful immigrants" and
attract "the highly skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy."20
Economic growth would also result "when our wives, mothers and daughters can live their lives free from discrimination... and . fear of domestic violence," when "we reward an hon- est day's work with honest wages" with
minimum wage reform, when we rebuild decimated factory towns, and when we strengthen families through
"removing financial deterrents to marriage for low-income couples and doing more to encourage fatherhood."21

Obama's January 2013 State of the Union speech thus recovered a liberal

agenda by packaging it as economic stimulus, promising that it would

generate competitiveness, prosperity, and continued recovery from the
recessions induced by the 2008 finance-capital meltdown. Some might argue that
this packaging was aimed at co-opting the opposition, not simply neutralizing, but reversing the charges against
tax-and-spend Democrats by formulating social justice, govern- ment investment, and environmental protection as

exclusive focus on it elides the way

that economic growth has become both the end and legitima- tion of
fuel for economic growth. That aim is patently evident. But

government , ironically, at the very historical moment that hon-est economists

acknowledge that capital accumulation and economic growth have gone
separate ways, in part because the rent extractions facilitated by
financialization are not growth inducing.22 In a neo- liberal era when the
market ostensibly takes care of itself, Obama's speech reveals
government as both responsible for fostering economic health and as
subsuming all other undertakings (except national secu- rity) to economic health .
Striking in its own right, this formulation means that democratic state commitments to
equality, liberty, inclu- sion, and constitutionalism are now subordinate to
the project of eco- nomic growth, competitive positioning, and capital
enhancement. These political commitments can no longer stand on their own legs and, the speech implies,
would be jettisoned if found to abate, rather than abet, economic goals. What the Obama speech also makes clear

the state's table of purposes and priorities has become

indistinguishable from that of modern firms, especially as the latter
increasingly adopts con- cerns with justice and sustainability . For firms and the
state alike, competitive positioning and stock or credit rating are primary,
other endsfrom sustainable production practices to worker justiceare
pursued insofar as they contribute to this end . As "caring" becomes a
market niche, green and fair-trade practices, along with (minis- cule) profit
diversion to charity, have become the public face and mar- ket strategy of
many firms today. Obama's State of the Union speech adjusts the semantic order of things only slightly,
foregrounding jus- tice issues even as they are tethered to competitive positioning. The conduct of
government and the conduct of firms are now fundamen- tally identical;
both are in the business of justice and sustainability , but never as ends in
is that

themselves . Rather, "social responsibility," which must itself be entrepreneuriallzed, is part

of what attracts consum- ers and investors.23 In this respect, Obama's speech at
once depicts neoliberal statism and is a brilliant marketing ploy borrowed
directly from businessincreasing his own credit and enhancing his value
by attracting (re)investment from an ecologically or justice-minded sector of the public. These are but two examples of the contemporary neoliberal trans- formations of subjects,
states, and their relation that animate this book: What happens to rule by and for the people when neoliberal
reason configures both soul and city as contemporary firms, rather than as polities? What happens to the
constituent elements of democ- racyits culture, subjects, principles, and institutionswhen neolib- era) rationality
saturates political life? Having opened with stories, I hasten to add that this is mainly a work of political theory

neoliberalism's novel
construction of persons and states are evacuating democratic principles ,
whose aim is to elucidate the large arc and key mechanisms through which

eroding democratic institutions and eviscerating the democratic

imaginary of European modernity. It is, in the classic sense of the word, a cri- tiquean effort to
comprehend the constitutive elements and dynam- ics of our condition. It

does not elaborate alternatives to the order it illuminates and only occasionally identifies possible
strategies for resisting the developments it charts. However , the predicaments and powers it
illuminates might contribute to the development of such alternatives and
strategies, which are themselves vital to any future for democracy.

The state-corporate surveillance apparatus sustains itself

through a politics of apocalyptic fear the plans legalistic
solution misunderstands this ideological problem which
accelerates neoliberalism and guarantees cooption.
Giroux, Prof of Cultural Studies @ McMaster University, 14
(Henry, TOTALITARIAN PARANOIA IN THE POST-ORWELLIAN SURVEILLANCE STATE,
http://philosophersforchange.org/2014/02/18/totalitarian-paranoia-in-the-postorwellian-surveillance-state/)
The surveillance state with its immense data mining capabilities represents a historical
rupture from traditional notions of modernity with its emphasis on enlightenment,
reason, and the social contract. The older modernity held up the ideals of justice, equality, freedom, and democracy,
however flawed. The investment in public goods was seen as central to a social contract that implied that all citizens should have

The
new modernity and its expanding surveillance net subordinates human needs, public goods, and justice to the
demands of commerce and the accumulation of capital, at all costs. The contemporary citizen is
access to those provisions, resources, institutions, and benefits that expanded their sense of agency and social responsibility.

primarily a consumer and entrepreneur wedded to the belief that the most desirable features of human behavior are rooted in a
basic tendency towards competitive, acquisitive and uniquely self-interested behavior which is the central fact of human social

Modernity is now driven by the imperatives of a savage neoliberal

political and economic system that embrace what Charles Derber and June Sekera call a public goods deficit
in which budgetary priorities are relentlessly pushed so as to hollow out the
welfare state and drastically reduce social provisions as part of a larger neoliberal counter revolution to lower the taxes of
the rich and mega-corporations while selling off public good to private interests.[24] Debates about the
meaning and purpose of the public and social good have been co-opted by
life.[23]

a politics of fear,

relegating notions of the civic good, public sphere, and even the very word public to the status of a

Fear has lost its social connotations and no longer

references fear of social deprivations such as poverty, homelessness, lack of health care, and
other fundamental conditions of agency. Fear is now personalized, reduced to an
atomized fear that revolves around crime, safety, apocalypse, and survival . In this
liability, if not a pathology.[25]

instance, as the late Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith once warned, modernity now privileges a disgraceful combination
of private opulence and public squalor.'[26] This is not surprising given the basic elements of neoliberal policy, which as Jeremy
Gilbert indicates, include the privatization of public assets, contraction and centralization of democratic institutions, deregulation of
labor markets, reductions in progressive taxation, restrictions on labor organization, labor market deregulation, active
encouragement of competitive and entrepreneurial modes of relation across the public and commercial sectors.[27] Under the
regime of neoliberal capitalism, the expansion of government and corporate surveillance measures become synonymous with new
forms of governance and an intensification of material and symbolic violence.[28] Rather than wage a war on terrorists, the
neoliberal security state wages a war on dissent in the interest of consolidating class power. How else to explain the merging of
corporate and state surveillance systems updated with the most sophisticated shared technologies used in the last few years to
engage in illicit counterintelligence operations, participate in industrial espionage[29] and disrupt and attack pro-democracy
movements such as Occupy and a range of other nonviolent social movements protesting a myraid of state and corporate injustices.
[30] This type of illegal spying in the interest of stealing industrial secrets and closing down dissent by peaceful protesters has less
to do with national security than it has to do with mimicking the abuses and tactics used by the Stasi in East Germany during the
Cold War. How else to explain why many law-abiding citizens and those with dissenting views within the law can be singled out for
surveillance and placed on wide-ranging watch lists relating to terrorism?[31] Public outrage seems to disappear, with few
exceptions, as the state and its corporate allies do little to protect privacy rights, civil liberties and a culture of critical exchange and

State violence
in this case becomes the preferred antidote to the demanding work of
dissent. Even worse, they shut down a culture of questioning and engage in forms of domestic terrorism.

reflection, analysis, dialogue and imagining the points of views of others.

The war against dissent waged by secret counterintelligence agencies is a mode of domestic terrorism in which, as David Graeber

Modernity in this instance has

been updated, wired and militarized. No longer content to play out its
historical role of a modernized panopticon, it has become militarized and a
multilayered source of insecurity , entertainment and commerce. In addition, this new stage of modernity
has argued, violence is often the preferred weapon of the stupid.[32]

is driven not only by the need to watch but also the will to punish. Phone calls, emails, social networks and almost every other
vestige of electronic communication are now being collected and stored by corporate and government organizations such as the
NSA and numerous other intelligence agencies. Snowdens exposure of the massive reach of the surveillance state with its
biosensors, scanners, face recognition technologies, miniature drones, high speed computers, massive data mining capabilities and

the NSA
and the other 16 intelligence agencies are not the only threat to privacy,
freedom and democracy. Corporations now have their own intelligence
other stealth technologies made visible the stark realities of disappearing privacy and diminishing liberties.[33] But

agencies and data mining offices and use these agencies and new
surveillance technologies largely to spy on those who question the abuses
of corporate power . The emergence of fusion centers exemplifies how power is now a mix of corporate, local, federal
and global intelligence agencies, all sharing information that can be used by various agencies to stifle dissent and punish pro-

What is clear is that this combination of gathering and sharing

information often results in a lethal mix of anti-democratic practices in which
surveillance now extends not only to potential terrorists but to all law-abiding citizens. Within this sinister web
of secrecy, suspicion, state-sanctioned violence and illegality , the culture
democracy activists.

of authoritarianism thrives and poses a dangerous threat to democratic

freedoms and rights . It also poses a threat to those outside the United States who,
in the name of national security, are subject to a grand international campaign with
drones and special operations forces that is generating potential terrorists at
every step.[34] Behind this veil of concentrated power and secrecy lies not only
a threat to privacy rights but the very real threat of violence on both a
domestic and global level . As Heidi Boghosian argues, the omniscient state in George Orwells 1984 is
represented by a two-way television set installed in each home. In our own modern adaptation, it is symbolized by the locationtracking cell phones we willingly carry in our pockets and the microchip-embedded clothes we wear on our bodies.[35] While such
devices can be used for useful applications, they become dangerous in a society in which corporations and government have
increased power and access over every aspect of the lives of the American public. Put simply, the ubiquity of such devices

as
government agencies shift from investigating criminal activity to
preempting it, they have forged close relationships with corporations
honing surveillance and intelligence-gathering techniques for use against Americans. By claiming
that anyone who questions authority or engages in undesired political
speech is a potential terrorist threat, this government-corporate partnership makes
a mockery of civil liberties. As the assault by an alignment of consumer
marketing and militarized policing grows, each single act of individual
expression or resistance assumes greater importance.[37] The dynamic of neoliberal
threatens a robust democracy.[36] What is particularly dangerous, as Boghosian documents in great detail, is that:

modernity, the homogenizing force of the market, a growing culture of repression and an emerging police state have produced more
sophisticated methods for surveillance and the mass suppression of the most essential tools for dissent and democracy: the press,
political activists, civil rights advocates and conscientious insiders who blow the whistle on corporate malfeasance and government
abuse.[38] The neoliberal authoritarian culture of modernity also has created a social order in which surveillance becomes selfgenerated, aided by a public pedagogy produced and circulated through a machinery of consumption that encourages transforming
dreams into data bits. Such bits then move from the sphere of entertainment to the deadly serious and integrated spheres of capital
accumulation and policing as they are collected and sold to business and government agencies who track the populace for either
commercial purposes or for fear of a possible threat to the social order and its established institutions of power. Absorbed in
privatized orbits of consumption, commodification and display, Americans vicariously participate in the toxic pleasures of consumer
culture, relentlessly entertained by the spectacle of violence in which, as David Graeber, suggests, the police become the almost
obsessive objects of imaginative identification in popular culture watching movies or viewing TV shows that invite them to look at
the world from a police point of view.[39] It is worth repeating that Orwells vision of surveillance and the totalitarian state looks

tame next to the emergence of a corporate-private-state surveillance system that wants to tap into every conceivable mode of
communication, collect endless amounts of metadata to be stored in vast intelligence storage sites around the country and use
those data to repress any vestige of dissent.[40] Whistle-blowers are not only punished by the government; their lives are turned
upside down in the process by private surveillance agencies and major corporations who increasingly work in tandem. These
institutions share information with the government and do their own spying and damage control. For instance, Bank of America
assembled 15 to 20 bank officials and retained the law firm of Hunton & Williams to devise various schemes to attack WikiLeaks and
Glenn Greenwald, who they thought was about to release damaging information about the bank.[41] Some of the most dreadful
consequences of neoliberal modernity and cultures of surveillance include the elimination of those public spheres capable of
educating the public to hold power accountable, and the dissolution of all social bonds that entail a sense of responsibility toward
others. In this instance, politics has not only become dysfunctional and corrupt in the face of massive inequalities in wealth and
power, it also has been emptied of any substantive meaning. Government not only has fallen into the hands of the elite and rightwing extremists, it has embraced a mode of lawlessness evident in forms of foreign and domestic terrorism that undercuts the
obligations of citizenship, justice and morality.

