Indefinite Detention Neg

AT: No Europe Extradition

European countries extradite people all the time there is an
EU court that makes the decisions & a precedent has been set
that detention practices do not violate EU human rights laws
AP, 12

(EU court: UK can extradite 5 terror suspects to US, including radical cleri Abu Hamza alMasri, Associated Press, 10 April 2012, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/eu-courtuk-extradite-5-terror-suspects-including-radical-cleric-abu-hamza-al-masri-article-1.1059216)

Britain can extradite a radical Muslim cleric and four other suspects to the
United States to face terrorism charges, Europe's human rights court ruled
Tuesday. The case centering on Mustafa Kamal Mustafa, also known as
Abu Hamza al-Masri, considered Britain's most recognizable extremist, has
been closely watched as a sign of Europe's view on tough U.S. prisons.
The court said Britain would not violate EU human rights rules by
extraditing the suspects, who could face life sentences in a maximum-security
prison. Al-Masri and the other suspects had argued that in the U.S. they could
face prison conditions and jail terms that would expose them to "torture or
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" in breach of the European
human rights code. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg,
France, rejected those claims, saying in a ruling Tuesday that "detention
conditions and length of sentences of five alleged terrorists would not
amount to ill-treatment if they were extradited to the USA ." However, the court
said the five "should not be extradited" until its judgment becomes final - a move that could take
months - or until a possible appeals process ends. It also put off ruling on the case of a sixth suspect,
Haroon Rashid Aswat, as it awaits further information about his schizophrenia and the conditions of his
detention at a British hospital. U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron said he was "very pleased" with the
news. "It is quite right that we have proper legal processes, although sometimes one can get
frustrated with how long they take," he said. The U.S. is also pleased with the judgement, according to
a statement posted on the U.S. Embassy in London's website. "We look forward to the court's decision
becoming final and to the extradition of these defendants to stand trial in the United States," the
statement from the U.S. Department of Justice said. British Home Secretary Theresa May
said the U.K. will work to see that the suspects are handed over to U.S.
authorities as quickly as possible. Based on charges filed in the U.S., the suspects could

get lifelong jail terms without parole in maximum security conditions, such as cells with concrete
furniture, timed showers, tiny windows and no outside communications. The various challenges
against extradition rested on the suspects' likely detention in the ADX Florence "Supermax" prison in
Colorado, where they would be held in solitary confinement. In their ruling Tuesday, the judges
found that conditions at ADX would not amount to ill-treatment. Al-Masri, 53,
who is blind in one eye and wears a hook for a hand, is known for his fiery anti-Western and antiSemitic outbursts. He claims he has lost his Egyptian nationality, but Britain considers him an Egyptian
citizen. The court listed him as a British national. Al-Masri has also been linked to the taking of 16
hostages in Yemen in 1998 and to preaching jihad - holy war - in Afghanistan. He is also accused of
setting up a terrorist training camp in rural Oregon. In separate cases, Syed Talha Ahsan has been
charged with conspiring to support terrorists via the Internet and 36-year-old Babar Ahmad is accused
of running websites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment - like gas masks and
night vision goggles - for terrorists. Ahmad's father, Ashfaq, said he and his family were "very

disappointed" by the court's decision, calling it "a serious abuse of process." Ahmad hasn't faced
charges in Britain, but has been held without trial for 8 years in a U.K. prison. In an interview that took
place after the BBC won a legal battle to speak with Ahmad, he insisted he did not condone terrorism
and urged authorities to put him on trial in the U.K. Faras Baloch, a legal adviser to Ahmad's family,
said their "best chance" of fighting extradition now lies in getting a trial in Britain. "We are going to
press for him to be tried in the U.K.," Baloch said, adding that justice should not be outsourced to the
U.S. Ahmad's brother-in-law, Fahad Ansari, said the family hoped to appeal to the European Court's
grand chamber. He questioned the alleged "torture" and "inhuman and degrading treatment" in
Supermax prisons. "It is completely inhumane and no country can justify sending one of its citizens to
such a scenario," he said. Two other cases were also considered by the European

court, which decided extradition to the U.S. would not violate EU human
rights laws

Massive cooperation on extradition now

Archick 2014
(Kristin Archick, Specialist in European Affairs, 12-1-14, U.S.-EU Cooperation Against Terrorism, Congressional
Research Service, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22030.pdf)

Contacts between U.S. and EU officials on police, judicial, and border control policy
matters have increased substantially and a number of new U.S.-EU agreements
have also been reached; these include information-sharing arrangements between
the United States and EU police and judicial bodies, two U.S.-EU treaties on
extradition and mutual legal assistance, and accords on container security and airline passenger data. In
addition, the United States and the EU have been working together to curb terrorist
financing and to strengthen transport security. Nevertheless, some challenges persist in fostering
closer U.S.-EU cooperation in these fields. Among the most prominent and long-standing are data privacy and data

The negotiation of several U.S.-EU information-sharing agreements ,

from those related to tracking terrorist financial data to sharing airline passenger
information, has been complicated by EU concerns about whether the United States
could guarantee a sufficient level of protection for European citizens personal data .
protection issues.

