Resolved: a Just Government Ought to Prioritize Civil Liberties Over National Security

TSDC Cardfile

Resolved: “A just government ought to prioritize civil liberties over national security”

Table of Contents

TSDC Cardfile

Definitions

Civil Liberties

Civil liberties are defined by

National Security

National security is defined in terms of military protection against physical harms

Instruments of national security [Pure Definition]

Instruments of national security [Aff Definition]

Aff

Islamophobia 1AC

The modern security state is defined by the unlimited nature of its power-status quo surveillance is directed at all but targeted at a specific few. We live in a world where being identified as Muslim guarantees total exclusion from the protective measures of government. There is no state or legal protection for the Muslim to return to, only the promise of criminalization.

Islamophobia takes root at a level deeper than politics- the systemic notion of Western superiority and Muslim irrationality is generated by culture and media, dictates policy, and creates broader militant sentiments that violently oppresses those who don’t fit the normalized notion of an “American”- surveillance in the context of counter-terrorism efforts is a mechanism influenced by right wing fear mongering

We advocate a critical praxis centered on challenging Islamophobic domestic surveillance policies.

A vote affirmative is an ethical stance taken by the judge to refuse Islamophobia- every affirmation of our project is key to the process of activism, awareness. There are no policy solutions- the only productive start is challenging the culture of the American security state

Centering our praxis in this space is key ---interrogating Islamophobia in educational settings is critical to establishing a critical consciousness that enables larger political projects

Deconstructing and interrogating flawed assumptions behind Islamophobia creates a transformative and liberatory pedagogy that enables agency and challenges racist dynamics

-1ar impact frame

-Depoliticization/Otherization

The defining characteristic of 21st century American life is Islamophobia. The political sphere has been emptied – fear of Muslims now transcends political affiliation. This xenophobic politics justifies the worst of orientalist violence – racism, internment, and torture come to be seen as acceptable – in Bush’s words, a “crusade” against Islam is made possible- outweighs all other impacts

-Otherization General Impact

Otherization also causes genocide, slavery, segregation, exploitation, and a multitude of unspeakable wrongs

-Otherization (Islamophobia)

“Muslim” being a synonym for “terrorist” in the status quo means that Muslims are categorized as the “other” and excluded from society

The concept of the “other” justifies violence, stereotyping, invisibility, distortion, isolation, and internalized oppression

The government’s perpetuation of the Muslim-terrorist stereotype justifies violence against Muslims

Otherization means Muslims as bodies not worth considering

-Dehumanization

Dehumanization justified mass genocide – empirics prove

Dehumanization enables genocides and massacres because people disengage their own morals because the “inferior” are “inhuman”

1ar topical version

No topical version- One step reforms such as curtailing bulk data collection are just drops in the bucket- Islamophobia is a persistent ideology infecting American politics making our pedagogical performance the pre-requisite

Topical version of the aff doesn’t solve- state reform at best positions Islam as benign- makes Islam apolitical- Kundanani 14- instead of a radical form of dissent the result is assimilation of radical politics and dissent

Doesn’t solve- Kumar says Islamophobia is formed at the site of culture, media, and education- Zine says only epistemological interrogation begins the process towards transforming the foundation of Islamophobia

1ar usfg

1ar democracy

revolt and dissent is critical to democracy – by definition the tenants of a free speaking society – last Kundnani ev

1ar roleplaying

They can’t assess role-playing – fiat is a naïve conception of real politics that reduces the actual process by which legislation is passed – that’s what their evidence is referring to

Forcing people to defend USFG action forces minority students to play as colonizer that killed their ancestors—leads to violence through desensitization

1ar fairness

They don’t ask the question of fairness for whom-fairness is always legislated from the position of the dominant that tries to maintain the world as familiar-disruption of the squo is necessary to reveal the violent underpinning of that concept of fairness which excludes our relationships to the topic

1ar education

Our education is net better

Centering our praxis in this space is key ---interrogating Islamophobia in educational settings is critical to establishing a critical consciousness that enables larger political projects