As surveillance and fear become a constant

condition of American society, there is a growing indifference , if not
distaste, for politics among large segments of the population. This distaste is
purposely manufactured by the ongoing operations of political repression against intellectuals, artists, nonviolent protesters and
journalists on the left and right. Increasingly, as such populations engage in dissent and the free flow of ideas, whether online or
offline, they are considered dangerous to the state and become subject to the mechanizations of a massive security apparatuses
designed to monitor, control and punish dissenting populations. For instance, in England, the new head of MI5, the British domestic
intelligence service, mimicking the US governments distrust of journalists, stated that the stories The Guardian published about
Snowdens revelations were a gift to terrorists, reinforcing the notion that whistle-blowers and journalists might be considered
terrorists.[42] Similar comments about Snowden have been made in the United States by members of Congress who have labeled
Snowden a traitor, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat; John McCain, an Arizona Republican; Saxby Chambliss, a
Georgia Republican; and House Speaker John Boehner, as well as former Vice President Dick Cheney.[43] Greenwald, one of the first
journalists to divulge Snowdens revelations about the NSAs secret unaccountable system of pervasive surveillance[44] has been
accused by Rep. Peter King of New York along with others of being a terrorist.[45] More ominously, Snowden told German TV
about reports that U.S. government officials want to assassinate him for leaking secret documents about the NSAs collection of
telephone records and emails.[46] As the line collapses between authoritarian power and democratic governance, state and
corporate repression intensifies and increasingly engulfs the nation in a toxic climate of fear and self-censorship in which free
speech itself, if not critical thought, is viewed as too dangerous in which to engage.

The NSA, alone, has become

what Scott Shane has called an electronic omnivore of staggering capabilities, eavesdropping
and hacking its way around the world to strip governments and other targets of their secrets, all the while enforcing the utmost

Intelligence benefits are far

outweighed by the illegal use of the Internet, telecommunication
companies and stealth malware for data collection and government
interventions that erode civil liberties and target individuals and groups
that pose no threat whatsoever to national security. New technologies that range from
secrecy about its own operations. It spies routinely on friends as well as foes.[47]

webcams and spycams to biometrics and Internet drilling reinforce not only the fear of being watched, monitored and investigated
but also a propensity toward confessing ones intimate thoughts and sharing the most personal of information. What is profoundly
disturbing and worth repeating in this case is the new intimacy between digital technologies and cultures of surveillance in which
there exists a profound an unseen intimate connection into the most personal and private areas as subjects publish and document
their interests, identities, hopes and fears online in massive quantities.[48] Surveillance propped up as the new face of intimacy
becomes the order of the day, eradicating free expression and, to some degree, even thinking itself. In the age of the self-absorbed
self and its mirror image, the selfie, intimacy becomes its opposite and the exit from privacy becomes symptomatic of a society
that gave up on the social and historical memory. One

of the most serious conditions that enable

the expansion of the corporate-state surveillance apparatus is the erasure
of public memory. The renowned anthropologist David Price rightly argues that historical memory is
one of the primary weapons to be used against the abuse of power and
that is why those who have power create a desert of organized
forgetting.'[49] For Price, it is crucial to reclaim Americas battered public
memories as a political and pedagogical task as part of the broader
struggle to regain lost privacy and civil liberties.[50] Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11,
America has succumbed to a form of historical amnesia fed by a culture of fear, militarization and precarity. Relegated to the dustbin
of organized forgetting were the long-standing abuses carried out by Americas intelligence agencies and the publics long-standing
distrust of the FBI, government wiretaps and police actions that threatened privacy rights, civil liberties and those freedoms
fundamental to a democracy. In the present historical moment, it is almost impossible to imagine that wiretapping was once
denounced by the FBI or that legislation was passed in the early part of the 20th century that criminalized and outlawed the federal
use of wiretaps.[51] Nor has much been written about the Church and Pike committees, which in the 1970s exposed a wave of illegal
surveillance and disruption campaigns carried out by the FBI and local police forces, most of which were aimed at anti-war

while laws implementing

judicial oversight for federal wiretaps were put in place, they were
demonstrators, the leaders of the civil rights movement and the Black Panthers. And

systematically dismantled under the Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama

administration s. As Price points out, while there was a steady increase in federal
wiretaps throughout the 1980s and 1990s, in the immediate aftermath of
9/11, the American public hastily abandoned a century of fairly consistent
opposition to govern wiretaps.[52] As the historical memory of such abuses disappeared,
repressive legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act and growing support
for a panoptical surveillance and homeland security state increased to
the point of dissolving the line between private and public, on the one hand, and tilting the
balance between security and civil liberties largely in favor of a culture of fear and its underside: a managed emphasis on a onedimensional notion of safety and security. The violence of organized forgetting has another component besides the prevalence of a

Since the 1980s, the culture of

neoliberalism with its emphasis on the self, privatization and consumerism
largely has functioned to disparage any notion of the public good , social
culture of fear and hyper-nationalism that emerged after 9/11.

and collective action , if not politics itself. Historical memories of collective struggles against
leaving largely unquestioned
the growing inequalities in wealth and income, along with the increased
responsibility

government and corporate abuses have been deposited down the memory hole,

militarization and financialization of American society . Even the history of authoritarian

movements appears to have been forgotten as right-wing extremists in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Maine, Florida and other states
attempt to suppress long-established voting rights, use big money to sway elections, destroy public and higher education as a public

Manufactured ignorance spreads

through the dominant cultural apparatuses like a wildfire promoting the
financialization of everything as a virtue and ethics as a liability . The flight from
good, and substitute emotion and hatred for reasoned arguments.[53]

historical memory has been buttressed by a retreat into a politics of self-help and a culture of self-blame in which all problems are
viewed as evidence of personal shortcomings that, if left uncorrected, hold individuals back from attaining stability and

Within the crippling affective and ideological spaces of neoliberalism,

memory recedes, social responsibility erodes, and individual outrage and
collective resistance are muted .[55] Under such circumstances, public issues collapse
into private troubles and the language of politics is emptied so that it
becomes impossible to connect the ravages that bear down on individuals
security.[54]

to broader systemic, structural and social considerations.

Neoliberalism guarantees extinction and social crisis the judge has

an intellectual obligation to evaluate the social relations that
underpin the plan prior to evaluating the outcome of the policy
vote negative because the system the aff partakes in is
fundamentally unethical
Molisa, Philosophy PhD, 14
(Pala Basil Mera, Accounting For Apocalypse Re-Thinking Social Accounting Theory
And Practice For Our Time Of Social Crises And Ecological Collapse,
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/3686/thesis.pdf?
sequence=2)
Ecologically too, the situation is dire. Of the many measures of ecological well-being topsoil loss,
groundwater depletion, chemical contamination, increased toxicity levels in human beings, the
number and size of dead zones in the Earths oceans, and the accelerating rate of species
extinction and loss of biodiversity the increasing evidence suggests that the developmental trajectory of

the systemic
destruction and disruption of natural habitats, and could ultimately cause catastrophic
destruction of the biosphere . The latest Global Environmental Outlook Report published by the United Nations
the dominant economic culture necessarily causes the mass extermination of non-human communities,

Environment Program (UNEP), the GEO-5 report, makes for sobering reading. As in earlier reports, the global trends portrayed are of
continuing human population growth, expanding economic growth,6 and as a consequence severe forms of ecological degradation

The ecological reality described is of

ecological drawdown (deforestation, over-fishing, water extraction, etc.) (UNEP,
2012, pp. 72, 68, 84, 102-106, ); increasing toxicity of the environment through chemical and waste pollution, with severe
harm caused to human and non-human communities alike (pp. 173- 179); systematic habitat destruction (pp. 8,
68-84) and climate change (33-60), which have decimated the number of species on
Earth, threatening many with outright extinction (pp. 139-158). The most serious ecological threat on a global
(UNEP, 2012; see also, UNEP, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2007).

scale is climate disruption, caused by the emission of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, other industrial activities, and land
destruction (UNEP, 2012, p. 32). The GEO-5 report states that [d]espite attempts to develop low-carbon economies in a number of
countries, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to increase to levels likely to push global temperatures beyond
the internationally agreed limit of 2 C above the pre-industrial average temperature (UNEP, 2012, p. 32). Concentrations of
atmospheric methane have more than doubled from preindustrial levels, reaching approximately 1826 ppb in 2012; the scientific

Scientists
warn that the Earths ecosystems are nearing catastrophic tipping points that will be
marked by mass extinctions and unpredictable changes on a scale unseen since the
consensus is that this increase is very likely due predominantly to agriculture and fossil fuel use (IPCC, 2007).

glaciers retreated twelve thousand years ago (Pappas, 2012). Twenty-two eminent scientists warned recently in the journal, Nature,
that humans are likely to have triggered a planetary-scale critical transition with the potential to transform Earth rapidly and
irreversibly into a state unknown in human experience, which means that the biological resources we take for granted at present
may be subject to rapid and unpredictable transformations within a few human generations (Barnofsky et al., 2012). This means
that human beings are in serious trouble, not only in the future, but right now. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide
concentration was about 280 parts per million (ppm). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates
concentrations could reach between 541 and 970 ppm by the year 2100. However, many climate scientists consider that levels
should be kept below 350 ppm in order to avoid irreversible catastrophic effects (Hansen et al., 2008). Catastrophic

warming of the earth would mean a planet that is too hot for life that is, any life, and all
life

(Mrasek, 2008). We need to analyze the above information and ask the simple questions: what does it signify and where will

although
capitalism is capable of raising the economic productivity of many countries as well
as international trade, it also produces social injustices on a global scale. The trajectory of
capitalist economic development that people appear locked into is of perpetual growth that
also produces significant human and social suffering . In terms of the ecological situation, the
mounting evidence from reports, such as those published by UNEP, suggest that a full-scale ecocide will
eventuate and that a global holocaust is in progress which is socially pathological and biocidal in its scope (UNEP, 2012; see
also, UNEP, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2007). Assuming the trends do not change, the endpoint of this trajectory of
perpetual economic growth, ecological degradation, systemic pollution, mass species extinction and runaway climate
change, which human beings appear locked into, will be climate apocalypse and complete biotic collapse. Given the
it lead? In terms of the social crises of inequalities, the pattern of human development suggests clearly that

serious and life-threatening implications of these social and ecological crises outlined above, it would be reasonable to expect they
should be central to academic concerns, particularly given the responsibilities of academics as intellectuals. As the people whom
society subsidizes to carry out intellectual work,7 the primary task of academics is to carry out research that might enable people to
deepen their understanding of how the world operates, ideally towards the goal of shaping a world that is more consistent with

Given that most peoples stated

philosophical and theological systems are rooted in concepts of justice, equality and the inherent dignity of all
people (Jensen, 2007, p. 30), intellectuals have a particular responsibility to call
attention to those social patterns of inequality which appear to be violations
of such principles, and to call attention to the destructive ecological patterns that threaten individual and collective
moral and political principles, and the collective self-interest (Jensen, 2013, p. 43).

