1NC

1
CIR will pass – TOA now because of midterm votes and PC key – GOP confirms
RSN 11/20 [RSN, Right Side News, http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013112033492/us/homeland-security/immigration-
reform-news-and-impact-on-us-homeland-security-november-20-2013.html, Immigration Reform News and Impact on US Homeland
Security November 20, 2013, 11/20/13, 11/21/13, CW]

Gang of Eight leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) remains confident that Congress will pass "compreh6ensive"
immigration reform, even after Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) announced that the House will never conference with his
1,200 page amnesty bill passed by the Senate in June. "I still think it's possible this year," Schumer declared at
the Washington Ideas Forum hosted by The Atlantic. (Washington Times, Nov. 14, 2013) "But if it's not, I think we have a real good
chance to do it in the first half of next year.... If I had to bet money, we're going to have an immigration reform bill on the president's
desk." (Id.) Schumer claims Republicans need to address immigration in order to be successful in the
2014 elections. "They have to do something, and the Republican leadership in the House
knows that – Speaker Boehner knows that," Schumer said. (Id.) "At the same time, they can't do it without
Democrats," Schumer said, predicting that House GOP leadership will "come to its senses and realize
that we have to fix our immigration system in a bipartisan way." (Id.) "We're going to get
something done," Schumer proclaimed. (Capital, Nov. 14, 2013) A top House Republican essentially confirmed
Schumer's belief that the House will address immigration before next November's elections.
"Between now and the [2014] election I think the House will take up immigration in a piece-by-piece approach," Rep. Greg Walden
(R-OR), the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast.
(Huffington Post, Nov. 15, 2013) "It's a matter of timing, in part because of everything else that hasn't
been done yet with the whole government funding issue and all of that has eaten up a lot of
time. So my guess is it will happen later next year," Walden said. (CQ Today, Nov. 15, 2013) However, Walden reiterated that the
House will only consider piecemeal bills rather than following the Senate's "comprehensive" approach. "The American people are
skeptical of big, huge comprehensive bills," Walden said. (Id.) "And we are looking at real reform that's done a piece at a time, step
by step, so that you can have it be transparent so that people can have a chance to actually understand each step of the way and
how it's sequenced." (Id.)
Plan unpopular in a bipartisan and especially Republican stance in both
the House and Senate
Brown 2013(Hayes, Brown is a National Security Reporter/Blogger with
ThinkProgress.org. Prior to joining ThinkProgress, Hayes worked as a contractor at the
Department of Homeland Security. Republicans Are Resisting Obama’s Renewed Attempt To
Close Gitmo, Thinkprogress, May 7th, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/07/1974601/republicans-vow-to-block-
obamas-renewed-attempt-to-close-gitmo/?mobile=nc)

President Obama’s renewed calls to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are already
being met with promises of further stonewalling from Republicans in Congress, before a new
plan can even be put forward. It’s not new that Republicans oppose the idea that closing a prison that has been for years now a
symbol of U.S. disregard for human rights would be in the interests of the United States, having blocked administration
proposals several times. And now, Republicans are already shooting down Obama’s renewed push,
mostly based on previous proposals to transport detainees to “supermax” prisons in the
United States: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “There is wide, bipartisan
opposition in Congress to the president’s goal of moving those terrorists to American
cities and towns.” Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC): “[The detainees are] individuals hell-
bent on our destruction and destroying our way of life.” Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL):
“All of the prisoners housed at Guantanamo are terrorists. They pose an obvious
threat to our national security, and they should not be allowed to set foot on our soil.”
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN): “The American people expect us to keep them safe. I
have yet to hear one good reason why moving these terrorists from off our shores
right into the heart of our country makes us safer.” Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):
“The president needs to realize that the Global War on Terrorism did not end with the killing of
Osama bin Laden. The Boston bombing is a sharp reminder that there is still a clear and
present threat to our American way of life from those that mean us harm.” Rep. Jimmy Duncan (R-TN):
“[Detainees] are not U.S. citizens and should not be given the same rights and
privileges as if they were. [...] I do not support any plan for these prisoners that puts
them on U.S. soil.”
Reform is key to U.S. competitiveness
Bush et al 09 – co-chairmen and director of a Council on Foreign Relations-sponsored Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy
(7/21/09, Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former White House Chief of Staff Thomas F. McLarty and Edward Alden, “Nation needs comprehensive,
flexible immigration reform,” http://www.ajc.com/opinion/nation-needs-comprehensive-flexible-97393.html)
Our immigration system has been broken for too long, and the costs of that failure are growing. Getting immigration policy right is
fundamental to our national interests — our economic vitality, our diplomacy and our
national security. In the report of the bipartisan Council on Foreign Relations’ Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy, we lay out
what is at stake for the United States. President Barack Obama has made it clear that reform is one of his top priorities, and that is an encouraging and
welcome signal. Immigration has long been America’s secret weapon. The U.S. has attracted an
inordinate share of talented and hardworking immigrants who are enticed here by the world’s best universities, the
most innovative companies, a vibrant labor market and a welcoming culture. Many leaders in allied nations were educated in the U.S., a diplomatic
asset that no other country can match. And the contributions of immigrants — 40 percent of the science and engineering Ph.D.s in
the U.S. are foreign-born, for example — have helped maintain the scientific and technological leadership
that is the foundation of our national security. But the U.S. has been making life much tougher
for many immigrants. Long processing delays and arbitrary quota backlogs keep out many would-be immigrants, or leave them in an
uncertain temporary status for years. Background and other security checks are taking far too long in many cases. Other countries are
taking advantage of these mistakes, competing for immigrants by opening their universities to
foreign students and providing a faster track to permanent residency and citizenship.

