George Washington High School Debate

Topicality
1. Interpretation: Economic engagement is distinct from diplomatic and military engagement
Derrick 98 (Robert, Lieutenant Colonel US Army, ENGAGEMENT: THE NATIONS PREMIER

GRAND STRATEGY, WHO'S IN CHARGE?, 1998, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA342695) Economic engagement covers a wide range of programs. Financial incentives are an effective engagement tool since countries usually interact with the US when money is involved. Whether it is obtaining funding for a national program; acquiring materiel, food or medicine; or maintaining Most Favored Nation 12Status, financial aide has always been a preferred way for the US to affect the behavior of others. Diplomatic engagement ranges from recognition of sovereign states and foreign governments, to presidential visits, to all aspects of the embassy itself. The mere existence of an embassy is an engagement tool. Through official diplomatic ceremonies, informal meetings, and embassy employees living among the locals, the Department of State's presence is engagement in and of itself. Similarly, "...overseas...forces embody global military engagement. They serve as role models for militaries in emerging democracies; contribute uniquely to the stability, continuity, and flexibility that protects US interests; and are crucial to continued democratic and economic development."14 In addition to our presence overseas, our military engagement consists of a variety of military to military and political to military events. U.S. and host nation defense forces conduct combined exercises to improve cooperation and strengthen ties. Much of the peacetime efforts of the DOS and DOD are engagement. This is in the form of forward presence, regional exercises, and infrastructure construction projects. The engagement tools of three of our five instruments of our National Power: Military, Economic and Political, (Geographical and National Will being the other two), listed below in Figure 3, are a few examples of how the US uses these powers to stay engaged. Military CJCS Exercises Depl for Trng (DFT) Intl Mil Ed & Tr (IMET) Counterdrug Spt (CD) Mobile Tr Teams (MTT) Diplomatic State Recognition Presidential Visits Demarshe Treaties & Agreements Economic Agcy for Intl Devi Econ Spt Fund (ESF) Fgn Mil Sales (FMS) Health Aid

What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter

George Washington High School Debate

2. Violation the aff is diplomatic action it is an attempt to rectify past wrongs by asserting a diplomatic deal on Cuba. 3. Standards a. Limits engagement has such a broad definition in the literature that you have to limit to things that are primarily economic otherwise negs have to research whole other literature bases b. Ground key generics rely on engagement actually being economic diplomatic engagement completely removes any sort of link to our off case.
c. Education: Their case is so far outside the realm of topic education. It has literally no foundation whatsoever in the topic realm, absolutely preventing any sort of topic education whatsoever. We obtain absolutely no pertinent education from this debate. d. Predictability: Predictability is key to ground and education. If we are unable to predict the aff case then we are absolutely unable to access any ground, in addition, the unpredictable nature of their case prevents us from going into depth in education. e. Brightline: Our interpretation provides a brightline as to what is topical and what is not, any counter-interpretation they provide will be necessarily vague to include their own case. f. Research burden: Allowing cases outside the realm of economic engagement explodes the research burden for the neg, by forcing us to research infinitely more potential cases. 4. Voters: Topicality is a voter for Education, Ground, Limits, Predictability, Brightline, and Research Burden. Vote on a competing interpretations framework.

What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter

George Washington High School Debate

CP
CP Text: The United States federal government should enter into prior binding consultation with the relevant indigenous peoples of Cuba over the transfer of all financial assets operated by the USA on the island of Cuba to the republic on Cuba. The United States will advocate [the plan] throughout the process of consultation and implement the result. A. Prior consultation with Latin American indigenous peoples over engagement is critical to avert cultural and physical annihilation
Kinnison, 11 (Akilah Jenga Kinnison, J.D. Candidate, University of Arizona College of Law. 2011. INDIGENOUS CONSENT: RETHINKING U.S. CONSULTATION POLICIES IN LIGHT OF THE U.N. DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/53-4/53arizlrev1301.pdf)//SDL

seems to be a shift in the international arena toward viewing states duty to consult with indigenous peoples as falling on the consent end of the consultationconsent spectrum. Some argue that, where activities directly impact indigenous peoples right to use, enjoy, control, and develop their traditional lands, there is a norm developing that recognizes that full consent, rather

Due to the nature of large-scale extractive activities, there

than just meaningful consultation, is required.206 For instance, former Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People Rodolfo Stavenhagen has stated that the

free, informed and prior

consent , as well as the right to self-determination of indigenous communities and peoples, must be considered as a necessary precondition for major development projects
affecting indigenous lands.207 Such major development projects include the large scale exploitation of natural resources
including subsoil resources.208 Stavenhagen has argued that indigenous peoples have the right to say no to certain development projects. Furthermore, there are strong arguments for why, even if such a norm has not yet crystallized, states should adopt this interpretation of FPIC for large-scale extractive activities. First, the

power to withhold consent can be seen as necessary to enforce other important indigenous rights beyond rights of consultation and participation.210 This is particularly true in the context of extractive industries, whose projects implicate numerous other indigenous rights due to their ability to threaten indigenous peoples physical and cultural survival .211 For instance, the ability to withhold
consent allows indigenous communities to enforce their community property rights, protect their sacred spaces, and maintain their culture and relationship with the land. Additionally, there are reservations about how meaningful indigenous participation can be in the absence of the power to withhold consent.212 As Professor Brant McGee comments: Absent the ability to walk away from the bargaining table, indigenous groups would simply be participating in a meaningless exchange of views designed to fulfill a legal requirement.213 Given the stakes and zero-sum potential of large-scale extractive projects, [t]here is no such thing as partial consent in this context. 214 Therefore, indigenous peoples must be equipped with the ability to withhold consent in order to engage in meaningful negotiation. Special Rapporteur Anaya has stated: [T]he principles of consultation and consent are aimed at avoiding the imposition of the will of one party over the other, and . . . instead striving for mutual understanding and consensual decision-making.215 Yet without

the power to withhold consent in zero-sum situations where destructive impacts on indigenous lands and culture are high, indigenous people are left with little bargaining power and therefore may be unable to participate in meaningful consultation . Promoting an interpretation of
FPIC that gives indigenous peoples the right to withhold consent in the context of large-scale