Deconstructing and interrogating flawed assumptions behind Islamophobia creates a transformative and liberatory pedagogy that enables agency and challenges racist dynamics

switch sides

No link-we defend a decrease in domestic surveillance on aff and don’t on the neg-no unique reason we need to switch sides on the USFG or pretend to be it-Their understanding of switchsides forces us to switch roles with an institution we necessarily criticize in the 1ac

We don’t have to prove switch side debate is bad, we have to defend surveillance should be curtailed, and we did it in a clear and predictable way. It’s not our fault that they can’t prove surveillance is good without the politics DA

ctp

The reading of the 1AC refuses political attempts to silence dissent – our focus on challenging the culture of Islamophobia and the foundation of the surveillance state must come first- it’s the prerequisite to opening up sites of political possibilities

Social Contract 1AC

Stohler ’95 (Anne Stohler, Professor of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Race and the education of desire : Foucault's History of sexuality and the colonial order of things, 1995, p. 81-82)

Biopolitics results in arbitrary slaughter

A/T Governments only obligation is to ensure life

1.The government has an obligation to enforce retribution when the social contract has been violated by an individual. Leaving the state of nature produced laws, judges, and executive power. The purpose of which, surpass mere protection of life.

2. Protecting life before quality of life results in mass slaughter

A/T Civil Liberty Isn't Important

Government Officials

Government officials often overstate national security threats and understate the importance of civil liberties

Muslims

National Security Measures taken for counterterrorism policies target young, Muslim males. This racial profiling by security agencies reduces overall national security.

War Time

Post World War I, Americans started to think that national security actually shouldn’t come first

Neg

Social Contract 1NC

Extensions

Infringement of civil liberties is inevitable, and in the face of conflict, justifiable

Security is essential to human existence

Without security, no policies can succeed

A majority of Americans also prioritize safety above certain civil liberties

UK stopped 7 attacks in 6 months

Blocks

Largely, individuals prefer national security interests be prioritized

Balance between security and liberty should be fluid

A2 overreactions

Rights are not absolute

The government is justified in its use of data collection and is under strict oversight

Civil liberties and human rights are different

The most popular methods employed are legal

New methods of information gathering are necessary to keep up with technological advancements

Checks are in place to insure that there is no abuse of power

Surveillance is inevitable

Surveillance is effective

After seeing the effects of such information gathering tools, most Americans want to see it continue

Citizens are willing to compromise security for protection and even suggest the government increase collection

Americans think this is an acceptable level of data collection

Targeted access to information is crucial to providing security

Broad insight about terrorism is made available through intelligence gathering

Terror threats high now

Terror threats abroad are the highest they have been in a decade

Both foreign and domestic threats to the US are increasing

Deaths related to terrorism are skyrocketing

Neoliberalism causes inequalities

“Moral Panics” cause scapegoating, insecurity causes more panics

The media is abusing its power to entice readers and sell stories

You don’t address the root causes of islamophobia, namely the preexisting inequality

Empirically, in the wake of terrorist attacks or in times of conflict Islamophobia sharply increases

Util 1NC

Because of the wording of the resolution, I offer the value of Justice.

We achieve the value of Justice through the criterion of operating in a utilitarian society.

Prefer util—Greatest good for the greatest number is the only way to achieve a just government.

“Value to life” doesn’t outweigh — prioritize existence because value is subjective

Civil liberties end at the point that they threaten another person’s liberties

Glyn Morgan,January 31, 2008, Mill's Liberalism, Security, and Group Defamation

Cyber terrorism

Domestic cyber terrorism is a huge threat in the status quo – a shift to the negative world eliminates checks on terrorists.

Cyber Terrorism has high probabilities of success.

Cyber-terrorism disrupts military readiness.

Digital surveillance in the name of national security is necessary for countering cyberterror; civil liberties must be overridden.

Security Theatre

The national security doesn’t even have to be real, all that matters is that the public perceives the security for it to have benefits.