Competiveness key to economy and hegemony
Segal, 04 – Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
(Adam, Foreign Affairs, “Is America Losing Its Edge?” November / December 2004, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-
segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html)
The United S tates' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new
technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific
innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic
prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and
the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for
granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax
policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian
governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and
science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the
second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients
around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software.
And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors,
aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and
development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is
both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United S tates will never be able to prevent rivals from
developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone
else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United S tates must get better
at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.

The impact is great power conflict
Khalilzad 11 — Zalmay Khalilzad, Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, served as the
United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush, served as the
director of policy planning at the Defense Department during the Presidency of George H.W. Bush, holds a Ph.D. from the
University of Chicago, 2011 (“The Economy and National Security,” National Review, February 8
th
, Available Online at
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/259024, Accessed 02-08-2011)

Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United
States’ position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and
low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The
continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward
a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even
war among the great powers .¶ The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere
fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades
of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy — ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP — and the
development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of
wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical
spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent
of GDP in three years.¶ Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected
to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which already are
larger than the defense budget — would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut
economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a “sudden stop” in
credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its
outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost
certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally.¶ Such scenarios
would reshape the international order . It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during
World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British
leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness,
which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist
regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical,
the United States would be compelled to retrench , reducing its military spending and
shedding international commitments.¶ We face this domestic challenge while other major powers
are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and
Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster
than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power . These trends could in the
long term produce a multi-polar world . If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other
powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new
international order will emerge . The closing of the gap between the United States and its
rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers , increase
incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut
our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of
escalation.¶ The stakes are high . In modern history, the longest period of peace
among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar
systems have been unstable , with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent
crises and major wars among the great powers . Failures of multi-polar international
systems produced both world wars.¶ American retrenchment could have devastating
consequences . Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm
in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would
be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling
into all-out conflict . Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their
geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to
make aggressive moves in their regions.¶ As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to
emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijing’s economic rise has enabled a dramatic military
buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities.
China’s strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as
cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, China’s expansive territorial claims — and provocative statements and
actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea — have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast
Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression. ¶ Given the
risks, the United States must focus on restoring its economic and fiscal condition while
checking and managing the rise of potential adversarial regional powers such as
China. While we face significant challenges, the U.S. economy still accounts for over 20 percent of the world’s GDP. American
institutions — particularly those providing enforceable rule of law — set it apart from all the rising powers. Social cohesion
underwrites political stability. U.S. demographic trends are healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of
innovation, excellent institutions of higher education, and a vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises propel the U.S.
economy in ways difficult to quantify. Historically, Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes through trial and
error, to work our way through the kind of crisis that we face today.¶ The policy question is how to enhance economic growth
and employment while cutting discretionary spending in the near term and curbing the growth of entitlement spending in the
out years. Republican members of Congress have outlined a plan. Several think tanks and commissions, including President
Obama’s debt commission, have done so as well. Some consensus exists on measures to pare back the recent increases in
domestic spending, restrain future growth in defense spending, and reform the tax code (by reducing tax expenditures while
lowering individual and corporate rates). These are promising options. ¶ The key remaining question is whether the president
and leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill have the will to act and the skill to fashion bipartisan solutions. Whether we take the
needed actions is a choice, however difficult it might be. It is clearly within our capacity to put our economy on a better
trajectory. In garnering political support for cutbacks, the president and members of Congress should point not only to the
domestic consequences of inaction — but also to the geopolitical implications.¶ As the United States gets its economic and
fiscal house in order, it should take steps to prevent a flare-up in Asia. The United States can do so by signaling that its
domestic challenges will not impede its intentions to check Chinese expansionism. This can be done in cost-efficient ways.¶
While China’s economic rise enables its military modernization and international assertiveness, it also frightens rival powers.
The Obama administration has wisely moved to strengthen relations with allies and potential partners in the region but more
can be done.¶ Some Chinese policies encourage other parties to join with the United States, and the U.S. should not let these
opportunities pass. China’s military assertiveness should enable security cooperation with countries on China’s periphery —
particularly Japan, India, and Vietnam — in ways that complicate Beijing’s strategic calculus. China’s mercantilist policies and
currency manipulation — which harm developing states both in East Asia and elsewhere — should be used to fashion a
coalition in favor of a more balanced trade system. Since Beijing’s over-the-top reaction to the awarding of the Nobel Peace
Prize to a Chinese democracy activist alienated European leaders, highlighting human-rights questions would not only draw
supporters from nearby countries but also embolden reformers within China. ¶ Since the end of the Cold War, a
stable economic and financial condition at home has enabled America to have an
expansive role in the world. Today we can no longer take this for granted. Unless we
get our economic house in order, there is a risk that domestic stagnation in
combination with the rise of rival powers will undermine our ability to deal with
growing international problems. Regional hegemons in Asia could seize the moment,
leading the world toward a new, dangerous era of multi-polarity .