What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter

George Washington High School Debate extractive projects is also good policy from the state and corporate perspectives because it can make projects more successful. Professor Lisa J. Laplante and attorney Suzanne A. Spears propose that extractive industries can diffuse costly opposition to projects by engaging in community consent processes.216 Conflicts with communities can create obstacles for a particular project as well as for the corporation itself.217 Global campaigns against
particular companies have been wagedas exemplified by ProtestBarrick.net, which is a campaign entirely devoted to publicizing opposition to Barrick Gold Corporation.218 Such campaigns can damage a companys reputation, which Laplante and Spears refer to as an extractive industry companys lifeblood.219 Additionally, opposition

can be costly due to the public relations campaigns corporations must launch in response to community opposition,220 legal costs to fend off efforts to shut down projects, and losses in profitability. For example,
after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a limited injunction against Barrick in the Cortez Hills case, the companys stock dropped 8.43%, despite the fact that the project did not ultimately shut down. Thus, when states believe a development project is in the public interest, they should seek to engage the community in consent processes, rather than consultation processes, both to protect the rights of indigenous peoples and also to promote the long-term benefit of the project itself. As Laplante and Spears explained: Whereas consultation processes require only that extractive industry companies [or the state] hear the views of those potentially affected by a project and then take them into account when engaging in decision-making processes, consent processes require that host communities actually participate in decisionmaking processes. Consent processes give affected communities the leverage to negotiate mutually acceptable agreements under which projects may proceed Interpreting FPIC as respecting the right

of indigenous peoples to withhold consent for large-scale extractive projects, therefore, gives communities the tools necessary to protect their rights as well as to bargain with state and corporate actors in order to move forward with development projects on mutually beneficial terms. In sum, within the context of large-scale extractive industries, it is in the best interest of states to take a consent-based approach to operationalizing the principle of FPIC found in instruments such as the U.N. Declaration. The

United States has articulated a commitment to the importance of indigenous consultation both through its endorsement of the U.N. Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its domestic policies, such as E.O. 13,175 and President Obamas Tribal Consultation Memorandum. However, in order to fully realize this commitment, the

United States should embrace a policy shift away from the currently articulated meaningful consultation standard. U.S. law and policy should move toward viewing indigenous consultation as involving a spectrum of requirementswith good-faith, meaningful consultation as a minimum and with consent required in certain contexts, including large-scale extractive industries.

B. Failing to consult the indigenous people is the direct cause of cultural genocide
Smith, 6 (Andrea, Assistant Professor of Media and Cultural Studies at UC Riverside, Appropriation of

Native American Religious Traditions, Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America, Vol. 1, pg. 104-105)
Native spiritualities are land based they are tied to the landbase from which they originate. When Native peoples fight for cultural/spiritual preservation, they are ultimately fighting for the landbase which grounds their spirituality and culture. For this reason, Native religions are generally not proselytizing. They are typically seen by Native peoples as relevant only to the particular landbase from which they originate; they are not necessarily applicable to peoples coming from different landbases. In addition, as many scholars have noted, Native religions are practice centered rather than belief centered. That is, Christianity is defined by belief in a certain set of doctrinal principles about Jesus, the Bible, etc. Evangelical Christianity holds that one is saved when one professes belief in Jesus Christ as ones Lord and Savior. But what

is of primary important in Native religions is not being able to articulate belief in a certain set of doctrines, but being able to take part in the spiritual practice of ones community. In fact, it may
be more important that a ceremony be done correctly than it is for everyone in that ceremony to know exactly why everything must be done in a certain way. As Vine Deloria (Dakota) notes, from a Native context, religion is a way of life rather than a matter of proper exposition of doctrines. Even if Christians do not have access to church, they continue to be Christians as long as they believe in Jesus. Native

spiritualities, by contrast, may die if the people do not practice the ceremonies, even if the people continue to believe in their power. Native communities argue that Native peoples cannot be alienated from their land without committing cultural genocide . This argument What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter

George Washington High School Debate

underpins many sacred sites cases, although usually to no avail, before the courts. Most of the court rulings on sacred sites do
not recognize this difference between belief-centered and practice-centered traditions or the significance of land-based spiritualities. For instance, in Fools Crow v. Gullet (1983), the Supreme Court ruled against the Lakota who were trying to halt the development of additional tourist facilities in the Black Hills. The Court ruled that this tourism was not an infringement on Indian religious freedom because, although it would

stopping the practice of traditional beliefs destroys the belief systems themselves. Consequently, for the Lakota and Native nations in general, cultural genocide is the result when Native landbases are not protected. When we disconnect Native spiritual practices from their land bases, we undermine Native peoples claim that the protection of the land base is integral to the survival of Native
hinder the ability of the Lakota to practice their beliefs, it did not force them to relinquish their beliefs. For the Lakota, however,

peoples and hence undermine their claims to sovereignty. This practice of disconnecting Native spirituality from its land base is prevalent in a
wide variety of practices of cultural and spiritual appropriation, from New Agers claiming to be Indian in a former life to Christians adopting Native spiritual forms to further their missionizing efforts. The message is that anyone can practice Indian spirituality anywhere. Hence there is no need to protect the specific Native communities and the lands that are the basis of their spiritual practices.

C. This leads to dehumanization each loss contributes to an invisible threshold

Stavenhagen, 90 (Rodolfo, Professor @ the United Nations University, The Ethnic Question pg. 73)
The struggle for the preservation of the collective identity of culturally distinct peoples has further implications as well. The cultural diversity of the worlds peoples is a universal resource for all humankind. The

diversity of the worlds cultural pool is like the diversity of the worlds biological gene pool. A culture that disappears due to ethnocide or cultural genocide represents a loss for all humankind. At a time when the classic development models of the post war era have failed to solve the major problems of mankind, people are again looking at so called traditional cultures for at least some of the answers. This is very clear, for example, as regards to agricultural and food production, traditional medicine, environmental management in rural areas, construction techniques, social solidarity in times of crises, etc. The worlds diverse cultures have much to offer our imperiled planet. Thus the defense of the collective rights of ethnic groups and indigenous peoples cannot be separated from the collective human rights of all human beings.