EU worries about U.S. data protection safeguards and practices have been further heightened by the unauthorized
disclosures since June 2013 of U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance programs and subsequent
allegations of U.S. collection activities in Europe (including reports that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored
EU diplomatic offices and German Chancellor Angela Merkels mobile phone). Other issues that have led to periodic
tensions include detainee policies, differences in the U.S. and EU terrorist designation lists, and balancing measures
to improve border controls and border security with the need to facilitate legitimate transatlantic travel and

Congressional decisions related to intelligence-gathering reforms, data

privacy, border controls, and transport security may affect how future U.S.-EU
counterterrorism cooperation evolves.
commerce.

Indefinite Detention Good

Intel turn
Detention is key to intelligence gathering
Goldsmith, 9
(Jack, Long-term Terrorist Detention and our National Security Court, 4 Feb. 2009,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2009/2/09-detentiongoldsmith/0209_detention_goldsmith.pdf)

These three concerns challenge the detention paradigm. They do nothing to eliminate the need for
detention to prevent detainees returning to the battlefield. But many believe that we can meet this
need by giving trials to everyone we want to detain and then incarcerating them under a theory of
conviction rather than of military detention. I disagree. For many reasons, it is too risky for the

U.S. government to deny itself the traditional military detention power

altogether, and to commit itself instead to try or release every suspected
terrorist. For one thing, military detention will be necessary in Iraq and Afghanistan for the
foreseeable future. For another, we likely cannot secure convictions of all of the
dangerous terrorists at Guantnamo, much less all future dangerous
terrorists, who legitimately qualify for non-criminal military detention. The
evidentiary and procedural standards of trials, civilian and military alike, are much higher than the
analogous standards for detention. With some terrorists too menacing to set free, the standards will
prove difficult to satisfy. Key evidence in a given case may come from overseas and verifying it,
understanding its provenance, or establishing its chain of custody in the manners required by criminal
trials may be difficult. This problem is exacerbated when evidence was gathered on a battlefield or
during an armed skirmish. The problem only grows when the evidence is old. And perhaps most

importantly, the use of such evidence in a criminal process may

compromise intelligence sources and methods, requiring the disclosure of
the identities of confidential sources or the nature of intelligencegathering techniques, such as a sophisticated electronic interception
capability. Opponents of non-criminal detention observe that despite these considerations, the
government has successfully prosecuted some Al Qaeda terroristsin particular, Zacharias Moussaoui
and Jose Padilla. This is true, but it does not follow that prosecutions are achievable in every case in
which disabling a terrorist suspect represents a surpassing government interest. Moreover, the
Moussaoui and Padilla prosecutions highlight an under-appreciated cost of trials, at least in civilian
courts. The Moussaoui and Padilla trials were messy affairs that stretched, and some observers believe
broke, our 4 ordinary criminal trial conceptions of conspiracy law and the rights of the accused, among
other things. The Moussaoui trial, for example, watered down the important constitutional right of the
defendant to confront witnesses against him in court, and the Padilla trial rested on an
unprecedentedly broad conception of conspiracy.15 An important but under-appreciated cost of using
trials in all cases is that these prosecutions will invariably bend the law in ways unfavorable to civil
liberties and due process, and these changes, in turn, will invariably spill over into non-terrorist
prosecutions and thus skew the larger criminal justice process.16 A final problem with using any trial
system, civilian or military, as the sole lawful basis for terrorist detention is that the trials can result in
short sentences (as the first military commission trial did) or even acquittal of a dangerous terrorist.17