well-being. As a critic and conscience of society, 8 one task of intellectuals is to identify issues that people should all pay attention
to, even when indeed, especially when people would rather ignore the issues (Jensen,
2013, p. 5). In view of this, intellectuals today should be focusing attention on the hard-to-face realities of an unjust and
unsustainable world. Moreover, intellectuals in a democratic society, as its critic and conscience, should serve as sources of
independent and critical information, analyses and varied opinions, in an endeavour to provide a meaningful role in the formation of
public policy (Jensen, 2013c). In order to fulfil this obligation as critic and conscience,

intellectuals need to be

willing to critique not only particular people, organizations, and policies, but also the systems from
which they emerge . In other words, intellectuals have to be willing to engage in radical critique. Generally, the term
radical tends to suggest images of extremes, danger, violence, and people eager to tear things down (Jensen, 2007, p. 29).
Radical, however, has a more classical meaning. It comes from the Latin radix, meaning root. Radical critique in this light means

Given that the patterns of social inequality and

ecocidal destruction outlined above are not the product of a vacuum, but instead are the product
of social systems, radical critique simply means forms of social analysis , which are not
only concerned about these social and ecological injustices but also trace them to the social systems from
which they emerged, which would subject these very systems to searching
critiques. Such searching critique is challenging because, generally, the dominant groups which tend to
subsidize intellectuals (universities, think tanks, government, corporations) are the key agents of
the social systems that produce inequalities and destroy ecosystems (Jensen,
2013, p. 12). The more intellectuals choose not only to identify patterns but also
highlight the pathological systems from which they emerge , the greater
the tension with whoever pay[s] the bills (ibid.). However, this may arguably be unavoidable
critique or analysis that gets to the root of the problem.

today, given that the realities of social inequality and ecological catastrophe show clearly that our social systems are already in
crisis, are pathological, and in need of radical change.9 To adopt a radical position, in this light, is not to suggest that we
simply need to abolish capitalism, or to imply that if we did so all our problems would be solved. For one thing, such an abstract
argument has little operational purchase in terms of specifying how to go about struggling for change. For another thing, as this
thesis will discuss, capitalism is not the only social system that we ought to be interrogating as an important systemic driver of

adopt a radical position does not mean that we

have any viable answers or solutions in terms of the alternative institutions,
organizations and social systems that we could replace the existing ones with. There is currently no
alternative to capitalism that appears to be viable, particularly given the historical loss of credibility that Marxism
social and ecological crises. Moreover, to

and socialism has suffered. As history has shown, some of the self-proclaimed socialist and communist regimes have had their own
fair share of human rights abuses and environmental disasters, and the global left has thus far not been able to articulate

given the depth,

complexity, and scale of contemporary social and ecological crises, I am
not sure if there are any viable alternatives or, for that matter, any guarantees that we can
alternatives that have managed to capture the allegiances of the mainstream population. Furthermore,

actually prevent and change the disastrous course of contemporary society. I certainly do not have any solutions. What I would
argue,

however , is that if we are to have any chance of not only ameliorating

but also substantively addressing these social and ecological problems,

before we can talk about alternatives or potential solutions, we first
need to develop a clear understanding of the problems. And, as argued above, this
involves, amongst other things, exploring why and how the existing social systems
under which we live are producing the patterns of social inequality and
ecological unsustainability that make up our realities today.10 To adopt a radical stance, in this light, is simply
to insist that we have an obligation to honestly confront our social and
ecological predicament

and to ask difficult questions about the role that existing social systems might be playing

in producing and exacerbating them.

Reject the 1AC their narrow legalistic focus can only conceal
and reproduce imperialism a bottom up approach is
empirically more successful, but it can only succeed when the
politics of fear are discarded, which means the K must come
before the plan.
Kumar, Professor of Media Studies and Middle East Studies @
Rutgers University, 15

(Deepa, and Arun Kundnani, who teaches at New York University, Race,
surveillance, and empire, International Socialist Review Issue 96,
http://isreview.org/issue/96/race-surveillance-and-empire)
What brings together these different systems of racial oppression mass
incarceration, mass surveillance, and mass deportation is a security logic
that holds the imperial state as necessary to keeping American families
(coded white) safe from threats abroad and at home . The ideological work of
the last few decades has cultivated not only racial security fears but also
an assumption that the security state is necessary to keep us safe . In this
sense, security has become the new psychological wage to aid the
reallocation of the welfare states social wage toward homeland security
and to win support for empire in the age of neoliberalism . Through the
notion of security, social and economic anxieties generated by the
unraveling of the Keynesian social compact have been channeled toward
the Black or Brown street criminal , welfare recipient , or terrorist . In addition,
as Susan Faludi has argued, since 9/11, this homeland in need of security has been
symbolized, above all, by the white domestic hearth of the prefeminist fifties,
once again threatened by mythical frontier enemies , hidden subversives, and racial
aggressors. That this idea of the homeland coincides culturally with the denigration of capable women, the
magnification of manly men, the heightened call for domesticity, the search for and sanctification of helpless girls
points to the ways it is gendered as well as racialized.67 The post-Snowden debate The mechanisms of surveillance
outlined in this essay were responses to political struggles of various kindsfrom anticolonial insurgencies to slave

Surveillance practices themselves have

been the target of organized opposition. In the 1920s and 1970s,
the surveillance state was pressured to contract in the face of public
disapproval. The antiwar activists who broke into an FBI field office in
Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971 and stole classified documents managed to
expose COINTELPRO, for instance, leading to its shut down . (But those responsible for this
rebellions, labor militancy to anti-imperialist agitation.
also often

FBI program were never brought to justice for their activities and similar techniques continued to be used later
against, for example in the 1980s, the American Indian Movement, and the Committee in Solidarity with the People
of El Salvador.68) Public concern about state surveillance in the 1970s led to the Church committee report on
government spying and the Handschu guidelines that regulated the New York Police Departments spying on

Those concerns began to be swept aside in the 1980s with the

War on Drugs and, especially, later with the War on Terror. While
significant sections of the public may have consented to the security
state, those who have been among its greatest victims the radical Left ,
political activities.

antiwar activists , racial justice and Black liberation campaigners , and

opponents of US foreign policy

in Latin America and the Middle East understand

its

workings . Today, we are once again in a period of revelation, concern, and

debate on national security surveillance. Yet if real change is to be
brought about , the racial history of surveillance will need to be fully
confronted or opposition to surveillance will once again be easily
defeated

by racial security narratives. The

significance of the Snowden leaks is that

they have laid out the depth of the NSAs mass surveillance with the kind of proof that only an insider can have. The
result

has been a generalized level of alarm as people have become aware of

how intrusive surveillance is in our society, but that alarm remains

constrained within a public debate that is highly abstract , legalistic , and
centered on the privacy rights of the white middle class.

most civil liberties advocates are focused on the technical

details of potential legal reforms and new oversight mechanisms to
safeguard privacy. Such initiatives are likely to bring little change because
On the one hand,

they fail to confront the racist and imperialist core of the surveillance
system . On the other hand, most technologists believe the problem of government surveillance can be fixed
simply by using better encryption tools. While encryption tools are useful in increasing the resources that a
government agency would need to monitor an individual, they do nothing to unravel the larger surveillance
apparatus. Meanwhile, executives of US tech corporations express concerns about loss of sales to foreign customers
concerned about the privacy of data. In Washington and Silicon Valley, what should be a debate about basic political
freedoms is simply a question of corporate profits.69 Another and perhaps deeper problem is the use of images of
state surveillance that do not adequately fit the current situationsuch as George Orwells discussion of totalitarian
surveillance. Edward Snowden himself remarked that Orwell warned us of the dangers of the type of government
surveillance we face today.70 Reference to Orwells 1984 has been widespread in the current debate; indeed, sales
of the book were said to have soared following Snowdens revelations.71 The argument that digital surveillance is a
new form of Big Brother is, on one level, supported by the evidence. For those in certain targeted groupsMuslims,
left-wing campaigners, radical journalistsstate surveillance certainly looks Orwellian. But this level of scrutiny is

The picture of surveillance today is therefore quite

different from the classic images of surveillance that we find in Orwells
1984, which assumes an undifferentiated mass population subject to
government control. What we have instead today in the United States is
not faced by the general public.

total surveillance, not on everyone, but on very specific groups of people,

defined by their race, religion, or political ideology : people that NSA officials refer to as
the bad guys. In March 2014, Rick Ledgett, deputy director of the NSA, told an audience: Contrary to some of the
stuff thats been printed, we dont sit there and grind out metadata profiles of average people. If youre not
connected to one of those valid intelligence targets, you are not of interest to us.72 In the national security world,
connected to can be the basis for targeting a whole racial or political community so, even assuming the accuracy
of this comment, it points to the ways that national security surveillance can draw entire communities into its web,
while reassuring average people (code for the normative white middle class) that they are not to be troubled. In
the eyes of the national security state, this average person must also express no political views critical of the status
quo. Better oversight of the sprawling national security apparatus and greater use of encryption in digital
communication should be welcomed. But by themselves these are likely to do little more than reassure
technologists, while racialized populations and political dissenters continue to experience massive surveillance. This

the most effective challenges to the national security state have come
not from legal reformers or technologists but from grassroots campaigning by the
racialized groups most affected. In New York, the campaign against the NYPDs
surveillance of Muslims has drawn its strength from building alliances with
other groups affected by racial profiling: Latinos and Blacks who suffer
from hugely disproportionate rates of stop and frisk . In Californias Bay
Area, a campaign against a Department of Homeland Security-funded
Domain Awareness Center was successful because various constituencies
were able to unite on the issue, including homeless people, the poor,
is why

Muslims, and Blacks. Similarly, a demographics unit planned by the Los

Angeles Police Department, which would have profiled communities on the
basis of race and religion, was shut down after a campaign that united
various groups defined by race and class. The lesson here is that, while the
national security state aims to create fear and to divide people, activists
can organize and build alliances across race lines to overcome that fear . To
the extent that the national security state has targeted Occupy, the antiwar movement, environmental rights
activists, radical journalists and campaigners, and whistleblowers, these groups have gravitated towards opposition

understanding the centrality of race and empire to

national security surveillance means finding a basis for unity across
different groups who experience similar kinds of policing: Muslim, Latino/a, Asian,
Black, and white dissidents and radicals. It is on such a basis that we can see the
to the national security state. But

beginnings of an effective multiracial opposition to the surveillance state

and empire.