2
The 1AC operates under a destructive humanist worldview that ensures that
anthropocentrism continues – causes extinction
Bell, York University department of education, and Russell, Lakehead University
associate professor, 2k (Anne C. and Constance L., department of education, York
University, Canada, and Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, “Beyond Human, Beyond
Words: Anthropocentrism, Critical Pedagogy, and the Poststructuralist Turn,” CANADIAN
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 25, 3 (2000):188–203, http://www.csse-
scee.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE25-3/CJE25-3-bell.pdf, p. 192)
We come to critical pedagogy with a background in environmental thought and education. Of primary concern and interest
to us are relationships among humans and the “more-than-human world” (Abram, 1996), the
ways in which those relationships are constituted and prescribed in mo- dern industrial
society, and the implications and consequences of those constructs. As a number of scholars and nature
advocates have argued, the many manifestations of the current environmental crisis (e.g., species
extinction, toxic contamination, ozone depletion, topsoil depletion, climate change, acid rain,
deforestation) reflect predominant Western concepts of nature, nature cast as mindless
matter, a mere resource to be exploited for human gain (Berman, 1981; Evernden, 1985; Merchant, 1980).
An ability to respond adequately to the situation therefore rests, at least in part, on a willingness to
critique prevailing discourses about nature and to consider alternative representations (Cronon,
1996; Evernden, 1992; Hayles, 1995). To this end, poststructuralist analysis has been and will continue to be invaluable.¶ It would be
an all-too-common mistake to construe the task at hand as one of interest only to environmentalists. We believe, rather, that
disrupting the social scripts that structure and legitimize the human domination of nonhuman
nature is fundamental not only to dealing with environmental issues, but also to examining
and challenging oppressive social arrangements. The exploitation of nature is not separate
from the exploitation of human groups . Ecofeminists and activists for environ- mental justice
have shown that forms of domination are often intimately connected and mutually reinforcing
(Bullard, 1993; Gaard, 1997; Lahar, 1993; Sturgeon, 1997). Thus, if critical educators wish to resist various
oppressions, part of their project must entail calling into question, among other things, the
instrumental exploitive gaze through which we humans distance ourselves from the rest of
nature (Carlson, 1995).¶ For this reason, the various movements against oppression need to be aware of
and supportive of each other. In critical pedagogy, however, the exploration of questions of
race, gender, class, and sexuality has proceeded so far with little acknowledgement of the
systemic links between human oppressions and the domination of nature. The more-than-
human world and human relationships to it have been ignored, as if the suffering and
exploitation of other beings and the global ecological crisis were somehow irrelevant. Despite the
call for attention to voices historically absent from traditional canons and narratives (Sadovnik, 1995, p. 316), nonhuman
beings are shrouded in silence. This silence characterizes even the work of writers who call for a rethinking of all
culturally positioned essentialisms.¶ Like other educators influenced by poststructuralism, we agree that there is a need to scrutinize
the language we use, the meanings we deploy, and the epistemological frameworks of past eras (Luke & Luke, 1995, p. 378). To
treat social categories as stable and unchanging is to reproduce the prevailing relations of
power (Britzman et al., 1991, p. 89). What would it mean, then, for critical pedagogy to extend this investigation and critique to
include taken-for-granted understandings of “human,” “animal,” and “nature”?¶ This question is difficult to raise precisely because
these understandings are taken for granted. The anthropocentric bias in critical pedagogy manifests itself
in silence and in the asides of texts. Since it is not a topic of discussion, it can be difficult to situate a critique of it.
Following feminist analyses, we find that examples of anthropocentrism, like examples of gender symbolization,
occur “in those places where speakers reveal the assumptions they think they do not need
to defend , beliefs they expect to share with their audiences” (Harding, 1986, p. 112).¶ Take, for example,
Freire’s (1990) statements about the differences between “Man” and animals. To set up his discussion of praxis and the importance
of “naming” the world, he outlines what he assumes to be shared, commonsensical beliefs about humans and other animals. He
defines the boundaries of human membership according to a sharp, hier- archical dichotomy that establishes human superiority.
Humans alone, he reminds us, are aware and self-conscious beings who can act to fulfill the objectives they set for themselves.
Humans alone are able to infuse the world with their creative presence, to overcome situations that limit them, and thus to
demonstrate a “decisive attitude towards the world” (p. 90).¶ Freire (1990, pp. 87–91) represents other animals in terms of their
lack of such traits. They are doomed to passively accept the given, their lives “totally determined” because their decisions belong not
to themselves but to their species. Thus whereas humans inhabit a “world” which they create and transform and from which they
can separate themselves, for animals there is only habitat, a mere physical space to which they are “organically bound.”¶ To accept
Freire’s assumptions is to believe that humans are animals only in a nominal sense. We are different not in degree but in kind, and
though we might recognize that other animals have distinct qualities, we as humans are somehow more unique. We have the edge
over other crea- tures because we are able to rise above monotonous, species-determined biological existence. Change in the
service of human freedom is seen to be our primary agenda. Humans are thus cast as active agents whose very
essence is to transform the world – as if somehow acceptance, appreciation, wonder, and
reverence were beyond the pale.¶ This discursive frame of reference is characteristic of critical
pedagogy. The human/animal opposition upon which it rests is taken for granted, its cultural
and historical specificity not acknowledged. And therein lies the problem. Like other social
constructions, this one derives its persuasiveness from its “seeming facticity and from the
deep investments individuals and communities have in setting themselves off from others”
(Britzman et al., 1991, p. 91). This becomes the normal way of seeing the world, and like other
discourses of normalcy, it limits possibilities of taking up and con- fronting inequities (see
Britzman, 1995). The primacy of the human enter- prise is simply not questioned.¶ Precisely how an
anthropocentric pedagogy might exacerbate the en- vironmental crisis has not received much
consideration in the literature of critical pedagogy, especially in North America. Although there may be
passing reference to planetary destruction, there is seldom mention of the relationship
between education and the domination of nature, let alone any sustained exploration of the
links between the domination of nature and other social injustices. Concerns about the
nonhuman are relegated to environmental education. And since environmental education, in
turn, remains peripheral to the core curriculum (A. Gough, 1997; Russell, Bell, & Fawcett, 2000),
anthropocentrism passes unchallenged.1¶ p. 190-192