In criminal trials, guilty defendants often go free because of legal

technicalities, government inability to introduce probative evidence, and
other factors beyond the defendant's innocence. These factors are all
exacerbated in terrorist trials by the difficulties of getting information
from the place of capture, by classified information restrictions, and by stale or tainted

evidence. One way to get around this problem is to assert the authority, as the Bush administration
did, to use non-criminal detention for persons acquitted or given sentences too short to neutralize the
danger they pose. But such an authority would undermine the whole purpose of trials and would
render them a sham. As a result, putting a suspect on trial can make it hard to detain terrorists the
government deems dangerous. For example, the government would have had little trouble defending
the indefinite detention of Salim Hamdan, Osama Bin Laden's driver, under a military detention

rationale. Having put him on trial before a military commission, however, it was stuck with the light
sentence that Hamdan is completing at home in Yemen. As a result of these considerations ,
insistence on the exclusive use of criminal trials and the elimination of non-criminal

detention would significantly raise the chances of releasing dangerous

terrorists who would return to kill Americans or others. Since noncriminal military
detention is clearly a legally available optionat least if it is expressly authorized by Congress and
contains adequate procedural guaranteesthis risk should be unacceptable. In past
military conflicts, the release of an enemy soldier posed risks. But they were not dramatic risks, for
there was only so much damage a lone actor or small group of individuals could do.18 Today, however ,

that lone actor can cause far more destruction and mayhem because
technological advances are creating ever-smaller and ever-deadlier
weapons. It would be astounding if the American system, before the advent of modern terrorism,
struck the balance between security and liberty in a manner that precisely reflected the new threats
posed by asymmetric warfare. We face threats from individuals today that are of a
different magnitude than threats by individuals in the past ; having government
authorities that reflect that change makes sense.

Detention is necessary for intelligence gathering

Farley, 15

(Robert, Detaining and Interrogating Terror Suspects, 9 Jan. 2015,

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/01/detaining-and-interrogating-terror-suspects/)

So what does the administration do with captured terrorism suspects? In 2009, the White House
created an interagency team called the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.

HIG includes representatives from the FBI, CIA, State Department,

Department of Defense and other agencies. When terrorism suspects are
caught, the team is immediately deployed to put together an interrogation
plan on a case-by-case basis. HIG also does research on the most effective
methods of interrogation. What happens when the U.S. wants to interrogate a suspect before
reading him Miranda rights and presenting him to a court? As the Oct. 8, 2013, AP story revealed, Instead of
sending suspected terrorists to Guantanamo Bay or secret CIA black sites for interrogation, the Obama
administration is questioning terrorists for as long as it takes aboard U.S. naval vessels. Christopher Anders, senior
legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, told us that sometimes authorities have delayed the
reading of Miranda rights for several weeks, using an expansive version of emergency exemptions. (For example,
Anders said, Faisal Shahzad, who was convicted for the attempted 2010 car bombing in New York Citys Times
Square was held and interrogated for 13 days under the public safety exception to the Miranda rule.) We have
some concerns about how those interrogations are carried out, Anders said of interrogations aboard ships. There
has been very little disclosure about that. Ultimately, though, suspects captured during the Obama presidency
have been turned over to the courts for prosecution. While that means a shorter interrogation process than at

CIA Director John Brennan has said the policy has not hampered
intelligence gathering. In an address at Harvard on Sept. 16, 2011,
Brennan said that, In the past two years alone, we have successfully
interrogated several terrorism suspects who were taken into law
enforcement custody and prosecuted, including Faisal Shahzad, Najibullah Zazi,
David Headley, and many others. In fact, faced with the firm but fair hand of the
American justice system, some of the most hardened terrorists have agreed
Guantanamo,

to cooperate with the FBI, providing valuable information about alQaidas network, safe houses, recruitment methods, and even their plots
and plans . In his speech, Brennan countered critics who claimed the U.S. does not seek to detain
and interrogate suspected terrorists, and he argued that prosecuting them in federal courts does not
impede intelligence gathering. Brennan, Sept. 16, 2011: Nevertheless, some have suggested that we
do not have a detention policy; that we prefer to kill suspected terrorists, rather than capture them.

This is absurd, and I want to take this opportunity to set the record straight. As

a former career
intelligence professional, I have a profound appreciation for the value of
intelligence. Intelligence disrupts terrorist plots and thwarts attacks.
Intelligence saves lives. And one of our greatest sources of intelligence
about al-Qaida, its plans, and its intentions has been the members of its
network who have been taken into custody by the United States and our
partners overseas. So I want to be very clearwhenever it is possible to capture a suspected
terrorist, it is the unqualified preference of the administration to take custody of that individual so we
can obtain information that is vital to the safety and security of the American people. This is how our
soldiers and counterterrorism professionals have been trained. It is reflected in our rules of
engagement. And it is the clear and unambiguous policy of this administration. Now, there has been a
great deal of debate about the best way to interrogate individuals in our custody. Its been suggested
that getting terrorists to talk can be accomplished simply by withholding Miranda warnings or
subjecting prisoners to so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. Its also been suggested that
prosecuting terrorists in our federal courts somehow impedes the collection of intelligence. A long
record of experience, however, proves otherwise. In some cases, the ACLUs Anders said,