Terrorism

Civil liberties can be exploited by terrorists

A2 Aff

A2 Strict Libertarianism

Under strict libertarianism, it is easy to lose civil liberties by failing to restrict them

A2 Neg

A2 “Logical Deference”

Schenck, Korematsu, and Dennis prove that logical deference is a terrible idea

Logical deference fails

A2 Security Theater

“Security Theater” is actually flawed

“Security Theater” has been used to justify civil liberties trade offs, but it is often ineffective

A2 Security/Terror [Immigration]

[Security] Tight control policies just make it harder to detect threats.

[Security] Restricting immigration wouldn’t increase security

[Terror] The threats of terror on the border are merely the flip side of the global imperial mission to eliminate all non-American evil from the globe – it inevitably creates violent backlash and fails.

A2 Strict Pragmatism

Ironically, by sacrificing civil liberties to defend against terrorism, governments themselves become tyrannical

A2 Terror

Terror Talk K v 1

The rhetoric of ‘terror’ applied in the aff neglects the potential politically motivated violence of states and other forms of ‘terror’; it entrenches a distorted perception of what terrorism actually is.

Multiple studies prove – the status quo domination of who we label as ‘terrorists’ makes genocide inevitable

And, their discourse turns the aff – the dichotomizing rhetoric closes off the potential for reform and furthers the goals of the ‘extremists’.

We must reject the status quo discourse of ‘terror’ in favor of a linguistically correct, “blanket-term” interpretation. Any perm fails as the aff speech was entrenched in a misguided notion of ‘terrorism’.

Terror Talk v 2

The discourse of “Terrorism” represents opposite binaries portraying the “terrorists” as the enemy of the West.

This develops infinite adversaries and leads to worldwide civil war that destroys coexistence

This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy; it fuels recruitment for organizations and heightens the fear of the target population

The alternative is to reject the discourse and create a space for the “terrorists” to explain their struggle. Without Agonism we can never fully understand the complexity of terrorism.

Definitions

Civil Liberties

Civil liberties are defined by

Naidu 91 From the Editor's Desk: NATIONAL SECURITY & CIVIL LIBERTIES: DEFINITIONS & DELIMITATIONS IN THEORY AND PRACTICE Author(s): M.V. Naidu Source: Peace Research, Vol. 23, No. 2/3 (May 1991), pp. 1-16 Published by: Canadian Mennonite University Stable URL: Accessed: 21-06-2016 03:45 UTC

Simply put, civil liberties are the privileges of the individual(in the form of the protection of life, liberty and property) that are to be shielded from encroachments by the government and by other individuals. Some scholars distinguish civil liberties from civil rights. In their opinion civil rights are positive guarantees by the government, while civil liberty implies a negative restraint upon the government and other individuals.2 Most often civil liberties and civil rights are used as synonyms, or are integrated into a single concept - "civil rights and liberties." Inter alio, four of the civil liberties that are fundamental to democracy, and on which the other rights and liberties depend are: (i) the right to life and physical well-being; (ii) freedom of conscience and belief; (iii) freedom of expression; and (iv) freedom from unreasonable and arbitrary government action.

National Security

National security is defined in terms of military protection against physical harms

In spite of their etymological and conceptual differences, in common usage the terms nation and state are used as interchangeable synonyms or as a compound word - - the nation-state. For the present analysis on security issues, however, the distinction between the nation and the state is relevant. In a strict sense, the term national security should mean the physical preservation of a race or an ethnic group, or a culture. But in common usage the term national security has come to mean state security, i.e., the military protection of the lives of a particular citizenry, of a defined territory and of the economic resources on that territory, all of which are being destroyed or being threatened by military actions. Besides, the term "national" in the phrase national security should mean that the territories, the citizens and the properties involved are considerable in terms of national size, and the attack causes substantial damage to the nation.In other words, every conflict that is limited to a district, or a religious sect, or an economic interest on the domestic scene, or every border skirmish in the external context, cannot be exaggerated into an issue of national security. Losing sovereignty per se, without damage to territory, property and citizenry, should be clearly differentiated from suffering physical insecurity. Similarly voluntary and willing surrender of territory should not be confused with the issue of national security. Thus national security should be strictly defined in terms of military protection against substantial physical destruction, human deaths and territorial disintegration caused by military means.