The alternative is to endorse global suicide of humanity. The role of the ballot is
to evaluate alternatives to the status quo – that allows for critical discussion
and problematizes status quo issues
Kochi, Queen's University School of Law lecturer, and Ordan, linguist, 08 (Tarik
and Noam, Borderlands Volume 7 Number 3, 2008, "An Argument for the Global Suicide of
Humanity," p. 3)
¶ However, is the form of reflection offered by Hawking broad or critical enough? Does his mode of reflection pay enough attention
to the irredeemable moments of destruction, harm, pain and suffering inflicted historically by human action upon the non-human
world? There are, after all, a variety of negative consequences of human action, moments of
destruction, moments of suffering, which may not be redeemable or ever made better.
Conversely there are a number of conceptions of the good in which humans do not take centre stage at the expense of others.
What we try to do in this paper is to draw out some of the consequences of reflecting more
broadly upon the negative costs of human activity in the context of environmental
catastrophe. This involves re-thinking a general idea of progress through the historical and
conceptual lenses of speciesism, colonialism, survival and complicity. Our proposed conclusion
is that the only appropriate moral response to a history of human destructive action is to give
up our claims to biological supremacy and to sacrifice our form of life so as to give an eternal
gift to others.¶ From the outset it is important to make clear that the argument for the global
suicide of humanity is presented as a thought experiment. The purpose of such a proposal in
response to Hawking is to help show how a certain conception of modernity, of which his
approach is representative, is problematic. Taking seriously the idea of global suicide is one
way of throwing into question an ideology or dominant discourse of modernist-humanist
action. [3] By imagining an alternative to the existing state of affairs, absurd as it may seem to some
readers by its nihilistic and radical ‘solution’, we wish to open up a ground for a critical discussion of
modernity and its negative impacts on both human and non-human animals, as well as on the
environment. [4] In this respect, by giving voice to the idea of a human-free world, we attempt to draw attention to some of
the asymmetries of environmental reality and to give cause to question why attempts to build bridges from the human to the non-
human have, so far, been unavailing.

3

A- Interpretation
“Cuba” does not include the Guantanamo base
CFR 6 – Code of Federal Regulations, 19CFR Ch. 1(4-1-06 Edition), p. 634

Subpart O—Flights to and From Cuba
§122.151 Definitions.
Under this subpart, the following definitions apply:
(a) United States. The term "U.S." includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.
(b) Cuba. The term "Cuba" does not include the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station.
Guantanamo Bay is U.S. territory --- strongest legal arguments are Neg
Richey 2 – Warren Richey, Staff Writer of The Christian Science Monitor, “Detainees' Future
May Hinge on Cuba Lease”, The Christian Science Monitor, 3-20,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0320/p03s01-usju.html

Simply put, the issue is whether the naval base is sovereign US territory or a mere piece of rental
property with Fidel Castro as the current landlord. The answer to that will either facilitate or greatly complicate US efforts to
detain, question, prosecute – and perhaps execute – the 300 suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters being held indefinitely at a
makeshift detention camp here. "These people were brought to what we believe to be the territorial
jurisdiction of the United S tates," says Joseph Margulies, a Minneapolis lawyer and Cornell University law
professor, who has filed a lawsuit in Washington on behalf of two British men and an Australian being held here. "They are in
Guantanamo because the United States brought them to Guantanamo." What that means from a legal standpoint, Mr. Margulies
says, is that the detainees are entitled to the protections and guarantees of the US Constitution – including the right not to be held
indefinitely without due process of law. In 1950, the US Supreme Court ruled that foreign nationals outside the sovereign territory of
the US are not entitled to key constitutional protections. So the essential question is whether Guantanamo is sovereign Cuban or
sovereign US territory. Lawyers for the US government say that the 1903 lease agreement addresses the legal status of the naval
base with perfect clarity. The lease reads in part: "While on the one hand the United States recognizes the continuance of the
ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba ... on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents that ... the United States shall
exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said area." Reading the language of the lease, a federal judge in Los
Angeles on Feb. 21 dismissed one of the lawsuits filed on behalf of the Guantanamo detainees. "There is a difference between
territorial jurisdiction and sovereignty," writes US District Judge Howard Matz in his decision. "The court finds that Guantanamo Bay
is NOT within the sovereign territory of the United States." Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law professor at
the University of S outhern C alifornia who argued the case before Judge Matz, says he is appealing the judge's decision. "I
read Article III of the Guantanamo Treaty as making Guantanamo part of the territory of the
United S tates," he says. In effect, the US exercises de facto sovereignty, he says. He has a point. US flags
fly on the highest hills here – not a Cuban flag in sight. You need stamps from the US Postal
Service to mail a letter. And if you try to buy a Cuban sandwich with Cuban pesos rather than
US dollars, you are going to have to skip lunch. But is that sovereignty or just absolute control? David Rivkin, a
Washington lawyer and international-law expert, acknowledges that the US exerts unquestioned authority over day-to-day
operations at Guantanamo, but that doesn't entitle the US to exercise sovereignty. "Can we sell Guantanamo?" he asks. "No,
because it isn't ours." The issue isn't entirely new. In 1993 and 1994, two federal judges – one in New York and one in Miami – ruled
that Cuban and Haitian refugees intercepted at sea and housed temporarily at Guantanamo were entitled to constitutional rights
because the US exerts "complete control and jurisdiction" at Guantanamo. But the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta
reached a different conclusion, overturning the Miami judge. "We ... reject the argument that our leased military bases abroad
which continue under the sovereignty of foreign nations, hostile or friendly, are 'functionally equivalent' to being within the United
States," the appeals court ruled in 1995. What the ruling meant for Cuban and Haitian refugees in Guantanamo at that time was that
their mere presence in Guantanamo wasn't enough to trigger legal rights in a US court. Lawyers for the US government are now
making the same argument about the suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. In a brief filed in the Los Angeles case, Assistant US
Attorney Douglas Axel writes: "These detainees are aliens, and Guantanamo lies outside the sovereign territory of the United States,
and so [existing US Supreme Court precedent] precludes jurisdiction in this or any other United States court." Lawyer Margulies says
the 1950 Supreme Court decision on this issue is different in important ways from the Guantanamo
situation. It involved the prosecution of suspected German spies in China during World War II. The US military tribunal was
conducted in China with the permission of the Chinese government. "Contrast that with Guantanamo Bay, where
we have had exclusive control since 1903. Nobody gets in or out without the permission of the
US government," he says. "It has its own power and schools. It is a functioning small city under
the complete control of the United States. To say it is equivalent to a foreign country is
preposterous."
Economic engagement is strictly expanding economic ties
Çelik 11 – Arda Can Çelik, Master’s Degree in Politics and International Studies from Uppsala
University, Economic Sanctions and Engagement Policies, p. 11