investigators have gotten better information from detainees after they

have been read their Miranda Rights. The idea that suspects clam up the minute they

are read their Miranda Rights and are presented to a court doesnt square with the reality of whats
taking place, he said. Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University

and an expert on national security law, told us via email: Its just not true
that were no longer interrogating or detaining terrorists. Each time weve
arrested a high-value terrorism suspect overseas, theyve been subjected
to at least some sustained period of interrogation prior to their transfer to the
United States for purposes of standing criminal trial. Each time thats happened, Senator Graham has
been one of the staunchest defenders of such interrogations, even as they have riled civil libertarians,
who fear the government is sidestepping the ordinary rules that would apply to a domestic arrest. The
fundamental shift in the Obama administrations policy has been away from indefinite detentiona
policy that necessarily produces ever-less information the longer individuals remain in custody.

Detention facilities are necessary to collect data on terrorist

organization and recruitment
Kostakos and Kostakos, 8
(Vassilis- prof of Computer Engineering @ University of Oulu, and Panos A., Intelligence
gathering by capturing the social processes within prisons,
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.3064.pdf) In this paper we argue that the

deployment of pervasive technology in detention facilities can provide

intelligence in relation to the activities of terrorist and organised crime
groups, as well as their emerging relationships. Evidence suggests that detention facilities
are increasingly becoming fora where terrorists and organised criminals establish
channels of communication and co-operation, and more importantly
recruit new members. Here we argue that the systematic capturing and analysis
of the social processes within detention facilities can enhance intelligence
and law enforcement agencies understanding of the groups operation and behaviour. To demonstrate
the type of data that can be obtained from detention facilities, we present the results of a longitudinal
study we carried out in the City of Bath, UK, involving civilians who socialised in various locations
across the city. Here we discuss how we were able to automatically capture and analyse data on
peoples encounters, and we present the results of our analysis. While our study did not take place in
an actual detention facility, nevertheless it did take place in a real world setting and, as such, provides
useful insights into how pervasive technologies may be utilised within detention facilities . 2. Terrorism

and organised crime Since the end of the Cold War era, the international communitys public and scholarly interest
has shifted towards security issues related to the rise of transnational criminal and terrorist networks that are

perceived to threaten national and international security and stability [UN; Shelly 1995]. The nature of the threats
poised by organised crime and terrorism renders their containment by state actors extremely difficult and
problematic. Prime examples of this difficulty are newly established states in various troublesome regions such as
the Former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, where states have been unsuccessful in managing effectively the
activities of criminal organisations. This has permitted local Mafia groups, which claim huge profits from illicit
markets, to fill political vacuums and develop symbiotic relationships with state institutions [Williams, 2000].

measures intended
to combat terror activities often require exceeding retaliation by means of
military intervention and in general methods that have been argued undermine human right and civil
liberties. Examples of these measures include pre-emptive strikes, the establishment of Guantanamo
Bay detention centre, alleged Rendition flights and increasingly draconian legislation in both US and UK. These
Terrorist organisations and groups have been dealt with much more proactively. The

emerging security challenges are taking place in a globalised environment were distant social systems are
becoming increasingly interconnected and interdependent. Migration flows from the East to the West, and from the
South to the North, facilitated by improvements in communication and transportation technologies, are contributing
to the growth of heterogeneous and multiethnic societies. This increased pace of physical and electronic
interconnection between actors from distant social systems has contributed to a rise of weak social ties. According

the establishment of weak ties or bridges amongst

previously isolated groups,enhance the effectiveness of these actors
organisational structures and thus facilitates the materialisation of their
goals. Both organised crime and terrorism has been argued to adhere to the
same social principles [Chambliss 1971; Cohen 1977; Lombardo 1994; Williams 1998,2001; Kleemans &
Van de Bund 1999]. As a result, over time terrorist organisations have developed
resilience, and have been able to establish intricate channels of
communication in order to improve and learn from their previous mistakes. Most significantly, terrorist
to Granovetters hypothesis [1973],

networks are increasingly becoming able to study the operational behaviour of security forces, and frequently
engage in counter intelligence practices. At the same time, the increased embeddedness of these terrorist networks
within society makes it easier and more likely to recruit and radicalise through propaganda civilians of various social

valuable intelligence that could be fed to

ongoing investigations is very likely to emerge from unconventional
locations and sources, which the security apparatuses underestimate or cannot monitor effectively. 2.1.
Prisons as a source of intelligence The changing structure of the prison population in many
classes and professions. Consequently,