What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter

George Washington High School Debate

Inherency:
1. Obama pushing for Guantanamo Bay closure
WUSA, 13 (President Obama Reiterates Need To Close Guantanamo Bay, 2:25 PM, Apr 30, 2013,

Online, http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=257227, accessed 7/23/13) PE President Obama said on Tuesday that his administration would reengage Congress on closing the U.S. military run detention center at Guantanamo Bay. "It needs to be closed," Obama said at a White House news conference. "I'm going to go back at this." Obama's comments come with reports that as many as 100 prisoners at Guantanamo are in the midst of a hunger strike. Obama had vowed in his 2008 campaign to close Guantanamo, but failed to get it done in his first term. "It' is not a surprise to me that we are having problems at Guantanamo." Obama called Guantanamo unsafe, expensive, and said it lessens cooperation with U.S. allies. He noted that Congress has legislatively blocked him from closing Guantanamo, but offered no solution to getting around that hurdle. "I am going to go back at this," said Obama, "I am going to reengage with Congress that this is not in the best interest of the American people." Obama said Guantanamo might have been seen as necessary after the Sept. 11 attacks, but the president says the time to close the prison for high-value terror suspects who were captured on foreign soil is now. "This is a lingering problem that is not going to get better," Obama says. "It's going to get worse." Obama also appeared to defend the Defense Department's decision to force feed the striking prisoners."I don't want these individuals to die," he said.

What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter

George Washington High School Debate

Biopower
No impact: look at the internals of Johns 05, they dont actually discuss turning impacts, solely the idea of exceptionalism Turn: exception is necessary to make difficult decisions: we need to prioritize preventing the biggest possible problems of terrorist attacks: if we unilaterally close all counterterrorism we only go to the opposite extreme Piotuhk: impact inevitable, the idea that Guantanamo is the SOLE location of torture is ridiculous: this plan cannot solve for reduction o flife Double bind: either the aff can solve for all torture in the status quo by removing Guantanamo, which means torture can be solved indirectly and plan isnt necessary, or it cant, in which case impact inevitable

Turn: Guantanamo Acts as a deterrent to wanabe terrorists

Nemish 2009 (Mark C., A major in the US airforce. To Close or Not to Close: Guantanamo Bay April 2009.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA539847)

Another popular argument for leaving Guantanamo Bay open is that merely closing the prison will not guarantee a change in world opinion. Most likely, criticism will follow Guantanamo Bay to its next home of record. While many claim detainee abuse and poor living conditions, the fact is that these same people are going to believe these conditions will exist anywhere. Former Vice President Cheney offered, My

own personal view is that those who are most urgently advocating that we shut down Guantanamo Bay probably dont agree with o ur policies anyway.40 Senator Lindsey Graham also stated, I would like every terrorist wannabe to understand that if you take up arms against us or coalition members, you do so at your own peril, because a couple of things await you, death or injury on the battlefield, or detention and accountability. These are solid perspectives surrounding the need to keep the prison open. People

that hated it before will hate it as long as Guantanamo Bay or its successor exists. Moreover, by virtue of the isolated nature of Guantanamo Bay, it serves as a warning sign for those considering terrorist action against us. Housing the detainees in the U.S. may seem like a moral victory to human rights activists, but it will place suspected terrorists on the soil of the very country they intend to harm. The image of the U.S. will not change overnight with the closing of Guantanamo Bay.

Impact inevitable: Guantanamo is just a single place: torture occurs everywhere - This means that by deterring terrorists, Guantanamo actually reduces the total torture occurring> Alt causes: there exist instances of torture in countless countries outside of the US: solely focusing on Guantanamo bay precludes the global significance of biopower: This US-focus turns exceptionalism: only prioiritizing US makes impacts globally inevitable What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter

George Washington High School Debate

1. No solvency even after released from Gitmo, people are still reduced to bare life were cogs in a machine
Colatrella, 11 (Steven, taught at Bard College, the New School and the American University of Rome, Fulbright scholar, Chair of the
Department of Political and Social Sciences at John Cabot University in Rome and President of the Iowa Sociological Associati on, Nothing Exceptional: Against Agamben, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, vol.9. no.1, page 10 7-108, November 2011, Online, http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/09-1-05.pdf, accessed 7/23/13) PE Finally, Agamben, in his understanding of homo sacer seems to miss the most obvious point imaginable, at least to anyone familiar with the work of either Karl Marx or Karl Polanyi11, namely, that a physical existence without rights or guarantees, far from being a marginal figure, a canary in a coal mine,

human being reduced to bare life, to the mere is instead the human

condition of the majority of the population under capitalism. Here is where it is clear why I have stressed the autonomy of the
political as a way of understanding the world that is counter-productive: it takes work to describe humanity reduced to bare life and then fail to see it all around one in the form of the proletarian majority of every society, North and South . Political deracination is clearly

related to economic deracination, or to use the, in my view clearer Marxian terminology, expropriation and enclosure, or proletarianization. In what way is Agambens homo sacer any different than the rightless and free proletarian that
has always existed under capitalism? Hasnt it always been allowable to live and let die withou t remorse those unable to make a living, keep a job or income, provide for themselves or family members, keep up rent or mortgage payments, pay for a meal? Shouldnt we see this as violence, as Zizek in his book Violence12 argues, the daily, systemic economic violence of market relations and the propertylessness of the majority in capitalist society? Isnt this exactly the non-state of emergency, non-exceptional violence, that kills millions annually, that Agamben, like Arendt before him, ignores? Further, doesnt his lack of attention to the normal process of proletarianization, of expropriation and enclosure, lead to his failure to see these on a grand scale with the maximum possible state violence in the colonial world, in the neocolonial world, in slavery and the slave trade, in the genocide of the Native Americans?

2. Turn their focus on states of exception in Gitmo is a critical misreading we lose political willpower to solve other instances of domination
Huysmans, 8 (Jef, Professor of Security Studies (Politics & International Studies) in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Kent,
The Jargon of ExceptionOn Schmitt, Agamben and the Absence of Political Society, International Political Sociology (2008) 2, 165183, Online, http://bigo.zgeist.org/students/readings/huysmansjargonexceptionIPS.pdf, accessed 7/23/13) PE

Fleur Johns observed in her analysis of Guantanamo Bay that events taking on the affect of exceptionalism soak up critical energies with considerable effect in liberal societies. [I]t is the exception that rings liberal alarm bells (Johns 2005). The liberal critique of current policy developments tends to define stakes and solutions in terms of exceptionalism, that is, a conflict between rule of law and executive, arbitrary government and or the direct exercise of governing power over biologically, in contrast to politically, defined life. Johns is uneasy about such a development but does not develop why we should take exception to exceptionalism. This article introduces one of the main reasons for sending out a distress signal about the rise in the idiom of exception. When exceptionalism soaks up critical energ[y]ies in liberal societies, it risks suppressing a political reading of the societal. By reading the concept of exception through two of the most popular political theorists of the exception, Schmitt and Agamben, the article shows that structuring politics around exceptionalist readings of political power tends to politically neutralize the societal as a realm of multi-faceted, historically structured political mediations and mobilizations. Or, in other words, deploying the exception as a diagram of the political marginalizes the societal as a political realm. In doing so, it eliminates one of the constituting categories of modern politics (Balibar 1997; Dyzenhaus 1997), hence producing an impoverished and ultimately illusionary understanding of the processes of political contestation and domination (Neal 2006; Neocleous 2006). Fleur Johns observed in her analysis of Guantanamo Bay that events taking on the affect of exceptionalism soak up critical energies with considerable effect in liberal societies. [I]t is the exception that rings liberal alarm bells (Johns 2005). The liberal critique of current policy developments tends to define stakes and solutions in terms of exceptionalism, that is, a conflict between rule of law and executive, arbitrary government and or the direct exercise of governing power over biologically, in contrast to politically, defined life. Johns is uneasy about such a development but does not develop why we should take exception to exceptionalism.