Instruments of national security [Pure Definition]

How is national security achieved or maintained?A survey of recorded cases shows that in the operationalization of national security the followingfive instruments are commonly resorted to in practical politics: i) the military measures; ii) the police measures; iii) the secret service operations; iv) certain economic measures; and v) propaganda/thought-control measures.How do we assess these instruments?

1) The military measures: National security through military measures may involve unilateral military operation or multilateral action through military alliances or counter-alliances,or through the United Nations' "collective measures" or through a global system of "collective security" (not yet realized). However, under the impact of Gandhism, new schemes and strategies of non-violent defence(also called 'civilian defence')have been recently developed that are innovative and pragmatic, and are challenging to the traditional strategies of military defence. Gandhians have occasionally raised the idea of 'shanti sena' or 'peace brigades.'

2) The police measures: Police measures in the name of national security, seem to involve activities like maintenance of law and order, arrest and detention, running of prisons and concentration camps, and coercive enforcement of laws and regulations. Gandhi had talked about a non-violent police force that could use the methods of conciliation, arbitration and mediation, social work, education and peaceful persuasion. The instrumentality of military or police actions couldconstitute a direct threat to civil liberties, while resort to non-violent methods or Civilian Defence may affect civil liberties without reducing or eliminating them, because non-violent techniques depend upon civilians and not armed forces, and upon voluntary public cooperation and not governmental coercion and curtailment of civil liberties.

3) The secret service operations: The operations of secret services have always been rationalized in the name of national security. The cold war grossly exaggerated the role of secret services, especially of the superpowers. The recent expose by the ex-officials of the CIA, KGB and Mussad have thrown light on the multifarious and unscrupulous operations undertaken by the secret services, including the following: intelligence gathering inside and outside the country; counter-intelligence; surveillance over citizens and over foreigners; planting or obstructing false information in the forms of unofficial news, rumours, gossips or scandals; blackmailing, abduction, kidnapping, assassinating and liquidating individuals considered undesirable; arresting, detaining or torturing witnesses, opponents and supporters; illegally influencing elections, party politics, public opinion and public officials; creating political instability, public incitement and constitutional crises; aiding or obstructing intervention, subversion, terrorism and civil war. Almost every activity of any secret service impinges on citizens' civil liberties; hence, the width and the depth of secret service activities should be of great concern to democrats everywhere. Ironically, the activities that most threaten civil liberties are the ones that are least submitted to public knowledge and scrutiny, sometimes for legitimate reasons, but most of the time out of deliberate disregard for fundamental freedoms. While this is true in the so-called 'free societies,' it is worst under authoritarian regimes, which, after all, govern almost 80% of the states in the contemporary world.

4) Economic Measures: Economic measures in the name of national security most directly relate to military spending. The world today is spending almost one trillion dollars annually on the so-called military defence. Some dictatorial regimes have been spending 20-30% of national budgets on military matters.20 Military budgets imply spending on arms production, purchase or sale, on military science and technology, on military personnel and training, on military operations, etc.. These spendings may mean reduction on national expenditures on providing the basic human needs of the citizens - food, housing, medical care, education and employment, which according to recent United Nations declarations, constitute fundamental human rights. Thus over-emphasis on military spending has indeed become, especially in the Third World countries, a serious threat to the fundamental rights of individuals. Militarization of industries and science-technology is another economic measure resorted to in the name of national security.21 From all evidences available, military industries have become counter-productive to development and economic well-being. Distorting "civilian" economy and distracting growth-potential from non-military industries, militarization of economy has produced unemployment and lower standards of living, thereby undermining basic human rights. Even the recent steps towards ending the cold war and starting demilitarization, seem to have failed to actualize the so-called "peace dividends," because the powerful military industries have been coaxing the major powers to continue spending on militarization in the name of the new threats to national security assumed to be emanating, ironically enough, from the Third World countries like Panama, Libya, Syria, Iran and now Iraq. Thus appealing to the masses, in the name of national security, to be willing to suffer economic hardships and deprivation of basic human rights, is not uncommon in practical politics, even when there are no direct military attacks on the lives, the properties and the territories of the state. This is much more true in the case of authoritarian or military regimes.