European countries and the high number of foreign inmates [Council of Europe] increases the chances of Islamic
militants being imprisoned along with well-connected criminals and individuals vulnerable to indoctrination
methods and susceptible to radicalisation. Moreover ,

the criminal networks that are

established in prisons offer significant financial and logistical resources,
which can facilitate large-scale terrorist attacks [Shelley et al., 2005]. These
conditions have raised concerns, already expressed by state officials1, with regards
to the increased possibilities facing detainees in various detention facilities. Sadly, these
concerns have been verified through a number of case studies. For instance, in 2001 Jose Emilio
Suarez Trashorras was jailed in a Spanish prison for drug related offences. Whilst imprisoned,
Trashorras established regular contact with Jamal Ahmidan who was serving time for a petty crime.
Both individuals embraced radical Islamic fundamentalist ideas within the prison and were recruited in
the Takfir wa al-Hijra group, a Moroccan terrorist groups linked with al-Qaida [Cuthberson, 2004].
Following their release, Ahmidan became the leader of the terrorist cell that conducted the Madrid
bombing. In a drugs-for-bombs exchange with a third party, Trashorras provided the cell with
explosives for the 13 backpack bombes that killed 191 people and injured hundreds. Another

vivid example of the role of detention facilities as recruitment pools of

terrorist groups has been the case of the Martyrs of Morocco terrorist cell.
This group was composed of 18 north African immigrants who were
radicalised and recruited whilst serving a prison sentence for minor
offensives including weapon possession, document fraud and robbery [McLean, 2004]. According
to official sources, the leader of the Martyrs of Morocco cell coordinated an attack to bomb the national
high court in Madrid and for that pursuit attempted to purchase 500 kilograms of explosive materials,2
but was detained before carrying out the attack. It is worth noting that the Martyrs of

Morocco cell was connected through prisons with the spiritual leader

(emir) of the Madrid bombing and with members of the ETA terrorist group
[Bar et al., 2005; Haahr-Escolano, 2004]

Generic
Indefinite detention keeps terrorists from returning to combat
Carroll 15 (Lauren Carroll, 1-13-2015, "McCain: 30% of past Guantanamo
detainees 're-enter the fight'," http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/statements/2015/jan/15/john-mccain/mccain-30-past-guantanamo-detaineesre-enter-fight/, Date Accessed: 7-3-2015)
Too many detainees released from Guantanamo are re-engaging in terrorism,
according to several key Republicans pushing legislation to keep the prison open.
Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte, N.H., Richard Burr, N.C., Lindsey Graham, S.C., and
John McCain, Ariz., proposed a bill Jan. 13 that would restrict detainee transfers from
the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The bill would prohibit the transfer
of high or medium-risk detainees and any transfers to Yemen, as well as increase
transparency about detainees risk assessments, among other measures. President
Barack Obama in recent months has ramped up the number of people hes
transferred out of Guantanamo, in hopes of closing the facility by the time his term
ends. During his 2008 campaign, Obama promised to close the prison, which
opened in 2002 during the war on terror, but 122 prisoners remain. At a press
conference announcing the legislation, McCain, chair of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, gave a statistic that hes said before, regarding how many detainees go
back to terrorism. "We know for a fact that roughly 30 percent of those who have
been released have re-entered the fight, and usually at a very high level, because
it's a badge of honor to have been an inmate at Guantanamo Bay," McCain said. "So
instead we're going to continue to release batches of prisoners, according to this
administration, with no plan, and the extreme likelihood that approximately one out
of every three of them will re-enter the fight."

There is no alternative to indefinite detention that is safe

Dershowitz 14 (Alan M. Dershowitz, 9-16-2014, "Should suspected terrorists like
those held at Guantanamo be detained without trial?,"
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/09/15/should-suspected-terrorists-likethose-held-guantanamo-detained-withouttrial/9N2ERaZn75mSSZX67F6rFK/story.html, Date Accessed: 7-3-2015)
HOW SHOULD a nation committed to the rule of law deal with captured terrorists
who are believed to be dangerous but who cannot realistically be brought to trial?
This issue has arisen in the context of the debate over whether to close the US
prison at Guantanamo Bay, which candidate Barack Obama promised to do, but
President Obama has not yet done. A major reason why Guantanamo remains open
is that it contains several detainees the precise number is unknown who, if
released, would almost certainly return to a life of terrorism. Indeed, some have,
and many in detention have overtly stated their malignant intentions. Others have
histories that suggest the likelihood of recidivism. But even some of the most
dangerous detainees cannot be tried, either because there is insufficient admissible
evidence of a specific crime or because the evidence comes from undercover
sources the government is unwilling to out. If Guantanamo were to be closed, as it
should be, and the detainees transferred to other facilities, the basic problem would
still remain. Similar dilemmas arose in previous wars during which enemy

combatants were captured and detained as prisoners of war until the cessation of
hostilities, after which they were released without trial. The difference is that the
war on terrorism has no predictable termination point, as the current campaign
against the Islamic State, or ISIS, demonstrates. Moreover, captured terrorists are
not lawful combatants entitled to be treated as POWs. They are unlawful
combatants who can, under the laws of war, be tried as ordinary criminals, as some
have been. But with regard to those who cannot, there is a Hobsons choice: either
free them and risk renewed terrorism; or continue to detain them indefinitely,
despite the absence of a firm legal basis for what could amount to life imprisonment
without due process.