What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter

George Washington High School Debate

No solvency Gitmo isnt key Agamben ignores too much historical oppression
Colatrella, 11 (Steven, taught at Bard College, the New School and the American University of Rome,

Fulbright scholar, Chair of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at John Cabot University in Rome and President of the Iowa Sociological Association, Nothing Exceptional: Against Agamben, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, vol.9. no.1, page 106, November 2011, Online, http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/09-1-05.pdf, accessed 7/23/13) PE The second omission, more difficult to explain by Agambens geographical origins, is any reference at all to the history of colonialism, or to conditions in the ex-colonial world of the Global South. Arendt, despite numerous failings of analysis and history some of which I discuss below, nevertheless to her credit makes the relationship between imperialism and racism in the colonies and totalitarianism in Europe a central part of her analysis in the Origins of Totalitarianism10. Yet there is no discussion of this relationship in Agamben. In this sense, Agamben represents an analytical step backwards from Arendt, not a further development of her insights. The rest of the world has dropped off the mental map. This is not just a question of priorities, of the brevity of books that cant cover everything, nor even of Eurocentrism though it certainly is in part that. It is rather a serious failure of analysis and historical imagination that, as we will see below, makes Agambens theoretical discussion less useful and reduces dramatically its explanatory power. For many decades, in country after country, continent after continent, European and other colonial powers could act with impunity and without regard to the life of, let alone legally recognized rights of the colonized people. The Belgian Congo, and the horrors of slavery; the repeated experience of mass famine in India (done away with since Independence and the establishment of democratic government); the labeling of resistance against expropriation and foreign rule Mau Mau to define it as an atavistic throwback to savagery to enable the British rulers to destroy it militarily; over a million dead in the Algerian struggle for Independence against the French; the neargenocide in Libya by the Italians, the list could go on for pages. None of it relevant, presumably, either to states of exception, in which sovereigns are unconstrained by any legal or customary limit in their actions, nor in understanding the reduction of person from members of communities with either customary or legal rights to bare life, dependent on the self-restraint at whim of others for their survival.

No solvency sovereignty means the state of exception is inevitable

Colatrella, 11 (Steven, taught at Bard College, the New School and the American University of Rome,

Fulbright scholar, Chair of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at John Cabot University in Rome and President of the Iowa Sociological Association, Nothing Exceptional: Against Agamben, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, vol.9. no.1, page 99, November 2011, Online, http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/09-1-05.pdf, accessed 7/23/13) PE The Sovereign wrote Nazi lawyer and political theorist Carl Schmitt, is he who decides on a state of exception2. The state of exception, or state of emergency, is that moment in which all constitutional and legal limits can be superseded or done away with, annulled or set aside, ultimately at the whim or dictate of the sovereign. The latters power in any case was never really limited by these legal restraints, even if this sovereign for their own reasons abided by such formal limits for a time. In this case Schmitts sovereign is Hobbes Leviathan on steroids, though the line of ancestry is clear, since once sovereignty is given over by people in a state of Hobbesian nature (where a war of all against all predominates and life is nasty, brutish and short) Hobbes Leviathan state power likewise has no limits or legal restraints other than those that it sees fit to impose. Further, the state of exception is the basis of all law in the first place, in that it is only under conditions of a state of exception that law itself can be created and constitutions imposed. In other words, law is not a product of law, for either Schmitt or for

What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter

George Washington High School Debate Hobbes, but of a state where there is not law. The difference is important however. For Hobbes it is the lawless state presumably a one-time affair at least ontologically if not historically that leads to the creation of law which is the product of the sovereign. For Schmitt, that power is always in a position to set aside all law and create new law. But creating new law is by definition an exceptional moment, one that is an exercise of power and that steps over the bounds of all previously existing (and by implication illusory) legal limits.

No solvency too many alt causes to the state of exception anything that expropriates
Colatrella, 11 (Steven, taught at Bard College, the New School and the American University of Rome,

Fulbright scholar, Chair of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at John Cabot University in Rome and President of the Iowa Sociological Association, Nothing Exceptional: Against Agamben, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, vol.9. no.1, page 110-111, November 2011, Online, http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/09-1-05.pdf, accessed 7/23/13) PE My argument is that states of exception and the reduction of part or all of the population governed by state power to bare life are based upon attempts to expropriate all or part of a population from their land, their access to resources, subsistence and the means of production; or upon the imposition of neoliberal policies accomplishing analogous acts of primitive accumulation (privatization of resources or public goods, elimination of limits on exploitation and market forces, freeing of the power of employers over workers, freeing of capital from regulations or limitations on its actions and movements). The case of Nazi Germany, the paradigmatic case for Agamben and one of the paradigmatic cases for Arendts study of totalitarianism, far from making the argument for autonomy of the political, instead supports the argument that political repression is based on economic expropriation and exploitation, and that rights and liberties, in turn are based on economic democracy, on either widespread or common ownership of resources, or on economic class organization by workers and the gains made using democracy to sustain economic conditions.