Introduction
Economic engagement policies are strategic integration behaviour which involves
with the target state. Engagement policies differ from other tools in Economic
Diplomacy. They target to deepen the economic relations to create economic
intersection, interconnectness, and mutual dependence and finally seeks economic
interdependence. This interdependence serves the sender stale to change the political behaviour of target stale.
However they cannot be counted as carrots or inducement tools, they focus on long term strategic
goals and they are not restricted with short term policy changes.(Kahler&Kastner,2006) They can be unconditional and focus
on creating greater economic benefits for both parties. Economic engagement targets to seek deeper economic linkages via
promoting institutionalized mutual trade thus mentioned interdependence creates two major concepts. Firstly it builds strong
trade partnership to avoid possible militarized and non militarized conflicts. Secondly it gives a leeway lo perceive the
international political atmosphere from the same and harmonized perspective. Kahler and Kastner define the
engagement policies as follows "It is a policy of deliberate expanding economic ties with and
adversary in order to change the behaviour of target state and improve bilateral relations
".(p523-abstact). It is an intentional economic strategy that expects bigger benefits such as long term economic gains and
more importantly; political gains. The main idea behind the engagement motivation is stated by Rosecrance (1977) in a way
that " the direct and positive linkage of interests of stales where a change in the position of one state affects the position of others
in the same direction.
Increase requires pre-existence
Buckley 6 (Jeremiah, Attorney, Amicus Curiae Brief, Safeco Ins. Co. of America et al v. Charles
Burr et al, http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/06-84/06-
84.mer.ami.mica.pdf)

First, the court said that the ordinary meaning of the word “increase” is “to make something greater,” which it believed should not
“be limited to cases in which a company raises the rate that an individual has previously been charged.” 435 F.3d at 1091. Yet the
definition offered by the Ninth Circuit compels the opposite conclusion. Because “increase” means “to make
something greater,” there must necessarily have been an existing premium, to which Edo’s actual
premium may be compared, to determine whether an “increase” occurred. Congress could have provided that
“ad-verse action” in the insurance context means charging an amount greater than the optimal premium, but instead chose to
define adverse action in terms of an “increase.” That def-initional choice must be respected, not ignored. See Colautti v. Franklin,
439 U.S. 379, 392-93 n.10 (1979) (“*a+ defin-ition which declares what a term ‘means’ . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated”).
Next, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the Insurance Prong includes the words “existing or applied for,” Congress intended
that an “increase in any charge” for insurance must “apply to all insurance transactions – from an initial policy of insurance to a
renewal of a long-held policy.” 435 F.3d at 1091. This interpretation reads the words “exist-ing or applied for” in isolation. Other
types of adverse action described in the Insurance Prong apply only to situations where a consumer had an existing policy of
insurance, such as a “cancellation,” “reduction,” or “change” in insurance. Each of these forms of adverse action presupposes an
already-existing policy, and under usual canons of statutory construction the term “increase” also
should be construed to apply to increases of an already-existing policy. See Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88,
101 (2004) (“a phrase gathers meaning from the words around it”) (citation omitted).
B- Violation – The plan does not increase economic engagement with Cuba
C- Voting Issues

Limits- The aff explodes the topic and allows them to make plans that occur
with non-Latin American territories or countries which explodes the
research burden for the neg into researching about countries not specified
in the resolution

Topic Specific Education – this leads us away from the actual topic of this
year’s resolution into talking about essentially any country.

4
Text: The United States federal government should _________ if, and only
if, the Republic of Cuba releases Alan Gross.
CP solves the Aff
Sullivan, 13 – Specialist in Latin American Affairs (Mark P., “Cuba: US Policy and Issues for
the 113th Congress”, Congressional Research Service, 6/12,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43024.pdf)