SSRA is unpopular theres a bipartisan coalition opposing

passage2013 proves
Wachtler 2015, Mark Wachtler, 4/11/2015, HR 1466 Surveillance State Repeal
Act of 2015, http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/2015/q2/hr-1466-surveillancestate-repeal-act-2015/
Considering the overwhelming outrage by the American people over the governments blanket domestic espionage

the 2013 Surveillance State Repeal Act didnt garner

more support. The Bill accumulated ten co-sponsors , was assigned to four Committees
and six Sub-Committees. But not a single vote was ever taken to advance them out
of Committee and to the full House. Supporters of the effort to stop the universal surveillance of
programs, its surprising that

the American people hope this years effort will be more successful. HR 1466 - Surveillance State Repeal Act of
2015 In 2013, Rep Mark Pocan (D-WI) was one of ten Democrat Congressmen who co-sponsored the Patriot Act
repeal Bill. This time, hes the main sponsor and he has a Republican co-sponsor signed on with him. Introduced on
March 19, 2015, the new Bill was proposed by five Congressmen and already has an additional Representative
whos signed on since then. The sponsors include Rep Pocan, Rep Thomas Massie (R-KY), Rep Alan Grayson (D-FL),
Rep James McGovern (D-MA), Rep Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Rep Michael Capuano (D-MA). As detailed by the House
website, HR 1466 was immediately referred to a number of House Committees upon its introduction. The summary
explains that the Surveillance State Repeal Act of 2015 was, Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in
addition to the Committees on Intelligence (Permanent Select), Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, Energy and
Commerce, Education and the Workforce, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Armed Services, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker. What the Bill would repeal and require HR 1466s official description
gives a brief overview of the Bills ramifications. The legislation, Repeals the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA
Amendments Act of 2008 (thereby restoring or reviving provisions amended or repealed by such Acts as if such Acts
had not been enacted), except with respect to reports to Congress regarding court orders under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) and the acquisition of intelligence information concerning an entity not
substantially composed of US persons that is engaged in the international proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. As currently written, the Bill would also prohibit the government from collecting information on an
American citizen, without a warrant based on probable cause. If passed, it would also force the Director of the
Office of National Intelligence, and its 16 spy agencies to, destroy any information collected under the repealed
Acts, or acquired under Executive Order 12333 without a warrant. The law would also protect electronics
manufacturers from being forced by the government to include encryption-free back doors to their devices and
services allowing spy agencies to monitor their customers. Finally, the Bill attempts to protect future whistleblowers
that come forward with evidence that the government isnt abiding by the law. Little chance of passage

experts are
already warning that HR 1466 has almost no chance of passing. Much like
previous attempts to reign in the governments massive blanket domestic
espionage programs, this latest effort will most likely pit regular
Illustrating that once you go from Republic to Empire, its nearly impossible to go back,

Americans from all walks of the political spectrum supporting the Bill against a bipartisan
coalition of the most powerful establishment leaders from both Parties
opposing it. That uphill fight isnt deterring the Bills main sponsor however. This isnt just tinkering around
the edges, Rep Mark Pocan was reported by The Hill explaining during a Capitol Hill briefing after he introduced the
legislation, This is a meaningful overhaul of the system, getting rid of essentially all parameters of the Patriot
Act. Republican co-sponsor Rep Thomas Massie also commented on the Bill with targeted remarks about the
whistleblower portion of the newly proposed HR 1466. Really, what we need are new whistleblower protections so
that the next Edward Snowden doesnt have to go to Russia or Hong Kong or whatever the case may be just for
disclosing this, he said, We need to repeal all of this junk and just start over. Illustrating the uphill battle the cosponsors and their supporters have in front of them, The Hill writes, The

bill is likely to be a
nonstarter for leaders in Congress, who have been worried that even
much milder reforms to the nations spying laws would tragically [hurt ]
handicap the nations ability to fight terrorists. A similar bill was introduced
in 2013 but failed to gain any movement in the House.

2
Text: The United States federal government should propose
<the plan> to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
for review. The board should solicit input from all relevant
stakeholders. The board should recommend that the United
States federal government <do plan>.
The board works, doesnt link to politics, and builds
momentum for effective curtailment of NSA activities.
Setty, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Faculty
Development & Intellectual Life, Western New England
University School of Law, 2015 Sudha, SYMPOSIUM: Surveillance, Secrecy, and the Search
for Meaningful Accountability, 51 Stan. J Int'l L. 69

One promising move with regard to oversight and transparency has been
the establishment and staffing of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB). 186
This board, tasked with assessing many aspects of the government's national security
apparatus both for efficacy and for potentially unnecessary incursions
into civil liberties, has a broad mandate and , compared with many national security decision
significant independence from the executive branch . 187 Retrospectively, the
PCLOB has, among other things, issued the highly critical report of the NSA
Metadata Program in January 2014 that led to further public pressure on the
makers,

Obama administration to curtail this program; it is promising that the

PCLOB's prospective agenda includes further analysis of various
surveillance programs. 188 However, the PCLOB's potential influence in protecting civil rights may be limited by its
position: The PCLOB is an advisory body that analyzes existing and proposed programs and possibly
recommends changes, but it cannot mandate that those changes be implemented. The ability to have
a high level of access to information surrounding counterterrorism
surveillance programs and to recommend changes

in such programs

is important

and should be lauded, but over-reliance on the PCLOB's non-binding advice to the intelligence community to somehow solve the
accountability and transparency gap with regard to these programs would be a mistake. For example, on prospective matters, it is
likely that intelligence agencies would consult the PCLOB only if the agency itself considers the issue being faced new or novel, as
the NSA metadata program was labeled prior to its inception. In such cases,

decision makers within an

agency generally ask whether the contemplated program is useful or

necessary, technologically feasible, and legal . If all three questions are
answered affirmatively, the program can be implemented.

Now that the PCLOB is fully

operational, it seems likely that if a contemplated program is considered new or novel, an intelligence agency would consult the
PCLOB at some stage of this process for its guidance on implementing the program.

This nonpartisan external

input may improve self-policing within the [*102] intelligence community

and help intelligence agencies avoid implementing controversial
programs or, even if implemented, set better parameters around new
programs. 189

If the PCLOB is able to exert some degree of soft power in influencing national security decision-making,

then the judiciary represents hard power that could be used to force the protection of civil liberties where it might not otherwise
occur. The FISC should be reformed to include a public advocate lobbying on behalf of privacy concerns, making the process
genuinely adversarial and strengthening the FISC against charges that it merely rubber stamps applications from the intelligence
community. 190 Article III courts need to follow the lead of Judge Leon in Klayman in conceptualizing privacy as broad and
defensible, even in a world where electronics-based communication is dominant and relatively easy for the government to collect. If
the judicial defense of privacy were combined with the possibility of liability for violations of that privacy, it is likely that this would
incentivize increased self-policing among the members of the intelligence community. The creation of an active PCLOB
and a more adversarial process before the FISC will not provide a perfect solution to the dilemmas posed by the government's
legitimate need for secrecy and the protection of the public against potential abuse. Yet

because these changes

are institutional and structural, they are well-placed to improve the

dynamic between the intelligence community, oversight mechanisms, and
the public.

3
US counterterrorism is effective now, but threats are
increasing
Paul Richter 6/20, State Department and foreign policy correspondent for the LA
Times, "Terrorist attacks soared in 2014," 6/20/15,
www.telegram.com/article/20150620/NEWS/150629898
Terrorist violence exploded around the world last year, driven
by a surge in attacks by the Islamic State extremist group in the Middle East and Boko
Haram in West Africa, the State Department said in a report Friday. The number of terrorist attacks
WASHINGTON

jumped 35 percent , to 13,500, while the number of fatalities soared 81

percent , to 33,000, the report says. A major factor was an increase in especially deadly attacks, including 20
surge in lethality comes as governments have
collapsed or come under attack in parts of the Middle East and Africa, including in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya
assaults that killed 100 or more people. The

and Nigeria. The number of people kidnapped or taken hostage tripled, to more than 9,400, largely at the hands of
Islamic State and Al Nusra Front in Syria and Boko Haram in Nigeria. Tina Kaidanow, the State Departments

much of the terrorist violence was confined to a few

troubled nations. But she said the threat of lone wolf attacks is growing in
counterterrorism coordinator, said

the West , in part because Western governments are making it harder for
recruits to travel to join extremist groups abroad. Still, an estimated 16,000
foreign fighters joined Islamic State in Syria and Iraq in 2014. The extremist groups
effective outreach on social media and the Internet is also driving zealots to plot and launch attacks, Kaidanow said.
She cited lethal assaults last year by gunmen in Ottawa and Sydney. The statistics came in an annex to the State
Departments annual Country Reports on Terrorism, which was released Friday. At a news briefing, Kaidanow

negative trends, while troubling, arent a good measure of how

well the Obama administrations counter-terrorism programs have performed. Kaidanow
said the administration has helped other nations improve border security,
argued that the

strengthen counterterrorism laws and increase information sharing to

sharpen their defenses against terrorist violence. We have been effective
in dealing with the capabilities of our partners globally, she said. This is not a
battle the United States can undertake alone. She said the threat posed by the core alQaida network continued to diminish in 2014 after the deaths and arrests of leaders in
Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen.

Surveillance is vital to effective counter-terrorism any lapse

creates vulnerabilities
AFP 6/1, Agence France Presse, "CIA chief: Ending NSA spying would boost terror
threat," 6/1/15, www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/world/05/31/15/cia-chiefending-nsa-spying-would-boost-terror-threat
WASHINGTON, United States - CIA chief John Brennan warned Sunday that

allowing vital surveillance programs to

expire could increase terror threats , as the US Senate convened for a crunch debate on whether to renew the
controversial provisions. With key counterterrorism programs set to expire at midnight Sunday, the top intelligence official made a final pitch to senators,

bulk data collection of telephone records of millions of Americans unconnected to terrorism has not abused civil
liberties and only serves to safeguard citizens. "This is something that we can't afford to do right now,"
arguing that the

Brennan said of

allow ing the expiration of counterterrorism provisions , which "sunset" at the end

if you look at the horrific terrorist attacks and violence being perpetrated
around the globe, we need to keep our country safe, and our oceans are not keeping us safe the
way they did century ago," he said CBS' "Face the Nation" talk show. Brennan added that groups like Islamic State have
followed the developments "very carefully" and are "looking for the seams
to operate." The House has already passed a reform bill, the USA Freedom Act, that would end the telephone data dragnet by the National
of May 31. "Because

Security Agency and require a court order for the NSA to access specific records from the vast data base retained by telecommunications companies. If
no action is taken by the Senate Sunday, authorities will be forced to shut down the bulk collection program and two other provisions, which allow roving
wiretaps of terror suspects who change their mobile phone numbers and the tracking of lone-wolf suspects. Senator Rand Paul, a Republican 2016
presidential candidate adamantly opposed to reauthorizing the surveillance, is threatening to delay votes on the reform bill or an extension of the original

Hayden, who is
a former CIA director, equated such a temporary lapse as "giving up
threads" in a broader protective fabric. "It may not make a difference for a while. Then again, it might," he told
CNN's State of the Union. "Over the longer term, I'm willing to wager, it will indeed
USA Patriot Act. That would force the counterterrorism provisions to lapse until at least Wednesday. Former NSA chief Michael
also

make a difference ."