Turn their focus on states of exception in Gitmo is a critical misreading we lose political willpower to solve other instances of domination
Huysmans, 8 (Jef, Professor of Security Studies (Politics & International Studies) in the Faculty of Social

Sciences at the University of Kent, The Jargon of ExceptionOn Schmitt, Agamben and the Absence of Political Society, International Political Sociology (2008) 2, 165183, Online, http://bigo.zgeist.org/students/readings/huysmansjargonexceptionIPS.pdf, accessed 7/23/13) PE Fleur Johns observed in her analysis of Guantanamo Bay that events taking on the affect of exceptionalism soak up critical energies with considerable effect in liberal societies. [I]t is the exception that rings liberal alarm bells (Johns 2005). The liberal critique of current policy developments tends to define stakes and solutions in terms of exceptionalism, that is, a conflict between rule of law and executive, arbitrary government and or the direct exercise of governing power over biologically, in contrast to politically, defined life. Johns is uneasy about such a development but does not develop why we should take exception to exceptionalism. This article introduces one of the main reasons for sending out a distress signal about the rise in the idiom of exception. When exceptionalism soaks up critical energ[y]ies in liberal societies, it risks suppressing a political reading of the societal. By reading the concept of exception through two of the most popular political theorists of the exception, Schmitt and Agamben, the article shows that structuring politics around exceptionalist readings of political power tends to politically neutralize the societal as a realm of multi-faceted, historically structured political mediations and mobilizations. Or, in other words, deploying the exception as a diagram of the political marginalizes the societal as a political realm. In doing so, it eliminates one of the constituting categories of modern politics (Balibar 1997; Dyzenhaus 1997), hence producing an impoverished and

What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter

George Washington High School Debate ultimately illusionary understanding of the processes of political contestation and domination (Neal 2006; Neocleous 2006). Fleur Johns observed in her analysis of Guantanamo Bay that events taking on the affect of exceptionalism soak up critical energies with considerable effect in liberal societies. [I]t is the exception that rings liberal alarm bells (Johns 2005). The liberal critique of current policy developments tends to define stakes and solutions in terms of exceptionalism, that is, a conflict between rule of law and executive, arbitrary government and or the direct exercise of governing power over biologically, in contrast to politically, defined life. Johns is uneasy about such a development but does not develop why we should take exception to exceptionalism.

Their Impacts rely on a flawed, totalizing amount of biopower

Dickinson 2004 (Edward Ross, University of Cincinnati, Central European History, v37, n1, p.34-36) The need to theorize the place of the democratic welfare state in biopolitical, social-engineering modernity is, however, obvious. This is a state form that - in local variations - was built in the course of the 1950s and 1960s in almost every European country in which people had meaningful political choices, virtually regardless of which political party was in government, and has survived~ever since without a single major political upheaval, and certainly without significant episodes of internal violence. (The only modern regime form that comes remotely close - and not very close, for that matter - to this record is the
liberal parliamentary regime form installed in much of Europe in the last third of the nineteenth century.) The German case offers perhaps the most extraordinary example of the almost monolithic stability of this political system. It hardly needs to be said that the Third Reich, in

contrast, survived for twelve years, and was effectively dead after eight. I want to stress that my point here is not that
the democratic welfare state is a "good" thing. There is plenty about it that is reprehensible and frightening. It does wonderful things - the things it was built to do - for people; but it also coerces, cajoles, massages, and incentivizes its citizens into behaving in certain ways. It "engineers" their lives, so to speak. It aims at achieving national power (now more often defined in economic rather than military terms, a discourse on skilled labor rather than on cannonfodder); it pathologizes difference; it disciplines the individual in myriad ways; it is driven by a "scientistic" and medicalizing approach to social problems; it is a creature of instrumental rationality. And it is, of course, embedded in a broader discursive complex (institutions, professions, fields of social, medical, and psychological expertise) that pursues these same aims in often even more effective and inescapable ways.89 In short, the continuities between early twentieth-century biopolitical discourse and

the practices of the welfare state in our own time are unmistakeable. Both are instances of the "disciplinary society" and of biopolitical, regulatory, social-engineering modernity, and they share that genealogy with more author- - itarian
states, including the National Socialist state, but also fascist Italy, for example. And it is certainly fruitful to view them from this very broad perspective. But that analysis can easily become superficial and misleading because it obfuscates the

profoundly different strategic and local dynamics of power in the two kinds of regimes. Clearly the democratic welfare state is ot only formally but also substantively quite different from totalitarianism. Above all, again, it has nowhere developed the fateful, radicalizing dynamic that characterized National Socialism (or for that matter Stalinism), the psychotic logic that leads from economistic population management to mass murder. Again, there is always the potential for such a discursive regime to generate coercive policies. In
those cases in which the regime of rights does not successfully produce "health," such a system can -and historically does create compulsory pro- grams to enforce it. But again, there are political and policy potentials and con- straints such as structuring

of biopolitics that are very different from those of National Socialist Germany. Democratic biopolitical regimes require, enable, and incite a degree of self-direction and participation that is functionally incompatible with authoritarian or totalitarian structures. And this pursuit of biopolitical ends through a regime of democratic citizenship does appear, his- torically, to have imposed narrow limits on coercive policies, and to have generated a "1ogic"or imperative'of increasing liberalization. Despite lim- itations imposed by political context and
the slow pace of discursive change, I think this is the unmistakable message of the really very impressive waves of legi slative and welfare reforms in the 1920s or the 1970s in Germany.90 Of course it is not yet clear whether this is an irreversible dynamic of such systems. Nevertheless, such regimes are characterized by sufficient degrees of autonomv, (.and of the potential for its expansion)

for sufficient numbers of peo- ple that I think it becomes useful to conceive of the mass productive of a strate- gic configuration of power relations that might fruitfully be analyzed as a condition of "liberty just as much as they are productive of constraint, oppression, or manipulation. At the very least, totalitarianism cannot be the sole orientation point for our understanding of biopolitics, the only end point of the logic of social engineering 34-36

What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter

George Washington High School Debate

Biopower doesnt culminate in genocide

Ojakangas 2005 (Mika, Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, Finland, FOUCAULT STUDIES, May, v2, p.26-27)
For Foucault, the coexistence in political structures of large destructive mechanisms and institutions oriented toward the care of individual life was something puzzling: "It is one of the central antinomies of our political reason." However, it was an antinomy precisely because in principle the sovereign power and bio-power are mutually exclusive. How is it possible that the care of individual life paves the way for mass slaughters? Although Foucault could never give a satisfactory answer to this question, he was convinced that mass slaughters are not the effect or

the logical conclusion of bio-political rationality. 1 am also convinced about that. To be sure, it can be argued that sovereign
power and bio-power are reconciled within the modern state, which legitimates killing by biopolitical arguments. Especially, it can be argued that these powers are reconciled in the Third Reich in which they seemed to "coincide exactly". To my mind, however, neither the modern

state nor the Third Reich - in which the monstrosity of the modem state is crystallized - are the syntheses of the sovereign power and biopower. but, rather the institutional loci of their irreconcilable tension. This is, I believe, what Foucault meant when he wrote about their "demonic combination". In fact, the history of modern Western societies would be quite incomprehensible without taking into account that there exists a form of power which refrains from killing but which nevertheless is capable of directing peoples lives. The effectiveness of biopower can be seen lying
precisely in that it refrains and withdraws before every demand of killing, even though these demands would derive from the demand of justice. In biopolitical societies, according to Foucault, capital punishment could not be maintained except by invoking less the enormity of the crime itself than the monstrosity of the criminal: "One had the right to kill those who represented a kind of biological danger to others." However, given that the "right to kill" is precisely a sovereign right, it can be argued that the biopolitical societies analyzed by Foucault were not entirely biopolitical. Perhaps, there neither has been nor can be a society that is entirely biopolitical. Nevertheless, the fact is that present-dav

European societies have abolished capital punishment. In them, there are no longer exceptions. It is the very right to kill" that has been called into question. However, it is not called into question because of enlightened moral sentiments, but rather because of the deplovment of bio-political thinking and practice.