Imprisonment of USAID Subcontractor since December 2009
As noted earlier, USAID subcontractor Alan Gross has been imprisoned in Cuba since December 2009
for his work on a Cuba democracy project designed to provide Cuba’s Jewish community with
communication equipment for wireless Internet connectivity. In March 2011, he was convicted by
a Cuban court in March 2011 and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Gross has remained in prison
despite numerous calls for his release on humanitarian grounds by Members of Congress, the
Obama Administration, and many other religious and human rights groups. As noted above, his
continued imprisonment is a key impediment to an improvement in U.S.-Cuban relations. Over
the past year, Cuba has been linking the release of Alan Gross to the release of the so-called “Cuban five”, who were
convicted in the United States for espionage in 2001 (See “Cuban Five” below). The United States rejects such linkage,
maintaining there is no equivalence between the cases.71 Gross was working as a USAID subcontractor for
Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI), a Bethesda-based company that had received a contract from USAID to
help support Cuban civil society organizations. As part of the project, Gross installed broadband Internet
connections for three Jewish communities in the cities of Havana, Camagey, and Santiago de Cuba. He was
arrested on December 4, 2009, at Jose Mart International Airport in Havana when he was
planning to leave the country after his fifth trip to Cuba under his subcontract with DAI.
According to a statement at the time by DAI, Gross “was working with a peaceful, non-
dissident civic group—a religious and cultural group recognized by the Cuban government—to
improve its ability to communicate with its members across the island and overseas.”72After 14
months in prison, a Cuban court in Havana officially charged Gross on February 4, 2011, with
“actions against the independence and territorial integrity of the state” pursuant to Article 91 of
Cuba’s Penal Code. After a two-day trial in March 2011, Gross was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Gross’s lawyer had asked for the Cuban government to release Gross as a humanitarian gesture,
maintaining that his health continued to deteriorate and noting that his elderly mother had
been recently diagnosed with lung cancer, and his daughter was recovering from cancer
treatment. Cuba’s Supreme Court heard arguments for Gross’s appeal on July 22, 2011, but the
court rejected the appeal on August 5, 2011.There had been some hope in April 2012 that Cuba would
positively respond to a humanitarian request by Alan Gross to visit his elderly sick mother in the United States for a
period of two weeks, but this did not occur. In contrast, a U.S. federal judge in Florida granted Ren Gonle, one of
the so-called “Cuban five” convicted in 2001, the right to visit his dying brother in Cuba for two weeks.In September
2012, Judy Gross, the wife of Alan Gross, expressed concern in media reports about the health of
her husband, who has lost more than 100 pounds while in prison, and fears that he would not
survive continued imprisonment. In early October 2012, Judy Gross expressed concern that her
husband could have cancer. In November 2012, the Cuban government maintained that Gross was
in normal health and that a biopsy on a lesion showed that he did not have cancer. Gross’s
lawyer has called for an independent medical examination by a doctor of Gross’s choosing.73In
mid-November 2012, Alan and Judy Gross filed a suit in U.S. District Court against the U.S. government and his
employer, DAI, alleging that they “failed to disclose adequately to Mr. Gross, both before and after he began traveling
to Cuba, the material risks that he faced due to his participation in the project.”74 DAI ultimately reached an
undisclosed settlement with Alan and Judy Gross on May 16, 2013, while on May 28, 2013, a U.S. federal judge
dismissed the lawsuit against the U.S. government. Gross’s lawyers reportedly will appeal the judge’s dismal. In the
more than three years since Gross has been imprisoned, numerous U.S. officials and Members
of Congress have raised the issue of Alan Gross’s detention with the Cuban government and
have called for his release. In late November 2012, Judy Gross urged President Obama to give the
case top priority and to designate a special envoy to meet with the Cuban government for her
husband’s release.75 On December 3, 2012, the third anniversary of Gross’s imprisonment, the State
Department issued a statement again calling for his release, and asked the Cuban government
to grant Gross’s request to travel to the United States to visit his gravely ill 90-year old mother.
On December 5, 2012, the Senate approved S.Res. 609 (Moran) by voice vote, marking the first
congressional vote on the issue since Gross’s detention. With 31 cosponsors, the resolution called
for the immediate and unconditional release of Gross, and urged the Cuban government in the
meantime to provide all appropriate diagnostic and medical treatment to address the full range
of medical issues facing Mr. Gross and to allow him to choose a doctor to provide him with an
independent medical assessment. A seven-member U.S. congressional delegation visited Cuba
in February 2013, and again raised the issue of Gross’s release. Cuban officials have called for
talks with the United States aimed at resolving the Alan Gross case and continued to link his release
to the case of the “Cuban five.” In late May 2013, a high ranking Cuban foreign ministry official, Josefina Vidal,
director for North American Affairs, met in Washington D.C. with State Department official Roberta Jacobson,
Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, to discuss bilateral issues, including the Gross case.

Two net benefits:
First is US-Cuba Relations- releasing Alan Gross is key
Sullivan, 13 – Specialist in Latin American Affairs (Mark P., “Cuba: US Policy and Issues for
the 113th Congress”, Congressional Research Service, 6/12,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43024.pdf)

Relations took a turn for the worse in December 2009, however, when Alan Gross, an American
subcontractor working on Cuba democracy projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) was arrested in Havana state for providing Internet communications equipment to
Cuba’s Jewish community. Since that time, a key impediment to dialogue and improved relations has
been Cuba’s continued detention of Gross, who was convicted in March 2011, and sentenced
to 15 years in prison. U.S. officials and Members of Congress have repeatedly raised the issue
with the Cuban government and asked for his release. While the United States and Cuba continue to
cooperate on such issues as antidrug efforts and oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response, improvement
of relations in other areas will likely be stymied until Alan Gross is released from prison. While
four rounds of migration talks have been held since 2009, and often included issues beyond migration, the last round
was in January 2011 and it is unclear when additional talks may take place.

Second is democracy- the CP paves the way to Cuban democracy
CDPA 9 – Cuba Democracy Public Advocacy, Corp(“DO’S AND DON’TS OF U.S. POLICY
TOWARDS CUBA”, Mar 31, 2009, http://www.capitolhillcubans.com/2009/03/dos-and-donts-of-
us-policy-towards-cuba.html)
U.S. policy towards Cuba should remain focused on supporting the Cuban people in their
struggle for fundamental freedoms and democratic change. It’s imperative for U.S.
policymakers and diplomats to stress the release of all Cuban political prisoners; the
recognition and respect for the human, civil and political rights of the Cuban people; and the
development of a pathway towards internationally supervised free and democratic elections.