Nuclear terror is feasible and likely high motivation

Matthew Bunn 15, Professor of Practice at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy
School of Government, Nickolas Roth, Research Associate at the Project on
Managing the Atom in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at
Harvard Kennedy School, Reducing the risks of nuclear theft and terrorism, from
Routledge Handbook of Nuclear Proliferation and Policy ed. Joseph F. Pilat and
Nathan E. Busch, 5/15/15, pp. 419-420
we now live in an age that includes a few groups intent on inflicting largescale destruction to achieve more global objectives. In the 1990s, the japanese terror
cult Anni Shinrikyo first sought to buy nuclear weapons in Russia, then to make them
themselves, before turning to biological weapons and the nerve gas they ultimatelv used in the
Tokyo subways. Starting also in the 19905, al Qaeda repeatedly sought nuclear materials
and the expertise needed to make them into a nuclear bomb. Ultimately, al Qaeda put together a focused
But

program reporting directly to Ayman al-Zawahiri (now head of the group), which progressed as far as carrying out
crude but sensible conventional explosive tests for the nuclear program in the desert of Afghanistan. The killing of
Osama bin Laden and the many other blows against al Qaeda have surely reduced the risk that al Qaeda could put

The core organization of al

Qaeda has proved resilient in the past.There is every reason to believe AlZawahiri remains eager to inflict destruction on a nuclear scale . Indeed,
despite the large number of al Qaeda leaders who have been killed or captured,
nearly all of the key players in al Qaedas nuclear program remain alive
together and carry through a nuclear bomb project. But by how much?

and at large - including Abdel Aziz al-Masri, an Egyptian explosives expert who was al
Qaedas nuclear CEO." No one knows what capabilities a secret cell of al Qaeda may have managed to
retain or build. And regional affiliates and other groups in the broader violent Islamic extremist movement
particularly some of the deadly Pakistani terrorist groups may someday develop the
capability and intent to follow a similar path. North Caucasus terrorist groups
sought radiological weapons and threatened to sabotage nuclear
reactors.There is significant, though less conclusive, evidence that they sought
nuclear weapons as well particularly confirmation from senior Russian
officials that two teams were caught carrying out reconnaissance at Russian nuclear weapon storage
sites, whose very locations are a state secret. More fundamentally, with at least
two, and probably three, groups having gone down this path in the past twenty-five years,

there is no reason to expect they will be the last . The danger of nuclear
terrorism will remain as long as nuclear weapons, the materials needed to make
and terrorist groups bent on large-scale destruction co-exist.

them,

Terrorism causes extinction---hard-line responses are key

Nathan Myhrvold '13, Phd in theoretical and mathematical physics from
Princeton, and founded Intellectual Ventures after retiring as chief strategist and
chief technology officer of Microsoft Corporation , July 2013, "Stratgic Terrorism: A
Call to Action," The Lawfare Research Paper Series No.2,
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Strategic-TerrorismMyhrvold-7-3-2013.pdf
powerful trends have aligned to profoundly change the way that the world works.
Technology now allows stateless groups to organize, recruit, and fund themselves
in an unprecedented fashion. That, coupled with the extreme difficulty of finding and
punishing a stateless group, means that stateless groups are positioned to be lead
players on the world stage. They may act on their own, or they may act as proxies for
nation-states that wish to duck responsibility. Either way, stateless groups are forces to be
reckoned with. At the same time, a different set of technology trends means that small numbers
of people can obtain incredibly lethal power. Now, for the first time in human history, a small
group can be as lethal as the largest superpower . Such a group could execute an attack that
could kill millions of people. It is technically feasible for such a group to kill billions of people,
to end modern civilizationperhaps even to drive the human race to extinction. Our defense
Several

establishment was shaped over decades to address what was, for a long time, the only strategic threat our
nation faced: Soviet or Chinese missiles. More recently, it has started retooling to address tactical terror attacks
those launched on the morning of 9/11, but the reform process is incomplete and inconsistent. A real
defense will require rebuilding our military and intelligence capabilities from the
ground up. Yet, so far, strategic terrorism has received relatively little attention in
defense agencies, and the efforts that have been launched to combat this existential
threat seem fragmented. History suggests what will happen. The only thing that
shakes America out of complacency is a direct threat from a determined adversary
that confronts us with our shortcomings by repeatedly attacking us or hectoring
us for decades.

like

4
TPA will pass --- House passage provides momentum, but
Obama still must convince the Senate
Vicki Needham 6/18, and Cristina Marcos, both politics reporters @ The Hill,
House approves fast-track 218-208, sending bill to Senate,
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/245417-house-approves-fast-track-218-208sending-bill-to-senate
The House on Thursday took the first step toward resuscitating the White
Houses trade agenda by passing legislation granting President Obama
fast-track authority. The bill now goes to the Senate, where the White
House and GOP leaders are seeking to strike a deal with pro-trade
Democrats. The House vote was 218-208, with 28 Democrats voting for it. This is the second time in a week the House has
voted to approve the controversial fast-track bill. On Friday, the House voted 219-211 in favor of fast-track, which would make it easier for Obama to complete a sweeping trans-Pacific
trade deal. In last weeks vote, the House GOP paired the fast-track bill with a measure known as Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) that gives aid to workers displaced by trade. Both
measures needed to be approved in separate votes for the entire package to move forward. House Democrats have historically favored TAA, but they voted against it on Friday to kill
fast-track, which is deeply opposed by unions and other liberal groups. The White House still wants both measures to reach Obamas desk, but is now advancing a different strategy
that would see the two bills move separately. The problem lies in the Senate, which previously approved a package that included both bills. If the two move separately, Republicans

the White House will have to convince Senate Democrats to back fasttrack on the promise that TAA will move forward at a later time. The
president spoke with a group of Senate Democrats on Wednesday at the
White House, and talks continued in the Senate on Thursday on a way to
give the president t rade p romotion a uthority, also known as fast-track.
and

One possible solution would see the Senate vote first to pass a trade preferences bill, this time with the TAA program attached. It would then be sent to the House for a vote before the
Senate considers fast-track. This planned move angered members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who asked Senate leaders not to use the trade measure, which would provide
preferential access to the U.S. market for African countries, as a bargaining chip to pass trade promotion authority. Democrats opposed to the trade package expressed frustration that
GOP leaders were bypassing them. Instead of cooperation, theyve opted to use procedural tricks to pass the TPA, said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). As promised, all 28 pro-trade House
Democrats supported the bill again. Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) said on Wednesday that those who backed the trade agenda are really committed to getting fast-track and TAA done.

The tough vote has already been taken, Kind said. Were on record; we
supported TPA last week. We also supported TAA last week, too, he said. House Ways
and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) warned that repeating last week's debacle would reflect badly on the international stage. "It gives
America credibility," Ryan said of TPA. "And boy, do we need credibility right now."

SSRA is unpopular theres a bipartisan coalition opposing

passage2013 proves
Wachtler 2015, Mark Wachtler, 4/11/2015, HR 1466 Surveillance State Repeal
Act of 2015, http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/2015/q2/hr-1466-surveillancestate-repeal-act-2015/
Considering the overwhelming outrage by the American people over the governments blanket domestic espionage

the 2013 Surveillance State Repeal Act didnt garner

more support. The Bill accumulated ten co-sponsors , was assigned to four Committees
and six Sub-Committees. But not a single vote was ever taken to advance them out
of Committee and to the full House. Supporters of the effort to stop the universal surveillance of
programs, its surprising that

the American people hope this years effort will be more successful. HR 1466 - Surveillance State Repeal Act of
2015 In 2013, Rep Mark Pocan (D-WI) was one of ten Democrat Congressmen who co-sponsored the Patriot Act
repeal Bill. This time, hes the main sponsor and he has a Republican co-sponsor signed on with him. Introduced on
March 19, 2015, the new Bill was proposed by five Congressmen and already has an additional Representative
whos signed on since then. The sponsors include Rep Pocan, Rep Thomas Massie (R-KY), Rep Alan Grayson (D-FL),
Rep James McGovern (D-MA), Rep Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Rep Michael Capuano (D-MA). As detailed by the House
website, HR 1466 was immediately referred to a number of House Committees upon its introduction. The summary
explains that the Surveillance State Repeal Act of 2015 was, Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in

addition to the Committees on Intelligence (Permanent Select), Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, Energy and
Commerce, Education and the Workforce, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Armed Services, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker. What the Bill would repeal and require HR 1466s official description
gives a brief overview of the Bills ramifications. The legislation, Repeals the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA
Amendments Act of 2008 (thereby restoring or reviving provisions amended or repealed by such Acts as if such Acts
had not been enacted), except with respect to reports to Congress regarding court orders under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) and the acquisition of intelligence information concerning an entity not
substantially composed of US persons that is engaged in the international proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. As currently written, the Bill would also prohibit the government from collecting information on an
American citizen, without a warrant based on probable cause. If passed, it would also force the Director of the
Office of National Intelligence, and its 16 spy agencies to, destroy any information collected under the repealed
Acts, or acquired under Executive Order 12333 without a warrant. The law would also protect electronics
manufacturers from being forced by the government to include encryption-free back doors to their devices and
services allowing spy agencies to monitor their customers. Finally, the Bill attempts to protect future whistleblowers
that come forward with evidence that the government isnt abiding by the law. Little chance of passage

experts are
already warning that HR 1466 has almost no chance of passing. Much like
previous attempts to reign in the governments massive blanket domestic
espionage programs, this latest effort will most likely pit regular
Americans from all walks of the political spectrum supporting the Bill against a bipartisan
coalition of the most powerful establishment leaders from both Parties
opposing it. That uphill fight isnt deterring the Bills main sponsor however. This isnt just tinkering around
Illustrating that once you go from Republic to Empire, its nearly impossible to go back,

the edges, Rep Mark Pocan was reported by The Hill explaining during a Capitol Hill briefing after he introduced the
legislation, This is a meaningful overhaul of the system, getting rid of essentially all parameters of the Patriot
Act. Republican co-sponsor Rep Thomas Massie also commented on the Bill with targeted remarks about the
whistleblower portion of the newly proposed HR 1466. Really, what we need are new whistleblower protections so
that the next Edward Snowden doesnt have to go to Russia or Hong Kong or whatever the case may be just for
disclosing this, he said, We need to repeal all of this junk and just start over. Illustrating the uphill battle the cosponsors and their supporters have in front of them, The Hill writes, The

bill is likely to be a
nonstarter for leaders in Congress, who have been worried that even
much milder reforms to the nations spying laws would tragically [hurt ]
handicap the nations ability to fight terrorists. A similar bill was introduced
in 2013 but failed to gain any movement in the House.

Obamas pc is key to secure TPA --- that shores up the

American pivot to Asia
Keith B. Richburg 3-23, served as the Washington Post's bureau chief in Manila,
Nairobi, Hong Kong, Paris and Beijing, was the paper's foreign editor, 3/23/15,
America's world standing hangs on Obama's TPP success, Nikkei Asian Review,
http://asia.nikkei.com/print/article/82518
if the Pacific free trade agreement ultimately winds up a victim of
Washington's machinations, Obama himself may carry a large share of the
blame . The trade deal, formally known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP -- encompassing a dozen Pacific Rim nations and 26% of global
trade -- is not yet complete, so there is no formal Congressional vote on the horizon on the accord itself. Rather, Congress is
scheduled to vote first, some time in the coming weeks , on giving the president what is known as "trade
promotion authority" (TPA), or "fast track" powers, which would let Obama negotiate the terms of the deal and only afterward allow Congress a simple
But

"yes" or "no" vote with no possibility of amendments. Previous U.S. presidents have enjoyed similar fast track authority to hammer out complex trade

fast track authority is considered crucial to

concluding the TPP negotiations . Without fast track, any accord Obama negotiates
with his foreign partners will be subject to countless killer amendments when it goes
before Congress for approval. Subjecting a complex multilateral deal to various amendments may make it more palatable to various U.S.
constituencies, but other participating nations will be unlikely to accept any
deals, but the power expired in 2007 and needs to be renewed. Giving Obama

changes. Without fast track, the other nations will not believe Obama has
the power to strike the final deal. Meanwhile inside America, the looming vote over fast track has become a proxy for
the trade pact itself. Some want to kill the deal before it is concluded, and see fast track as their vehicle. And some of the president's opponents simply
want to deny Obama a victory on a crucial part of his agenda, or at least avoid granting him any extra powers. The opposition on the left was expected.
Labor unions, environmentalists and their allies from the Democratic Party's left wing also opposed the 1994 North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA)
between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, which was passed under President Bill Clinton. The unions fear that further trade agreements will drive American
jobs offshore as companies seek lower-wage environments, and many critics point to the "hollowing-out" of U.S. manufacturing as a result of NAFTA. In
getting NAFTA passed, Clinton had to rely on the votes of business-friendly free trade Republicans, who then controlled Congress, and a small number of
centrist Democrats. That same coalition was supposed to work again this time to push through the TPP. The proposed investment and trade treaty was
considered to be one of the few areas of cooperation between Obama and the new-look Republican-controlled Congress. But threats to the trade pact's
prospects stem from several new dynamics since 1994, as the politics inside both major U.S. parties have shifted. The most significant change is in the