AT: Terror Cells in Europe

Terror cell threat in Europe is under control- US is cooperating
with Europe regarding counter-terrorism
(Ray Sanchez, Laura Smith-Spark and Jethro Mullen, Cnn, 1-16-2015,
"Europe security officials rush to spot possible threats,"
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/16/europe/europe-terrorism-threat/, Date Accessed: 72-2015) //DK
Intelligence officials in Europe were trying to determine the nature of the wider
threat, a senior European counterterrorism official told CNN. They were monitoring
groups of men who have returned from fighting in Syria. It is believed ISIS directed
the men to return to Europe to launch attacks in retaliation for airstrikes against the
terror group in Syria and Iraq, according to the official. Overall, authorities made 17
arrests related to the Belgium threat -- 13 in Belgium and four at two locations in
France. Here are the latest developments related to the terror threat in the West: The suspected
Islamist terrorists who had a shootout with police on Thursday in Verviers, Belgium, have ties to ISISlinked cells in other European countries, a senior Belgian counterterrorism source told CNN's Paul
Cruickshank. The two suspects who died in the shootout are believed to have fought with ISIS in Syria,
the source said. A total of 122,000 police officers, gendarmes and military personnel
are deployed across France as part of the security plan, Interior Minister Bernard
Cazeneuve said. There does not appear to be a command-and-control element to last week's Paris
attacks at the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine and two additional locations other than a general "go
forward and do something," the Western official with direct knowledge told CNN. The attacks were
"highly franchised terrorism with general instructions." Sectarian turmoil in Yemen is bolstering al
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's (AQAP) local recruitment and buying it space for attacks against the
West and train the next generation of bomb makers, according to one Western diplomat.
Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, Britain's senior counterterrorism officer, said

additional police patrols were being put in place at Jewish community centers,
synagogues and schools. An 18-year-old woman was arrested at Stansted Airport
near London on suspicion of terrorism offenses, London's Metropolitan Police said on Twitter.
British Prime Minister David Cameron called on his country and the United States to fight the
"poisonous ideology" behind the terrorist attacks that killed at least 17 people in France this month.
"Britain and America both face threats to our national security from people who hate what our
countries stand for and are determined to do us harm," Cameron said at a White House news
conference with President Barack Obama.

Obama promised to "do everything in our

power" to assist France in its effort to combat terrorism. Two people

suspected of involvement with the alleged terror cell in Verviers were detained
trying to cross from France into Italy through the Frejus tunnel, a spokesman for
Belgium's federal prosecutor's office said. Belgian federal prosecutor Eric Van der
Sypt said 13 people were arrested in a dozen anti-terror raids . Authorities believed the
"threat of a terrorist attack was very imminent." The suspected terror cell, which included people
returning from Syria, planned to target police officers, Van der Sypt said. Police said they recovered
weapons, bomb-making materials and police uniforms. Belgium put 150 troops on standby

for anti-terror operations. At least a dozen people were detained in the Paris
region overnight in connection with last week's shootings in Paris, the city
prosecutor's office said. Two men in their early 40s were arrested in Berlin on

suspicion of links to ISIS, police said. They did not appear to have been planning attacks. Berlin police
spokesman Stefan Redlich said the investigation had started a year ago; the police operation planned

Netherlands said it was not raising its terror threat level,

currently at "substantial," the second-highest . "That means there is a realistic
threat, but no concrete or specific information of an attack ," said government spokesman
several weeks ago. The