Turn - The detainees of Guantanamo have done nothing wrong in the eyes of Cuba but have threatened national security to the US. Therefor, giving the people of GITMO to Cuba would essentialy set them free in which they would be allowed to commit more horrific crimes.

What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter

George Washington High School Debate

Imperialism
1) No racism: the idea that Guantanamo is racist ignores the actual situation there 2) No impact;; there is no connection between Giroux 08 and the link card: the US imposing its will in a single instance happens countless times in the status quo 3) This means double bind: either no impact, because this isnt the bigges impact, or impact inevitable

4) Turn: cross apply the CP, we avoid cultural genocide: this is a prerequisite to solving any human rights, means cp turns case 5) Turn: imperialism prevents atrocities such as terrorist attacks, anarchy destruction: the only alternative is extinctioin 6) Turn: they deviate to the opposite extreme: they go from imperialism to lying down and accepting defeat to anarchy and terrorism: makes any impacts inevitable.

Their state of exception impacts are totalizing and wrong

Neilson 2004 (Brett, University of Western Sydney, "Potenza Nuda? Sovereignty, Biopolitics, Capitalism," Contretemps, December 5, p. 70)
Negri's ruse in this review is to suggest that the permanent state of exception specified by the first Agamben describes the new condition of global Empire. But he counters Agamben on his own terms, charging that it is inaccurate to fix everything that happens, in the world today "onto a static and totalitarian horizon, as under Nazism." Such an equation, for Negri, is anachronistic and inaccurate, since it conflates the fascist rule of the twentieth century with contemporary modes of decentralized global control. With implicit reference to the first chapter of Stato di Eccezione, where Agamben describes the current world situation as 'global civil war' (a term initially used by both Carl Schmitt and Hannah Arendt), Negri questions the notion of a sovereign ban that renders constituent and constituted power indistinct: But things are different-if we live in a state of exception it is because we live through a ferocious and permanent "civil war," where the positive and negative their antagonistic power can in no way be flattened onto indifference.

Claims of a permanent state of exception undermine criticism of biopower

Andrew 2005 (Neal, PhD candidate, School of Politics, Philosophy and International Relations at Keele
University, "Review of the literature on the ccstate of exception)) and the application of this concept to contemporary politics," March 3, htb:llwww.libertvsecuritv.org/articlel69.htmI)

If, as has been suggested, terminology is the properly poetic moment of thought, then terminological choices can never be neutral. In this sense, the choice of the term state of exception implies a position taken on both the nature of the phenomenon we seek to investigate and the logic most useful for understanding it. [51]
There is a final criticism to be made about Agambens treatment of the idea of the state of exception. Thus far, we have made a sustained critical-theoretical investigation into the usefulness and insight of that concept. In this sense, we must agree with Agambens sugges tion that the choice of a term implies a position on the nature of the phenomenon and the logic most useful for understanding it. The state of exception is, therefore, a way of understanding both the operation of canonical Western political discourses/structures at their limits and a positioning of contemporary political practices at those limits. As well as capturing the logic of a political phenomenon, the term state

What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter

George Washington High School Debate

of exception implies a political judgement on contemporary political practices - that they are exceptional and therefore perhaps bad, wrong, or more likely interesting, revealing and symptomatic. For these same reasons, however, we find that the usefulness and insight of the concept of the state of exception is undermined by Agambens frequent invocation of the idea of a per manent state of exception. For the most part, the logical operation the term state of exception is taken to mean a limit condition, a constitutive thr eshold that dwells within the city as sovereign potentiality. It is the potential for sovereignty to make itself actual by withdrawing the protection of the law, abandoning the subject to a state of lawlessness and violence: the sovereign is the one with respect to whom all men are potentially homines sacri, and homo sacer is the one with respect to whom all men act as sovereigns. [52] The value of Agambens work resides in a sustained investigation into the political dialectics in operation at the thresholds of law and politically-qualified life. Yet the analytical and political value of this very timely logic is undermined by the invocation of a permanent state of exception. For example, in Homo Sacer: the juridically empty space of the state of exception...has transgressed its spatiotemporal boundaries and now, overflowing outside them, is starting to coincide with the normal order, in which everything again becomes possible. [53] And similarly in State of Exception: the state of exception has by now become the rule. [54] These statements do not fit with the complex logic of relationality that Agamben attributes to sovereignty and the state of exception. To invoke a permanent state of exception is to collapse the relational dialectic of norm/exception. Although in Homo Sacerthese comments are somewhat throwaway, in State of Exception Agamben weaves this thesis more fully into his analysis. This is in fact grounded both theoretically and empirically. As such, Agamben invokes Benjamins eighth thesis from his Theses on the Philosophy of History, which partly reads, [t]he tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the state of exception in which we live is the rule. We must attain to a concept of history that accords with this fact. Then we will clearly see that it is our task to bring about the real state of exception, and this will improve our position in the struggle against fascism. [55] The real state of exception of which Benjamin speaks is some kind of revolution, post -dialectical epoch, or new messianic age. In historical terms Benjamin is of course right that fascism existed under the permanent declaration of a state of exception. In addition to this theoretical invocation, Agamben provides an extended note on the empirical history of the state of exception. In this, he illustrates that the exceptional delegation of powers from parliament to the executive - establishing executive rule by decree - became normal practice for all European democracies during, and then frequently after, the First World War. He argues that the passage to executive rule is underway to varying degrees in all the Western democracies, with parliaments becoming only secondary actors in the legislative process. Even more pertinently, he maintains that the tendency in all of the Western democracies, is that the declaration of the state of exception has gradually been replaced by an unprecedented generalization of the paradigm of security as the normal technique of government. [56] While we have no quibble with Agambens historical details or interpretation, what he is really saying here is that the current norm was once exceptional, and that it developed from an earlier state of exception or is coming to resemble what was once considered exceptional. It may also be that todays exception will become tomorrows norm. These are n o doubt acute political problems and may well be the case historically, but the consequence is that the treatise becomes no longer an enquiry into the state of exception, but an enquiry into the state of the norm. It also implies a political position on the current norm, in that it attempts to label it as exceptional.