While the Republican

leadership agrees with the aims of TPP and wants to give Obama fast track authority, Tea Party
Republicans and some conservative lawmakers have railed at what they
see as Obama's expansive -- they say unconstitutional -- use of his executive powers. Executive
actions Obama has used executive orders to implement his controversial health
care law, issue sweeping environmental protections and shield millions of illegal
immigrants from deportation. He is also negotiating a possible nuclear
deal with Iran and could suspend sanctions on the Tehran regime without Congressional approval. Obama has defended his penchant for
makeup of the current Republican-dominated Congress, and how leaders no longer control the rank and file.

executive action saying that with current political system in perpetual gridlock, the public demands results, and the president's many powers include "a
pen and a phone" -- a pen to issue executive orders, and a phone to reach outside of government to private businesses, universities and nonprofit groups

conservatives and Tea Partiers are saying that

granting Obama even more power to negotiate a huge trade pact on his
own is precisely the wrong move. Many conservative Republicans are not just opposing fast track -- they are also
to build support for his policies. But now

opposing the Pacific trade deal itself, which they say will help corporations and not ordinary workers. This underscores another key shift in the modern
Republican Party, the rise of populist, anti-big-business sentiment in a party that has traditionally been known as friendly to corporate interests. The
other altered dynamic is the new energy of the Democratic left, which has found a powerful voice in Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. In a
strongly worded opinion article in the Washington Post in February, Warren, who has been frequently mentioned as a possible presidential candidate to
challenge Hillary Clinton, asked: "Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest

Will the coalescing of anti-Obama conservatives and

Tea Party populists on the right, and workers, environmentalists and the "Elizabeth Warren wing" of the
Democratic Party on the left, be enough to scuttle fast track -- and with it the TPP? And if
they did, what would be the impact? First, the prospects; the White House has begun a late,
concerted lobbying effort . Most Democrats will oppose fast track, but Obama
still needs to build a larger bloc of Democratic "yes" votes to make up for
the expected loss of Republicans. The question people are asking in Washington is, will the fast track bill lose more
Republicans that it gains Democrats? The numbers look close , and few are making
predictions. One of those counting the votes is Bill Reinsch, President of
the National Foreign Trade Council in Washington DC, which supports the Pacific accord. He believes
30 to 50 out of 188 House Democrats will be persuaded to vote for fast
track. " In the end I think TPA passes because the fundamental argument
for it is unassailable," he told me in an email. "If Congress wants a role in trade policy, the way they have one is to pass a bill
telling the president what they want him to do, which is TPA." What if it fails? And would the world , and the region,
survive without the Pacific trade pact, if it got lost in American political machinations? As a trade issue, the
multinational corporations in the world?"

impact would be minimal. The U.S. already has bilateral and multilateral trade agreements with five of the TPP countries -- Australia, Canada, Chile,
Mexico and Singapore. Some countries, like Japan, may be relieved to see the pact go down -- and have the U.S. Congress to blame -- so as to avoid
having to open their markets to American agricultural products. Failure would also benefit China, which could then negotiate a trading system consistent

a failure of the trade pact, or fast

track authority to get it done, will deal a severe blow to America's standing in the
world and particularly in Asia, because the TPP was always more about national
security than economics. The Pacific Rim trade deal was to be the most
visible component of Obama's rebalancing to Asia, and failure to deliver it
will call into question America's long-term commitment to the region. "You
can't disentangle TPP from the pivot to Asia," said Patrick Chovanec, an economist and asset manager who
has worked in Asia and previously with the Republican leadership in the lower house of Congress in the 1990s. " You have to push it
with its more protectionist rules than the open-trading TPP. But beyond the arcane issues involved,

through, or else it looks like the U.S. is losing its influence and losing its 'mojo' in the
region. ... If you're going to say you'll have a pivot to Asia, you have to put some muscle behind that -- and TPP was the muscle." Also, with the
World Trade Organization's Doha talks hopelessly stalled, the TPP was seen as one of the smaller,
multilateral trade accords that could showcase the benefits of increased
trade liberalization and perhaps jumpstart the WTO negotiations . Obama must
share a portion of the blame for this current predicament. Although he has lately called free trade a key part of his agenda,
and TPP as a critical component, he never gave the sense of investing much political capital in pushing fast track through a reluctant Congress. Too many
other important issues seemed to crowd out space on the president's agenda -- economic stimulus, health care reform, financial services regulation and
winding down the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the first term, then gun control, immigration, student loans, minimum wage, infrastructure spending and

Obama seemed indifferent to

trade as a candidate in 2008, and he spoke little of it in his first term . Now
he needs to be entirely engaged , and bring all his powers of persuasion
and pressure to bear . His legacy -- and America's standing in the world -- are riding
on it.
getting Congress to authorize his war against the Islamic State in the second term.

Pivot prevents nuclear war

Colby 11 Elbridge Colby, research analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses,
served as policy advisor to the Secretary of Defenses Representative to the New
START talks, expert advisor to the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission,
August 10, 2011, Why the U.S. Needs its Liberal Empire, The Diplomat, online:
http://the-diplomat.com/2011/08/10/why-us-needs-its-liberal-empire/2/?print=yes
But the pendulum shouldnt be allowed to swing too far toward an incautious retrenchment. For our problem hasnt

The US alliance and

partnership structure, what the late William Odom called the United States liberal empire that
includes a substantial military presence and a willingness to use it in the defence of US
and allied interests, remains a vital component of US security and global stability and
been overseas commitments and interventions as such, but the kinds of interventions.

prosperity . This system of voluntary and consensual cooperation under US leadership, particularly in
the security realm,

constitutes a formidable bloc defending the liberal

international order . But, in part due to poor decision-making in Washington, this system is under strain,
particularly in East Asia, where the security situation has become tenser even as the region continues to become
the centre of the global economy. A nuclear North Koreas violent behaviour threatens South Korea and Japan, as
well as US forces on the peninsula; Pyongyangs development of a road mobile Intercontinental Ballistic Missile,

North Korea could threaten the United States itself

with nuclear attack, a prospect that will further imperil stability in the region. More broadly, the
moreover, brings into sight the day when

rise of China and especially its rapid and opaque military build-up combined with its
increasing assertiveness in regional disputes is troubling to the United States and its allies and partners
across the region. Particularly relevant to the US military presence in the western Pacific is the
development of Beijings anti-access and area denial capabilities, including the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile,
more capable anti-ship cruise missiles, attack submarines, attack aircraft, smart mines, torpedoes, and other
assets. While Beijing remains a constructive contributor on a range of matters, these capabilities will give China
the growing power to deny the United States the ability to operate effectively in the western Pacific, and thus the
potential to undermine the US-guaranteed security substructure that has defined
littoral East Asia since World War II. Even if China says today it wont exploit this growing capability, who can tell
what tomorrow or the next day will bring? Naturally, US efforts to build up forces in the western Pacific in response
to future Chinese force improvements must be coupled with efforts to engage Beijing as a responsible stakeholder;
indeed, a strengthened but appropriately restrained military posture will enable rather than detract from such
engagement. In short,

the United States must increase its involvement in East Asia

rather than decrease it. Simply maintaining the military balance in the western
Pacific will, however, involve substantial investments to improve US capabilities. It will
also require augmented contributions to the common defence by US allies that have long enjoyed low defence
budgets under the US security umbrella. This wont be cheap , for these requirements cant be met simply
by incremental additions to the existing posture, but will have to include advances in air, naval, space, cyber, and

East Asia represents the

economic future, and its strategic developments will determine which
country or countries set the international rules that shape that economic
future. Conversely, US interventions in the Middle East and, to a lesser degree, in southeastern Europe have been driven by far more ambitious and aspirational conceptions of
the national interest, encompassing the proposition that failing or illiberally governed
peripheral states can contribute to an instability that nurtures terrorism and impedes
economic growth. Regardless of whether this proposition is true, the effort is rightly seen by the new political
tide not to be worth the benefits gained . Moreover, the United States can scale (and has scaled) back
other expensive high-tech capabilities. Yet such efforts are vital, for

nation-building plans in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Balkans without undermining its vital interests in ensuring the
free flow of oil and in preventing terrorism. The lesson to be drawn from recent years is not, then, that the United
States should scale back or shun overseas commitments as such, but rather that we must be more discriminating in
making and acting upon them. A total US unwillingness to intervene would pull the rug out from under the US-led
structure, leaving the international system prey to disorder at the least, and at worst to chaos or dominance by
others who could not be counted on to look out for US interests. We

need to focus on making the

right interventions, not forswearing them completely. In practice, this means a more
substantial focus on East Asia and the serious security challenges there, and less
emphasis on the Middle East. This isnt to say that the United States should be unwilling to
intervene in the Middle East. Rather, it is to say that our interventions there should be more tightly connected to

protecting the free flow of oil from the region, preventing terrorist
attacks against the United States and its allies, and forestalling or, if necessary, containing nuclear
proliferation as opposed to the more idealistic aspirations to transform the regions societies. These more
concrete objectives can be better met by the more judicious and economical use of
our military power. More broadly, however, it means a shift in US emphasis away
from the greater Middle East toward the Asia-Pacific region, which dwarfs the
former in economic and military potential and in the dynamism of its societies. The AsiaPacific region, with its hard-charging economies and growing presence on the global stage, is where the
future of the international security and economic system will be set , and it is
there that Washington needs to focus its attention, especially in light of rising regional security challenges. In
light of US budgetary pressures , including the hundreds of billions in security related money to be cut
as part of the debt ceiling deal, its doubly important that US security dollars be allocated
to the most pressing tasks shoring up the US position in the most important region
of the world, the Asia-Pacific . It will also require restraint in expenditure on those
challenges and regions that dont touch so directly on the future of US
security and prosperity. As Americans debate the proper US global role in the wake of the 2008
concrete objectives such as

financial crisis and Iraq and Afghanistan, they would do well to direct their ire not at overseas commitments and
intervention as such, but rather at those not tied to core US interests and the sustainment and adaptation of the
liberal empire that we have constructed and maintained since World War II. Defenders of our important overseas
links and activities should clearly distinguish their cause from the hyperactive and barely restrained approach
represented by those who, unsatisfied with seeing the United States tied down in three Middle Eastern countries,

those who refuse to scale back US

interventions in the Middle East or call for still more are directly
contributing to the weakening of US commitments in East Asia , given
strategic developments in the region and a sharply constrained budgetary
seek intervention in yet more, such as Syria. Indeed,

environment in Washington. We can no longer afford, either strategically or

financially, to squander our power in unnecessary and ill-advised interventions and nationbuilding efforts. The ability and will to intervene is too important to be so wasted.

Cyber
Trust doesnt ensure public-private cooperationtoo many
hurdles that need to be addressed
Germano, Senior Fellow and Adjunct Professor of Law at New
York University School of Law, 14
Judith H., "Cybersecurity Partnerships: A New Era of Public-Private Collaboration",
Oct 2014, The Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law,
www.lawandsecurity.org/Portals/0/Documents/Cybersecurity.Partnerships.pdf
Despite its importance and the potentially
significant impact of a campaign to harmonize the efforts of the
government and private sector in cybersecurity, there exist legal,
II. BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE COOPERATION

pragmatic, cultural, and competitive hurdles to effective cooperation that

need to be addressed. These hurdles mean that many companies may be inclined to
refrain from extensive cooperation in addressing their cybersecurity
challenges. And, despite the pervasive and persistent threat, a number of companies only
consider working with the government once they are in crisis mode and
responding to a cybersecurity incident, rather than on an ongoing and
proactive basis. Major categories of obstacles to effective cooperation between
public and private actors combatting pervasive cyberthreats include: (1)
issues surrounding trust and control of incident response; (2) questions about obligations
regarding disclosure and exposure; (3) the evolving liability and regulatory
landscape; (4) challenges faced in the cross-border investigation of cybercrime;
and (5) cross-border data transfer restrictions that impede the ability of
companies to respond nimbly to cyberthreats and incidents.