Cuba will say yes to the conditions and unilateral lifting fails
Sweig, 12 – Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director
for Latin America Studies (Julia, “The Froen U.S.-Cuba Relationship”, an interview by Brianna
Lee a senior production editor at the Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations,
2/28, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/frozen-us-cuba-relationship/p27510)

Fifty years after the United States enacted an embargo on all trade and commercial transactions
with Cuba, relations between the two countries remain at a standstill. Julia E. Sweig, CFR's director of Latin
American studies, says the Obama administration has prioritized domestic politics over foreign policy in its relationship with Cuba,
even as Cuban President Raul Castro has been "moving in the direction of the kind of reforms that every administration over the last
fifty years has called upon Cuba to make." The case of American USAID contractor Alan Gross, currently
serving a fifteen-year prison sentence in Cuba (Cuban Triangle) on charges of attempting to
upend the regime through a U.S.-authorized democracy promotion program, has also
heightened tensions, she says. Meanwhile, Sweig adds, Cuba is strengthening ties with global powers like Brazil, as well as
the Catholic Church, as the Castro administration seeks to open up new economic and social spaces for its citizens. We've passed the
fifty-year mark of the breakdown of diplomatic ties between Cuba and the United States. Where do we stand now? Is
normalizing relations even remotely on the table on either side? Let me start by talking about three
geographical points on the map that are relevant to the answer. In Washington, the Obama administration, consistent with the
approach of the Bush administration, has made a political decision to subordinate foreign policy and national interest-based
decisions to domestic politics with respect to its Cuba policy. There is a bipartisan group of members of Congress--Democrats and
Republicans, House and Senate--who represent Florida, a state where there are many swing votes that deliver the electoral votes for
any president. Those individuals not only deliver votes, but they deliver campaign finance, and generally make a lot of noise, and
that combination has persuaded the White House that reelection is more of a priority than taking on the heavy lifting to set the
United States on the path of normalization with Cuba for now. "Brazil is clearly stepping into a space where the United States should
be, and the United States has made a decision to watch as that happens. "The second point is what's happening in Cuba. It's not
realistic to expect the United States to undertake a series of unilateral moves toward
normalization; it needs a willing partner. I believe we have one in Havana but have failed to
read the signals. Raul Castro has now been in office since the beginning of 2008. Raul holds the reins on both
foreign policy and domestic policy, and, domestically, the politics of implementing a fairly wide
range of economic and political and social reforms are his priority. In a deal that was
coordinated with the help of the Cuban Catholic Church and Spain, he released all of the political
prisoners in Cuba. He also is taking a number of steps that imply a major rewriting of the
social contract in Cuba to shrink the size of the state and give Cuban individuals more freedom-
-economically, especially, but also in terms of speech--than we've seen in the last fifty years. He
has privatized the residential real estate and car market[s], expanded much-needed agrarian
reform, lifted caps on salaries, and greatly expanded space for small businesses. He also is
moving to deal with corruption and to prepare the groundwork for a great deal more foreign
investment. He's moving in the direction of the kind of reforms that every administration over
the last fifty years has called upon Cuba to make, albeit under the rubric of a one-party system.
There's a broad range of cooperation--neighborhood security in the Gulf of Mexico, as Cuba has
just started drilling for oil, counternarcotics, and natural disasters--between the two countries
that is still not happening, and that gives me the impression that the United States has been
unwilling to take "yes" for an answer and respond positively to steps taken by Cuba.The third
geographic part of the story is south Florida. When they're polled, the majority of Cuban-Americans say that the embargo has failed,
and support lifting the travel ban or loosening the embargo or some steps along that continuum of liberalization and normalization.
The one most significant step that Obama did take when he took office was to eliminate the restriction on Cuban-American travel
and remittances to Cuba. Cuban-Americans are now voting with their feet. If you go to the Miami airport, you will see thirty, forty
flights to Cuba a week just out of Miami. Cuban-Americans are now investing in their families' small businesses on the island. The
politics of this are strange because we are told by the Obama administration that we can't rock the boat of the Cuban-American
vote, but those very voters are in fact demonstrating that they support a radically different set of policies than, in fact, the Obama
administration has supported.The ongoing case of USAID contractor Alan Gross (AP) has stoked tensions
between the United States and Cuba. At the heart of the matter is the U.S. democracy promotion program that
authorized Gross' travel to Cuba. What impact does this case have on U.S.-Cuba relations?Precisely because we have no
overarching framework for diplomacy in place and no political will to establish it for now, the
Alan Gross case casts a huge shadow over U.S.-Cuban relations . The heart of the issue is the context in
which those [pro-democracy] programs were being implemented. We have a full-blown economic embargo with extra-territorial
dimensions that are felt in the banking and finance world--a very comprehensive and well-enforced sanctions program. The
democracy programs sound very mom and apple pie--USAID has them around the world, its officials will tell you. But having them in
Cuba is an extraordinary provocation. They were inherited from the previous administration's concept of regime change, and under
Obama, they remain largely intact. The programs are purposely kept secret from the American public. There is no public information
about the private and not-for-profit subcontractors in the United States and around the world, and Cuban institutions and
individuals who may be targets of the programs are likewise not told they are part of such U.S. government programs. The
democracy promotion programs have been deliberately politicized in order to provoke, and they have succeeded in
provoking.What's key is the context. There's been no real diplomacy; there's no negotiating framework that
I've seen for a very long period of time, and again, that has to do with domestic politics. It's very hard to understand
otherwise why this guy's still in jail. The United States has repeatedly asked the Cuban
government to release Gross unilaterally, with no commitments on our end. Asking for
unilateral gestures, having rebuffed or ignored or failed to read the signals from Cuba, has
created this impasse. Having said that, there can be a diplomatic, humanitarian solution, and I
see no value to keeping Gross in jail and hope he will be released as soon as possible. But we
will need real diplomacy and a framework for negotiating a range of issues both countries care
about.


Case
State of Exception
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 latter’s 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 Schmitt’s 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 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
Arendt’s 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.