US Imperialism Inevitable- History shows

Khodaee 11 (Esfandiar, American Studies at Tehran University, Is imperialism Inevitable for America?

July 19, 2011, http://peace.blog.com/2011/07/19/imperialism/) Imperialism takes root from human nature. In history we see whenever a country had the power to expand its domination, it never hesitated. Historical examples are: Roman, Persian, Ottoman, Japanese, Chinese, French, Spanish, English, Portugal and Mongol Empires. Today American Empire is a live example having all the common features of previous Empires. Some common features of all Empires are: All these Empires have a clear date for emergence and a final date of weakness or even vanishing. For Example the Soviet Union Empire was born in the beginning of the twentieth century and collapsed in the end of the same century in 1991. All above mentioned Empires expanded to the point they could afford, and then declined. The balance of power theory presents a good perception. It reveals the fact that an imperialist power goes forward to the point that domestic and foreign pressure stops or remove it. Some of these Imperialist powers like the Soviet Union and America besides their realistic interests in Imperialism, have also ideological bases. The Soviet Union tried to expand Communism;
America is trying to expand Capitalism. Today the United States of America both in realistic and idealistic point of view has chosen an Imperialistic way of dealing other countries. From the realistic point of view, America needs new markets to help its economy proceed, also for the sake of security America resorts to intervention in four corners of the world. In idealistic point of view American decision makers believe Capitalism through democracy is the best way for governing human societies. They sometimes use this ideology as a pretext for their realistic benefits. They know that any capitalist democracy in any corner of the world meets their interest and they have fewer problems with democracies around the world. For example Japan, Germany and Italy are no longer a threat to American security. So are India, Pakistan and South Africa. But countries like Iran, Venezuela and Sudan which are not in the realm of their alleged democracy will never meet their security standards. After the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001, US found concrete security excuses to militarily intervening Afghanistan and Iraq. Imperialism

is inevitable for America because it roots in American history and culture. From its early days of being English colonies America has never stopped expanding. The first victims were native Indians who lost their lands. Then
the French colonies in America, then the Britain Kingdom and then the Mexico which lost Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. From 1850s to 1890s because of civil war between the two systems of Capitalism and Slavery and then the Reconstruction, American expansion came to a halt. In 1898 America emerged in a full imperialistic appearance to defeat the frustrated Spain and gain Filipinas in Far East Asia. During the twentieth century the United States in an average of less than a year (nearly every 10 month) has intervened a country. You cant find a country in the world which America hasnt attacked, intervened or at least performed a quota. Imagine an Iraqi citizen living in 1607 in Baghdad accidently learns about the establishment of a new English colony in thousands of kilometers far west. He never

What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter

George Washington High School Debate

could believe four hundred years later (in 2003) the same colony as a superpower would change the fate of his country and remove his president (Saddam).

America will never give up its Imperialism nature, unless the balance of power blocks it. Today, after the
cold war and at the advent of globalization the A twinkle of hope is the multinational treaties between groups of countries. Through these treaties may be in the future they can defend themselves.

No solvency Guantanamo showcases U.S. imperialism, but closure doesnt overcome alt causes
Greenberg, 12 (Karen J., historian, professor, and author. She is Director of the Center on National

Security at Fordham University's School of Law, Imagining a world without Guantanamo, January 12, 2012, Online, Washington Post Opinions, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-0112/opinions/35438031_1_detainees-guantanamo-bay-indefinite-detention, accessed 7/27/13) PE Without Guantanamo, there would be no focal point that so readily called to mind the U.S. role in the war on terror. There would be no one place that encapsulated the errant journey that the nation began in the wake of 9/11, the startling deviation from law and process, from the self-identity of America as law-abiding, confident and fair. The absence of Guantanamo this one term that evokes so much would have meant that the United States had not chosen the easy out. Had there been no Guantanamo, the nation would have had to confront the issues that continue to haunt us: the ability of the Constitution to deal with 21st-century enemies; the strengths and weaknesses of our intelligence services; the uncertainty of who is an enemy and who is not. Without Guantanamo, the countrys leaders would have had to create aboveboard policies that would not have led us into a state of perpetual limbo, now codified by Congress and supported by the president in the form of indefinite detention and military detention for foreign terrorism suspects. With no Guantanamo, there would still be much to trouble us: the war in Iraq and the lies that got us there, the losses in Afghanistan, the overstepping of the security state into conversations, virtual and otherwise. But there wouldnt be a glaring badge of shame on the United States. Nor would there be a ready symbol of the countrys willingness to allow national security to trump the rule of law. Without Guantanamo, our moral compass wouldnt have been so visibly hijacked.

Cant solve protests against Guantanamo are political posturing its a symptom rather than a cause of imperialism
ONeil, 6 (Brendon, columnist for the Big Issue, a blogger for the Telegraph, and a writer for the

Spectator, Editor of Spiked, Guantanamo Bay and the champagne anti-imperialists, March 10, 2006, Online, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/246#.UfV6dtJtN2w, accessed 7/28/13) PE The Camp X-Ray prisons at Guantanamo Bay - where 500 men are being held in legal limbo, still unsure whether they are prisoners of war, illegal combatants or what - are a common disgrace. They should be shut down, dismantled, sold for scrap, and their inhabitants set free immediately. More to the point, we should challenge the idea that these individuals pose a threat to civilisation and everything that America and the West hold dear, and that they therefore must be locked up indefinitely and even have their toothbrushes sawn in half. That is the beginning and the end of my political position on Guantanamo Bay. And that is why I wont be signing up any time soon to the fashionable public campaign against Camp X-Ray. That campaign - whose adherents include[s] everyone from the Archbishop of Canterbury, to every bicycle-riding liberals favourite bicycle-riding newsreader, Jon Snow, to the notespecially principled publicity supremo Max Clifford (who reportedly scored high-profile newspaper interviews for some of the Brits freed from Guantanamo) - is less about getting the prison shut down, and even less about challenging the war on terror that sustains it, than it is about demonstrating the campaigners own whiter-than-white credentials to the watching world. Wondering about the strange goings-on at Guantanamo has become a kind of pornography for the chattering classes, and chastising Camp X-Ray a shortcut to showing that you are a good and noble person. It is public