Conventional terror is more probable and higher magnitude

than cyberterror cost, scope, and inherent limitations
Caroline Kennedy-Pipe 15, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the
University of Hull, England, Gordon Clubb, Simon Mabon, Terrorism and Political
Violence, 2/16/15, Google Books
A first major reason for scepticism regarding the threat posed by
cyberterrorism may be found in analyses of the costs that it poses in
relation to other forms of attack

(Ratlnnell, 1999). Although estimations of costs are often

offline forms
of terrorism with the relatively more prohibitive costs of cyberattacks. Beginning with the former, even a
major, coordinated attack such as the 1998 bombing of the US embassies in Kenya an Tanzania
cost no more than $10,000, according to the CIA (cited in Hoffman, 2006: 134); itself cost less than
challenging and imprecise, it is possible to contrast the (financial) expense of more traditional,

$500,000, according to the 9/11 Commission (Hoffman, 2006), while Conway (2014) notes that the average cost of
constructing a car bomb in Afghanistan in 2006 was $1675. The cost of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing which
resulted in the eath of 168 people was less than $5000. In contrast to these relatively low figures, Giacomello

estimates the cost of a cyberattack on a hydroelectric dam at

$1.2-1.3 million, including logistical and personnel costs, and estimates the total cost of
an attack against an air-traffic-control system at $2.5-3 million, or five to
(2004: 397)

six times that of the 9/11 attacks. If terrorism is always a choice among
alternatives (McCormick, 2003: 474), then so too are the instruments of its
conduct; analysed thus cyber weapons appear a relatively unattractive
option.
Second , beyond the perceived costs of cyberterrorism is the issue of its potential benefits .
Many of those who are most sceptical of worst-case scenarios around
cyberterrorism are so because of the limited utility they see cyberattacks
possessing for terrorist groups. For some, such as Conway (2014), terrorism (and consequently
cyberterrorism) have an important communicative or performative dimension. That is, the purpose of terrorism is to
impact upon and, specifically, to cause fear within - an external audience not directly or immediately affected by

the benefits of cyberterrorism are limited because there

is no guarantee that they would generate the publicity sought by their
protagonists. As Conway (2014) argues, a cyberattack might go uttnoticed even by
its initial target, he mistakenly identified as an accident rather than a deliberate,
malicious attack, or might even be hidden by governments or corporations
seeking to downplay vulnerabilities to citizens and shareholders.
an attack. Seen in this way,

A third reason for scepticism relates to the difficulties that would be

faced by a terrorist organisation seeking to perpetrate a cyberattack .
Thus, irrespective of motivation, there are important questions to be
asked in relation to the extent to which critical infrastructures are actually
vulnerable to penetration (Dunn Cavelty, 2008: 20), and of the technical
competence of would-be terrorists seeking to attack via the internet. As
Weimann (2005: 143) notes, Many computer security experts do not believe that it
is possible to use the Internet to inflict death on a large scale . This is. not least,
because of considerable investment in cyber security by governments,
corporations and other potential targets. as well as due to the
development of techniques such as air-gapping in which nuclear weapons
and other military systems are deliberately not connected to the internet
(Weimann, 2005). While these mechanisms might not guarantee security from cyberterrorism. they do add a
sceptical counterbalance to the more concerned perspectives considered
above.

Risk is systemically over-estimated and has been for decades

Healey, Atlantic Council Cyber Statecraft Initiative director, 2013
(Jason, No, Cyberwarfare Isn't as Dangerous as Nuclear War, 3-20,
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/03/20/cyber-attacks-notyet-an-existential-threat-to-the-us, ldg)

Eighty years ago, the generals of the U.S. Army Air Corps were sure that
their bombers would easily topple other countries and cause their
populations to panic, claims which did not stand up to reality. A study of the 25-year history
of cyber conflic t, by the Atlantic Council and Cyber Conflict Studies Association, has shown a similar
dynamic where the impact of disruptive cyberattacks has been
consistently overestimated.

Rather than theorizing about future cyberwars or extrapolating from today's

cyber incidents have so far

tended to have effects that are either widespread but fleeting or
persistent but narrowly focused. No attacks, so far, have been both
concerns, the history of cyberconflict that have actually been fought, shows that

widespread and persistent . There have been no authenticated cases of

anyone dying from a cyber attack. Any widespread disruptions, even the 2007
disruption against Estonia , have been short-lived causing no significant GDP loss .

No deaths from nuclear meltdowns

Drum 11 Kevin, political blogger for Mother Jones, "Nukes and the Free Market",
March 14, www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/03/nukes-and-free-market
Were currently told that the death toll in Japan will be at least 10,000 people of whom approximately

zero seem to have perished in nuclear accidents . What happens when a tsunami
hits an offshore drilling platform or a natural gas pipeline? What happens to a coal mine in
an earthquake? How much environmental damage is playing out in Japan right now because of gasoline from cars pushed around? The
main lesson is try not to put critical infrastructure near a fault line but Japan is an earthquakey country, so
what are they really supposed to do about this? This is a good point: energy sources of all kind cause problems.
Sometimes the problems create screaming headlines (nuke meltdowns, offshore oil explosions, mining disasters) and
sometimes they don't (increased particulate pollution, global warming, devastation of salmon runs). But the dangers

are there for virtually every type of energy production . Still, it's worth pointing out that
the problem with nuclear power isn't

so much

its immediate capacity to kill

people . As Matt points out, no one has died in Japan from the partial meltdowns at its damaged
nuclear plants, and it's unlikely anyone ever will . The control rods are in place, and
even in the worst case the containment vessels will almost certainly restrict the worst damage.

No impact backups
IBEW 14 (2014, International Brotherhood of Elctricial Workers, http://www.ibew.org/IBEW/departments/utility/IBEW-NuclearFAQ.pdf The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) represents approximately 750,000 active members and retirees
who work in a wide variety of fields, including utilities, construction, telecommunications, broadcasting, manufacturing, railroads and
government. The IBEW has members in both the United States and Canada and stands out among the American unions in the AFLCIO because it is among the largest and has members in so many skilled occupations.

Some of the units at the Japanese plants lost both off - site power and
diesel generators. This is called a station blackout. U.S. nuclear power plants are
designed to cope with station blackouts by having multiple back - up

power sources at the ready. All U.S. plants are also responsible for
demonstrating to the NRC that they can handle such situations in order to
legally remain in operation.

Internet
Net Neutrality sets a global model for open internet
overwhelms the NSA scandal
Savov, writer @ The Verge, 2-6-15
(Vlad, Thank you, America, for finally acting sane about the internet,
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/6/7992195/net-neutrality-and-americanleadership)
I recount this experience now which will be familiar to countless nations around the world because this week we finally have a

US government did something right

for a change at this point, its impressive when it does anything at all by deciding to
chance to celebrate our global Americanization. On Wednesday, the

wholeheartedly endorse net neutrality. As egotistical as the USA can often seem, this
decision is one with truly global implications . The Netherlands, Finland, and
other countries may have stronger commitments to universal broadband
access and net neutrality, but they dont have the worlds ear the way
that the US does.

I dont believe that the US embracing net neutrality will automatically enforce the principle around

the world, but I am confident that it couldnt get very far without American approval. The United States is deeply invested in setting
the worlds policy agenda, whether it be through legal means such as the copyright-enforcing Trans-Pacific Partnership (which is still

Snowdens
revelations about the NSA and the Five Eyes spying network also show a
country thats actively manipulating and exploiting the internet in
destructive ways, forcing others like Brazil to consider breaking off from the global network. American
control over the internet is deliberate and a recognition of net neutrality
being negotiated) or extra-legal ones as used to undermine the Castro regime in Cuba. Edward

by this hegemon can only be a good thing. NET NEUTRALITY REVERSES A

TRACK RECORD OF THE USA SCREWING UP THE INTERNET One of the all-time favorite
sayings of British economists is that when America sneezes the whole world catches a
cold. Its a clich that was truer in the 1990s than it is today, with China steadily ascending in global economic importance, but
it remains valid when it comes to the internet . The future of the internet is
shaped by decisions made in the United States . While the policymakers on
the east coast set the rules on how we access it, the tech industry
clustered on the west coast determines what we do with it. The iPhone was proudly
designed in California, and so were most of the apps and services through which we use the web on a daily basis. Twitter, Facebook,
Google, Microsoft, and Amazon all have their headquarters on the western American coast, and its in their boardrooms and idea
labs that the next evolution of the web will take form.

US internet is competitive now and the plan doesnt address

structural alt causes
Layton 13
Roslyn Layton is a PhD fellow in internet economics at Center for Communication,
Media and Information Technologies at Aalborg University in Denmark, Americas
Broadband Service Is Not Falling Behind,
http://www.american.com/archive/2013/february/americas-broadband-service-is-notfalling-behind

A new report from the Washington-based Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) provides an excellent review of
major broadband studies from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), Akamai, and others. Each study has a unique focus and methodology, and it is easy to confuse measures such as

There is no
S tates is

deployment (the geographic reach of broadband networks) with adoption (the number of users who subscribe).

doubt that one could cherry-pick a data point to say the U nited

failing, but taking into account the whole picture that the studies provide, the
conclusion is clear: the United States is doing well in broadband. End-user
prices may be cheaper in some countries, but prices dont tell the whole
story. The real cost of broadband may be borne by taxpayers through
subsidies or other factors such as South Korean landlords required to
upgrade their apartment buildings. Population density drives lower prices for broadband. It takes more
equipment, and hence more money, to wire the United States, a largely suburban nation with many single-family homes. Japan,
South Korea, and the Netherlands, on the other hand, are much more densely populated, and in Denmark, the population is
concentrated in the major cities. But before you pack up and move abroad, keep in mind that people in these countries pay more for
gasoline and consumer products than do Americans. Some critics call the American market uncompetitive, but

American

carriers fight fiercely for customers. A look at the FCCs National Broadband Plan website shows that
there are four or more competitors in many markets. But competition is
not necessarily driven by the number of players; its driven by the
technology. Where I live in Denmark, the wireline incumbent controls more than 50 percent of that market, but there are
still low prices. This is because mobile operators are in a race to upgrade their infrastructure, so the incumbent keeps prices down

the United States is rated third in the OECD for

intercarrier competition between cable and DSL (behind Belgium and the Netherlands). The
so its DSL customers wont flock to mobile. Indeed,

ITIF also notes that the United States has the OECDs second-lowest price for entry-level broadband; what you pay scales with what

For some time, adoption of broadband in the United States was

hindered by people not having a computer. With the prices for mobile
devices falling (half of all Americans owned a smartphone in 2012) coupled with the worlds
biggest rollout of 4G/LTE, lower-income Americans increasingly purchase
broadband. We are reinventing the Internet with mobile while wired networks continue to innovate. In Denmark in 2000, no
you consume.

fewer than 14 local utility cooperatives attempted to create their own fiber networks, arguing that there is little difference between
bringing fiber or electricity to homes. They estimated that once one is in the business of providing electricity, the transition can
easily be made to providing another pipe service: broadband. Their business case never worked because the price of broadband on
other networks plummeted. Today, fewer than 200,000 Danish homes subscribe to these fiber networks, a number thats small even
for Denmark. The Norwegian Centre for Integrated Care and Telemedicine, the worlds leading institute for telemedicine, notes that
most applications run fine on average broadband levels (for example, video consultation), and even the most advanced app would

the limiting factor for telemedicine is

not broadband but rather health care providers who are resistant to
change.1 This finding echoes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce study of
broadband in schools, which found that many American schools have the
requisite level of broadband, but the bottleneck is teachers who are not
require no more than 10 megabits per second (Mbps). Indeed

up to speed on technology . Thus, public funds may be better spent on digital literacy and teacher training than
on fiber. To be sure, the country with the fastest broadband speeds has bragging rights. Making a broadband target of 100 Mbps or
greater is politically expedient, but not necessarily meaningful. Its not the speed that matters, but what you do with it. In South
Korea, which has the worlds fastest speed of 45 Mbps, the primary uses of broadband by far are still entertainment for consumers
and video conferencing for businesses. While broadband has enabled productivity in many industries and supported a marginal

the real money in South Koreas

economy still comes from electronics, automobiles, shipbuilding,
semiconductors, steel, and chemicals the same growth engines from the pre-broadband days. Ditto for Japan and
Sweden. The United States, however, has diversified its econ omy because of broadband,
and boasts the worlds largest internet companies and innovation
economy. This was achieved with massive but wise investment in multiple
wireline and wireless broadband networks, and shows that we get bang
for our broadband buck. In South Korea the national broadband project has not yielded the jobs that were
Gangnam Style entertainment economy, make no mistake:

expected. Broadband has enabled entertainment but not employment. A new report by the Korea Information Society Development

Institute, A Study on the Impact of New ICT Service and Technology on Employment, bemoans the situation of jobless growth.
The government is also concerned about internet addiction, which afflicts some 10 percent of the countrys children aged between
10 and 19, who essentially function only for online gaming but not in other areas of society. In crafting broadband policy, European
Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes is looking not at Sweden or South Korea, but the United States, where she notes high
speed networks now pass more than 80 percent of homes; a figure that quadrupled in three years. Furthermore, she advocates

It is no small accomplishment that

some $250 billion of private investment funded American broadband
between 2008 and 2011, and that investment continues today. In the last
few years, American telecom firms bought more fiber than all of Europe
combined. Its easy to think that the grass is greener abroad, but when it
comes to broadband being delivered efficiently, theres no place like
home.
private along with public investment to achieve broadband goals.