Edmond Messchaert. The current level of security in Belgium will remain for at least one month and
will then be evaluated to determine if it needs to be modified, the country's prime minister said late
Friday. "From the time we are confronted with an increase in the threat, we went to level 3 on a scale of
4; we must mobilize the resources available," Charles Michel told CNN affiliate RTL. Following up on
Paris attacks European counterterrorism agencies have been trying to identify and thwart potential
threats after the deadly attacks in Paris last week, in which 17 people were killed. Security services are
working to track those associated with the attackers: brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi and Amedy
Coulibaly. Neetin Karasular, a suspected Belgian trafficker in weapons who met with Coulibaly's widow,
Hayat Boumeddiene, is in custody, Karasular's attorney, Michel Bouchat, told CNN. Karasular was
charged with association with wrongdoers and firearm offenses, in Charleroi, Belgium. But his attorney
said the arrest was not connected to the other Belgian raids. Coulibaly, who attacked a kosher
supermarket in Paris last Friday, pledged allegiance to ISIS. However, the Kouachis, the men who
French authorities say carried out the deadly shooting at the offices of the French satirical magazine,
are believed to have had links to AQAP, which has claimed responsibility for the shootings. A European
counterterrorism official told CNN that there were indications that ISIS leadership had directed
returnees from Iraq and Syria to launch attacks in Europe in revenge for Syria and Iraq airstrikes. The
official, who cited France, the United Kingdom and Belgium as countries facing a particular threat, said

counterterrorism agencies in Germany are on high alert. Several European nations,

including the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, are
participating in the air campaign against ISIS in Iraq.

Low threat of Terror- Europe on high alert and EU continuing to

make efforts for counter-terrorism
The Journal 1/19/15(Afp, xx-xx-xxxx, "Terror threat to Ireland is low, but its
important to remain on alert," http://www.thejournal.ie/belgium-high-alertterrorism-1889749-Jan2015/, Date Accessed: 7-2-2015) //DK
EUROPE IS ON high alert today as the suspected mastermind of a jihadist cell in Belgium remains
at large. In the wake of the deadly attacks in France and anti-terror raids in Belgium, EU foreign
ministers are to meet in Brussels to discuss ways to boost cooperation to combat
the threat posed by radicalised Europeans returning home after fighting in Iraq and
Syria. Irelands Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Charlie Flanagan, is attending
todays meeting, which comes as the bloc prepares for a special leaders summit on February 12
dedicated to fighting terrorism. Speaking ahead of the meeting, Flanagan said We need strong
partnership between Member States as well as cooperation between the EU and third countries and
organisations in the Middle East and elsewhere. The recent appalling terrorist attacks in France and
Nigeria remind us that terrorism does not respect borders . He said that it was important to have
a policy of integration, so that people can be dissuaded from taking part in fighting
abroad. He said he is satisfied from discussions with the Minister for Justice that
every effort is being made to monitor the activities of people from Ireland travelling
to fight in conflict countries. He said that the Minister Frances Fitzgerald is updated on a daily
basis by the garda. Flanagan said that every effort is being made to ensure that we are fully aware
of any threat but said that obviously it is difficult to give guarantees. Ireland
remains alert He added that any threat to Ireland is low, but said it is important to
remain on alert. Todays meeting will give countries the opportunity to talk about
making greater improvements in co-ordination, the exchange of information and
data, said Flanagan. With tensions heightened, the second gunman in the attack on Charlie Hebdo
magazine, which killed 12 people, was buried discreetly in an unmarked grave near Paris late Saturday
in the hope that it would not become a pilgrimage site for radical Islamists. Meanwhile, Abdelhamid

Abaaoud, considered the brains behind the cell plotting to kill Belgian police, was still on the run days
after the group was dismantled by intelligence services. But the probe appeared to be progressing with
Belgian federal prosecutors announcing they would seek the extradition of a suspect arrested in
Athens on Saturday who could be linked to the cell.

France is on top of terror cell threats- Working with US tech

Giants
(Cbs, 1-8-2015, "France tracking hundreds in possible terrorist sleeper cells,"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/france-tracking-hundreds-in-possible-terroristsleeper-cells/, Date Accessed: 7-2-2015) //DK

PARIS - France is tracking hundreds of people believed to belong to possible sleeper
cells for terror organizations like al Qaeda or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria , the
country's top security official said. In an interview with The Associated Press,
Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve laid out what has become an increasingly
urgent question for European intelligence services amid growing terrorist threats:
How to trace the moment when someone transforms from a disgruntled criminal or a disaffected citizen
into a terrorist, and how to block those first steps toward radicalization . "Four hundred targets
have been identified by our intelligence services that are more or less sleeper cells,
affiliated or in relation with al-Qaida-type organizations , that can strike like the Kouachi brothers,"
Cazeneuve said in an interview late Monday ahead of his Wednesday departure. Said and Cherif Kouachi were French-born
brothers who killed 12 people in Paris on Jan. 7 when they stormed the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. They were shot dead
by police in a confrontation two days later. In a recent "60 Minutes" report, criminologist Xavier Raufer, who has taught some of
France's top cops, said the problem with the Kouachis, and many others like them, is that they were not "pure terrorists." "The
French legal system has a small box for a terrorist, has another small box for criminals and if you are at the same time one and
the other, you fall into the crack in the middle and you are lost. This is basically what happened," Raufer said.