What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter

George Washington High School Debate protest as narcissistic preening, and anyone interested in challenging the war on terror should steer well clear of it. Guantanamo Bay is everywhere. Even as post-war Afghanistan remains a mess and post-war Iraq becomes an ever-more vacuous and violent state, virtually the only big public debate about Bush and Blairs military shenanigans focuses on Camp X-Ray. That is weird for two reasons. First, we know what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq but we are uncertain as to what is happening in Camp XRay, which is a highly secretive and closed-off prison; second, Camp X-Ray is a byproduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a symptom rather than the cause of American and British military interventionism. In some ways, it is precisely the secretive nature of Camp X-Ray and the fact that it has become a kind of separate entity, dislocated from its origins in the war on terror, that makes it attractive to the campaigners: it allows them to indulge a sense of moral righteousness and outrage without having to think too hard about hard facts or the messy political business of taking a public stand against Western interventionism.

US should reform GITMO-shutting it down doesnt solve

Sun Sentinel 6 (Sun Sentinel, The Sun Sentinel, owned by the Tribune Company, is the main daily newspaper of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, U.S., and all of
Broward County, but circulates throughout South Florida. It is the largest-circulation newspaper in South Florida. The publisher, since 2007, is Howard Greenberg. The editor, since 2011, is Howard Saltz., The paper was awarded its first Pulitzer Prize on April 15, 2013, the Gold Medal in the category of Public Service Journalism, for its investigative series about hundreds of off-duty police officers who regularly speed -- often at 120 or 130 mph -- without being punished. You can read the series here, The newspaper has also been a finalist for a Pulitzer 13 times, including for its 2005 coverage of Hurricane Wilma and an investigation into the Federal Emergency Management Agency's mismanagement of hurricane aid. (The latter investigation was featured in the PBS documentary series Expos: America's Investigative Reports in an episode entitled "Crisis Mismanagement.") It also produced a significant contribution to information graphics in the form of News Illustrated, a weekly full-page graphic that has received more than 30 international awards. The photography department has been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize twice in the Spot News category. It was nominated in 1982 for its coverage of a Haitian refugee boat disaster. It was nominated again in 1999 for its powerful coverage of Hurricane Mitch in Central America. The Sun Sentinel publishes several websites, including SunSentinel.com, SouthFlorida.com, SouthFloridaParenting.com, CityLinkMix.com, and TeenlinkSouthFlorida.com. Its website has news video from two South Florida television stations: West Palm Beach's CBS affiliate WPEC and WSFL-TV, the Miami and Fort Lauderdale CW affiliate. It also publishes a Spanish-language weekly, El Sentinel, and an alternative weekly distributed for free throughout the region. Guantanamo, Sun Sentinel Articles, February 20, 2006, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2006-02-

20/news/0602190101_1_guantanamo-bay-prison-camp-fair-minded) SS The U.S. prison camp for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay should not be closed. It serves a useful purpose. Besides, there is something unseemly and hypocritical about an international agency populated by egregious human-rights violators scolding the United States over alleged abuses of human rights, especially when the allegations come largely from the prisoners themselves. This should not be taken to mean, though, that all is well at Guantanamo. The place has richly earned a reputation that has harmed America's image in much of the world. The United States must improve conditions there and treat the prisoners more fairly. Fairness starts with bringing detainees to trial in a reasonable period of time. Isn't that the
American way? The four-year period that has elapsed since many were brought to Guantanamo already qualifies as unreasonable. The United States should conduct trials not because anti-American operatives at the United Nations say so. It should do so because it's the right thing to do, and because America

cannot expect to be regarded as the international model for the rule of law if it ignores the rule of law itself , even in so just a cause as the war on terror. No one should shed a tear for the true terrorists at Guantanamo. But many detainees were picked up in sweeps that cast a very wide net amid the fog of war in Afghanistan. They aren't necessarily terrorists. The war on terror, as defined by the Bush administration, is open-ended and may not end in our lifetimes. No fair-minded person should accept the notion that it's all right to imprison people in perpetuity when they may not be guilty of anything. No fair-minded country should think that way either. BOTTOM LINE: The camp should not be closed, but the U.S. must treat prisoners better and bring them to trial promptly.

What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter

George Washington High School Debate

Turn- US imperialism is necessary to prevent war and genocide - their criticism thwarts the more important task of humanizing the imperial order from within Look to GITMO Itself
David Rieff, Volume XVI, No2, SUMMER 1999. A New Age of Liberal Imperialism? But the implications of not doing anything are equally clear. Those who fear American power are-this is absolutely certaincondemning other people to death. Had the U.S. armed forces not set up the air bridge to eastern Zaire in the wake of the Rwandan genocide, hundreds of thousands of people would have perished, rather than the tens of thousands who did die. This does not excuse the Clinton administration for failing to act to stop the genocide militarily; but it is a fact. And analogous situations were found in Bosnia and even, for all its failings, in the operation in Somalia. < CONTINUED.> Is
thisproposal tantamount-to calling for decolonization of part of the world? Would such a system make the United States even more powerful than it is already? Clearly it is, and clearly it would. But what are the alternatives? Kosovo demonstrates how little stomach the United States has for the kind of military action mat its moral ambitions impel it to undertake. And there will be many more Kosovos in the coming

decades. With the victory of capitalism nearly absolute, the choice is not between systems but about what kind of capitalist system we are going to have and what kind of world order that system requires. However controversial it may be to say this our choice at the millennium seems to boil down to imperialism or barbarism. Half-measures of the type we have seen in various humanitarian interventions and in Kosovo represent the worst of both worlds. Better to grasp the nettle and accept that liberal imperialism may be the best we are going to do in these callous and sentimental times. Indeed, the real task for people who reject both realism and the Utopian nihilism of a left that would prefer to see genocide in Bosnia and the mass deportation of the Kosovars rather than strengthen, however marginally, the hegemony of the United States, is to trv to humanize this new imperial order-assuming it can come into being-and to curb the excesses that it will doubtless produce. The alternative is not liberation, or the triumph of some global consensus of conscience, but to paraphrase Che Guevara, one, two, three, many Kosovos.

What has happened at Guantanamo Bay... does not represent the will of the American people. I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people. Jimbo Carter