Institutions and technical barriers means no balkinization

Nye 2014
Joseph, former Dean of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, The Regime
Complex for Managing Global Cyber Activities, May 2014
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12308565/Nye-GlobalCommission.pdf

Some analysts reinforce their pessimistic projections by pointing to realist theories

about the decline of US hegemony over the Internet, In its early days, the
Internet was largely American, but today, China has twice as many users
as the United States. Where once only roman characters were used on the
internet and HTML tags were based on abbreviated English words, now there are
generic top-level domain names in Chinese, Arabic and Cyrillic scripts, with more
alphabets expected to come online shortly (ICANN 2013). And in 2014, the United
States announced that it would relax its Department of Commerce's supervision of
ICANN and the IANA function. Some experts worried that this would open the
way for authoritarian states to try to exert control over the system of root
zone servers, and use that to censor the addresses of opponents. Such
fears seem exaggerated both on technical grounds and in their underlying
premises. Not only would such censorship be difficult, but, as liberal
institutionalist theories point out, there are self-interested grounds for states
to avoid such fragmentation of the Internet, In addition, the descriptions in
the decline in US power in the cyber regime are overstated. Not only does
the United States remain the second-largest user of the Internet, but it is
also the home of eight of the 10 largest global information companies
(Statista 2013).5 Moreover, when one looks at the composition of voluntary
multi- stakeholder communities such as the IETF, one sees a
disproportionate number of Americans participating for path dependent
and technical expertise reasons. From an institutionalist or constructivist
viewpoint, the loosening of US influence over ICANN could be seen as a
strategy for strengthening the institution and reinforcing the American
multi-stakeholder philosophy rather than as a sign of defeat (Zittrain 2014).

Stability exists independently of US power advocates of

unipolarity are biased by a superiority complex
Fettweis, 2014 Christopher, Associate Professor of Political Science at Tulane University, former postdoctoral fellow at the Mershon Center for International Security at Ohio State University, Ph.D. in international
relations from the University of Maryland, October 7, Delusions of Danger: Geopolitical Fear and Indispensability in
US Foreign Policy, A Dangerous World?: Threat Perception and U.S. National Security, Kindle Edition

Americans believe that U.S.

actions are primarily responsible for any stability that currently exists. All that stands
According to what might be considered the indispensability fallacy, many

between civility and genocide, order and mayhem, explain Lawrence Kaplan and William Kristol, is American

That belief is an offshoot, witting or not, of what is known as hegemonic stability

theory, which proposes that international peace is possible only when one country is strong enough to make and
power. 37

enforce a set of rules. 38 Were U.S. leaders to abdicate their responsibilities, that reasoning goes, unchecked
conflicts would at the very least bring humanitarian disaster and would quite quickly threaten core U.S. interests. 39

Brzezinski is typical in his belief that outright chaos and a string of specific horrors could be
expected to follow a loss of hegemony, from renewed attempts to build regional
empires (by China, Turkey, Russia, and Brazil) to the collapse of the U.S. relationship with
Mexico as emboldened nationalists south of the border reassert 150- year-old territorial claims. Overall,
without U.S. dominance, todays relatively peaceful world would turn violent and
bloodthirsty. 40 The liberal world order that is so beneficial to all would come tumbling
down. Like many believers, proponents of hegemonic stability theory base their view
on faith alone. 41 There is precious little evidence to suggest that the United States is
responsible for the pacific trends that have swept across the system. In fact, the world
remained equally peaceful, relatively speaking, while the United States cut its forces
throughout the 1990s, as well as while it doubled its military spending in the first decade of
the new century. 42 Complex statistical methods should not be needed to demonstrate
that levels of U.S. military spending have been essentially unrelated to global
stability.

Hegemonic stability theorys flaws go way beyond the absence of simple correlations to support

supporters have never been able to explain adequately how

5 percent of the worlds population could force peace on the other 95
percent, unless, of course, the rest of the world was simply not intent on fighting.
Most states are quite free to go to war without U.S. involvement but choose not to.
The United States can be counted on, especially after Iraq, to steer well clear of most civil wars
and ethnic conflicts. It took years, hundreds of thousands of casualties, and the use of chemical weapons to
spur even limited interest in the events in Syria, for example; surely internal violence in, say, most of
Africa would be unlikely to attract serious attention of the worlds policeman, much less
intervention. The continent is, nevertheless, more peaceful today than at any other time in
its history, something for which U.S. hegemony cannot take credit. 43 Stability exists
today in many such places to which U.S. hegemony simply does not extend. Overall,
proponents of the stabilizing power of U.S. hegemony should keep in mind one of the most basic
observations from cognitive psychology: rarely are our actions as important to others
calculations as we perceive them to be. 44 The so-called egocentric bias, which is essentially
ubiquitous in human interaction, suggests that although it may be natural for U.S. policymakers to
them, however. The theorys
precisely

interpret their role as crucial in the maintenance of world peace, they

their own importance.

are almost certainly overestimating

Washington is probably not as central to the myriad decisions in foreign capitals

The indispensability fallacy owes its

existence to a couple of factors. First, although all people like to bask in the reflected glory of their
that help maintain international stability as it thinks it is.

countrys (or cultures) unique, nonpareil stature,

their exceptionalism.

45

Americans have long been exceptional in

The short history of the United States, which can easily be read as

an almost uninterrupted and certainly unlikely story of success, has led to a

(perhaps natural)

belief that it is morally, culturally, and politically superior to other , lesser

countries.

It is no coincidence that the exceptional state would be called on by fate to maintain peace and

Americans have always combined that feeling of divine providence with a

sense of mission to spread their ideals around the world and battle evil wherever it
lurks. It is that sense of destiny, of being the object of historys call, that most obviously separates the United
justice in the world.

States from other countries. Only an American president would claim that by entering World War I, America had the
infinite privilege of fulfilling her destiny and saving the world. 46 Although many states are motivated by
humanitarian causes, no other seems to consider promoting its values to be a national duty in quite the same way
that Americans do. I believe that God wants everybody to be free, said George W. Bush in 2004. Thats what I

When Madeleine Albright called the United States

the indispensable nation, she was reflecting a traditional, deeply held belief of the
American people. 48 Exceptional nations, like exceptional people, have an obligation to
assist the merely average. Many of the factors that contribute to geopolitical fear
Manichaeism, religiosity, various vested interests, and neoconservatism also help explain American
exceptionalism and the indispensability fallacy. And unipolarity makes
believe. And thats one part of my foreign policy. 47

hegemonic delusions possible.

With the great power of the United States comes a sense of great

responsibility: to serve and protect humanity, to drive history in positive directions. More than any other single

the people of the United States tend to believe that they are indispensable because
they are powerful, and power tends to blind states to their limitations. Wealth shapes our
international behavior and our image, observed Derek Leebaert. It brings with it the freedom to make
wide-ranging choices well beyond common sense. 49 It is quite likely that the world
factor,

does not need the U nited S tates to enforce peace. In fact, if virtually any of the
overlapping and mutually reinforcing explanations for the current stability are correct , the
trends in international security may well prove difficult to reverse. None of the
contributing factors that are commonly suggested (economic development, complex
interdependence, nuclear weapons, international institutions, democracy, shifting global norms on war) seem
poised to disappear any time soon. 50 The world will probably continue its peaceful ways
for the near future, at the very least, no matter what the U nited S tates chooses to do
or not do. As Robert Jervis concluded while pondering the likely effects of U.S. restraint on decisions made in foreign
capitals, It

is very unlikely that pulling off the American security blanket would lead to
thoughts of war. 51 The United States will remain fundamentally safe no matter what it does
in other words, despite widespread beliefs in its inherent indispensability to the contrary.

Competitiveness not key to heg

Wohlforth et al., Dartmouth government professor, 2008
(William, World out of Balance, International Relations and the Challenge of
American Primacy, pg 32-5, ldg)

American primacy is also rooted in the county's position as the world's leading technological power. The United States remains
dominant globally in overall R&D investments, high-technology production, commercial innovation, and higher education (table 2.3).
Despite the weight of this evidence, elite perceptions of U.S. power had shifted toward pessimism by the middle of the first decade

of this century. As we noted in chapter 1, this was partly the result of an Iraq-induced doubt about the utility of material
predominance, a doubt redolent of the post-Vietnam mood. In retrospect, many assessments of U.S. economic and technological
prowess from the 1990s were overly optimistic; by the next decade important potential vulnerabilities were evident. In particular,

imbalanced domestic finances and accelerating public debt

convinced some analysts that the United States once again confronted a
competitiveness crisis.23 If concerns continue to mount, this will count as
the fourth such crisis since 1945; the first three occurred during the 1950s (Sputnik), the 1970s (Vietnam
and stagflation), and the 1980s (the Soviet threat and Japan's challenge). None of these crises, however,
shifted the international system's structure: multipolarity did not return in
the 1960s, 1970s, or early 1990s, and each scare over competitiveness
ended with the American position of primacy retained or strengthened.24 Our
chronically

review of the evidence of U.S. predominance is not meant to suggest that the United States lacks vulnerabilities or causes for
concern. In fact, it confronts a number of significant vulnerabilities; of course, this is also true of the other major powers.25 The
point is that adverse trends for the United States will not cause a polarity shift in the near future .

If we take a long

view of U.S. competitiveness and the prospects for relative declines in economic and technological
dominance, one takeaway stands out: relative power shifts slowly . The United States has accounted for a quarter to a third
of global output for over a century. No other economy will match its combination of
wealth, size, technological capacity, and productivity in the foreseeable
future (tables 2.2 and 2.3). The depth, scale, and projected longevity of the U.S. lead in each critical dimension
of power are noteworthy. But what truly distinguishes the current distribution of capabilities is American dominance in all of them
simultaneously. The chief lesson of Kennedy's 500-year survey of leading powers is that nothing remotely similar ever occurred in
the historical experience that informs modern international relations theory. The implication is both simple and underappreciated:
the counterbalancing constraint is inoperative and will remain so until the distribution of capabilities changes fundamentally. The
next section explains why.