No law stops Obama from closing Gitmo
Posner, 2013 (Eric Posner, Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is a
co-author of The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic and Climate Change
Justice, “President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants”, Slate, 5/2/13,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/05/president_oba
ma_can_shut_guantanamo_whenever_he_wants_to.html)
In his press conference Tuesday, President Obama repeated that he wanted to shut
Guantanamo Bay but blamed Congress for stopping him. “They would not let us close it,” he
said. But that’s wrong. President Obama can lawfully release the detainees if he wants to.
Congress has made it difficult, but not impossible. Whatever he’s saying, the president does not
want to close the detention center—at least not yet. The relevant law is the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). This statute confirms the president’s power to wage war
against al-Qaida and its associates, which was initially given to him in the Authorization for Use
of Military Force (AUMF) passed shortly after 9/11. The NDAA also authorizes the president to
detain enemy combatants, and bans him from transferring Guantanamo detainees to American
soil. The NDAA does not, however, ban the president from releasing detainees. Section 1028
authorizes him to release them to foreign countries that will accept them—the problem is that
most countries won’t, and others, like Yemen, where about 90 of the 166 detainees are from,
can’t guarantee that they will maintain control over detainees, as required by the law. There is
another section of the NDAA, however, which has been overlooked. In section 1021(a), Congress
“affirms” the authority of the U.S. armed forces under the AUMF to detain members of al-Qaida
and affiliated groups “pending disposition under the law of war.” Section 1021(c)(1) further
provides that “disposition under the law of war” includes “Detention under the law of war
without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by” the AUMF. Thus, when hostilities
end, the detainees may be released.The president has the power to end the hostilities with al-
Qaida—simply by declaring their end. This is not a controversial sort of power. Numerous
presidents have ended hostilities without any legislative action from Congress—this happened
with the Vietnam War, the Korean War, World War II, and World War I. The Supreme Court
has confirmed that the president has this authority.

Obama pushing to close Gitmo
Dougherty, 2013 (Jill Dougherty, the foreign affairs correspondent for CNN. Based in the
network’s Washington, D.C., bureau, Dougherty covers U.S. foreign policy. In addition to
reporting on news developments from the State Department, she provides analysis on
international issues across multiple CNN platforms and has traveled widely with Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton to Europe, Asia and the Middle East. She has reported from more than 50
countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq and North Korea, “Obama to name D.C. lawyer to lead
Guantanamo Bay closure”, CNN, 6/17/13,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/17/obama-to-name-d-c-lawyer-to-lead-
guantanamo-bay-closure/)
(CNN) – President Barack Obama will appoint Washington, D.C. lawyer Clifford Sloan to re-
open the State Department's Office of Guantanamo Closure, according to a senior
administration official. The administration’s efforts to shut down the detention facility have
been stalled since January, when the State Department shuttered the office tasked with
handling the closure, and reassigned its special envoy. A formal announcement is expected
Monday. Obama said in a national security speech last month that detention facility puts U.S.
interests at risk, saying some allies are reluctant to cooperate on investigations with the
United States if a suspect might land at the controversial detention center "The original
premise for opening Gitmo - that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention -
was found unconstitutional five years ago," he said. "In the meantime, Gitmo has become a
symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law." That's not to mention the
economic implications, the president said. The country spends $150 million annually to
imprison 166 suspects, and the Defense Department estimates that keeping Gitmo open may
cost another $200 million "at a time when we are cutting investments in education and
research here at home," he said. Explaining that no prisoner has ever escaped a supermax or
military facility - and noting U.S. courts have had no issue prosecuting terrorists, some more
dangerous than those at Guantanamo - Obama said he would push again to close the
detention center and appoint State and Defense department envoys to make sure the
detainees are transferred to other countries.
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 Exception—On Schmitt, Agamben
and the Absence of Political Society,” International Political Sociology (2008) 2, 165–183, 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).
No solvency – even after released from Gitmo, people are still reduced to
bare life – we’re 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 Association, “Nothing Exceptional:
Against Agamben,” Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, vol.9. no.1, page 107-108,
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 human being reduced to bare life, to the mere physical existence without rights
or guarantees, far from being a marginal figure, a canary in a coal mine, 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
Agamben’s homo sacer any different than the “rightless and free” proletarian that has always
existed under capitalism? Hasn’t it always been allowable to “live and let die” without 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? Shouldn’t we see this as violence, as Ziek
in his book Violence12 argues, the daily, systemic “economic” violence of market relations and
the propertylessness of the majority in capitalist society? Isn’t this exactly the non-state of
emergency, non-exceptional violence, that kills millions annually, that Agamben, like Arendt
before him, ignores? Further, doesn’t 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?

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 per- spective.
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 autonomy, (.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

Biopower doesn’t 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 people’s 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.

State Sponsored Racism
No solvency – Gitmo isn’t 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 Agamben’s 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 can’t 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 Agamben’s 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 near-genocide 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.

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 can’t find a country in the world which
America hasn’t 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 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 spillover solvency – Agamben’s theories don’t answer key questions
– solving just in the instance of Gitmo doesn’t give us tools to solve the
harms elsewhere
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 102-103,
November 2011, Online, http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/09-1-05.pdf, accessed 7/23/13) PE
Agamben therefore seeks to explain the present danger to civil liberties, the risk of special
powers being taken over by governments declaring states of emergency, the increasingly
common turn to “delegated democracy” through authoritarian methods by only formally
elected leaders and the risk of physical repression by state power even in liberal democratic
countries. Despite its insight, however, I think that this way of understanding is disastrously
mistaken. For the test of theories of this sort should be simple and twofold: 1) does the theory
tell us why this is happening when it does and where it does? 2) And does it tell us what to do
about it? I think Agamben’s analysis fails utterly on both counts and therein lies the danger in
its growing influence as a way of understanding the undoubted rise in political repression and
authoritarianism around the world. Part of the appeal of a theory like Agamben’s to radical
intellectuals is its sophistication. That Agemben is erudite is undoubted, as his extensive
knowledge of arcane facts of Roman legal history indicate. But while he has added dimensions
that no less talented thinker, certainly myself included, could have come up with, originality,
despite its undoubted academic virtues, is not a reason for a theory or explanation to be
convincing to others. Rather an explanation of historical or political phenomena must address
the first question I pose: why? Why now and not later or before? Why in this place and not the
other? Why the differences in degree between places or times? Why is this group under attack
and not another one?