Cazeneuve said he wants new measures to give intelligence services more leeway to
monitor suspects' electronic communications. He is heading to the United States
this week to try and persuade Internet giants to step up and help stem extremists'
ability to use propaganda videos to recruit and indoctrinate new followers.
Facebook, Twitter, Apple and Google - all major vectors for increasingly sophisticated jihadi clips
targeting potential followers in the West - will be among his stops in Silicon Valley. "Ninety percent
of those who commit terrorist acts fall into it after regularly consulting websites or
blogs that call for or provoke terrorism," Cazeneuve said. Cherif Kouachi had served time for being part of a
jihadi recruiting network and was apparently behind bars when he met the third Paris gunman, Amedy Coulibaly, a small-time
criminal who became radicalized in prison. Coulibaly pledged allegiance to ISIS in a posthumously released video that is still
circulating among jihadis. "When you have terrorists who keep a low profile for years and then suddenly decide to act - either to
obey an order from large terrorist organization such as al Qaeda or of their own volition - then you need to be able to monitor
them on a long term," the minister said. Alain Chouet, the former head of security intelligence at the DGSE, which is France's
CIA, told "60 Minutes" he thought French authorities were focused on the wrong threats. "When you are always catching little
fishes which are forgotten after two or three years, then you try to catch a bigger one. And you put all your means on the
possibility of catching a big one," Chouet said. France also is pushing to treat jihadi material on the
Internet like child porn, a task that before the attacks in Paris was getting scant traction but now
seems to have caught the attention of Europe's top security officials. "Everyone agrees now that legislation that
prevents the diffusion of child pornography is protecting citizens from crime. It is the same for terrorism," Cazeneuve said.
"Calling for anti-Semitism, calling for crimes, calling for murder, calling for the killing of Jews or journalists - that's not about
freedom of expression. That is a criminal act."

AT: Retaliation (against Europe and

in general)

Obama will not retaliate

AT: Nuc Terror out of Europe

Risk of nuclear attack out of Europe is extremely low political
and technical barriers
Ferguson, 4
(Charles, scientist-in-residence based in the Washington DC office of the Center for
Nonproliferation Studies ,The threat of nuclear terrorism in Europe, 2 June 2004,
http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2004-06-02-ferguson-en.html)

Despite the growth of terrorist cells in Europe, one must not assume that
they will ultimately go nuclear. Climbing the escalation ladder to acts of
nuclear terror requires leaping over several barriers. Regardless of the nuclear
terror act under consideration, the terrorist group must be motivated to conduct extreme levels of
violence and to venture into unconventional methods of attack. While a terrorist organization

with a well-defined constituency would most likely not want to alienate its
constituency with a nuclear act, groups that have weak or non-existent ties to
constituencies would not face as many moral or political constraints. For example, the Chechen rebels,
a national-separatist group, depend strongly on their supporters within Chechnya. In contrast, the
character and agenda of al Qaeda, a political-religious terrorist network, make this organization
apparently less concerned about directly harming constituents . The final barriers for a

terrorist group to cross are technical in nature. The group would have to
acquire the nuclear assets. If the group decided to attack a nuclear power
plant, it would have to identify a vulnerable nuclear facility. The
organization would have to develop or hire the skills needed to build and
detonate a weapon or to sabotage a nuclear facility. Finally, the group
would have to be able to deliver the attack without being detected during
the development or completion phase

AT: Detention policy k2 allies

Europe models counter-terrorism after the US, including
surveillance norms
(Maya Vidon-White, 1-25-2015, "Europe shifts policy in escalating war on
terror," http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/25/european-civilliberties/22117007/, Date Accessed: 7-2-2015) //DK
PARIS European leaders are adopting a distinctly American tone as they ramp up
their war on terror two weeks after 17 people were killed in attacks by extremists in
France. "The No. 1 priority, the No. 1 requirement, is to further reinforce the human
and technical resources of intelligence services," French Prime Minister Manuel Valls
said this week while unveiling a sweeping anti-terror plan that includes beefed-up
police weapons and the hiring of about 3,000 counterterrorism agents and
electronic eavesdropping experts. The shift comes despite widespread European criticism over the USA Patriot
Act, the National Security Agency's dragnet of electronic communication and other American measures to combat terrorism. The
change is sparking outrage in some and resignation in others. "How to police in a democracy is the crucial question recent
events have put on the agenda," said Paul De Hert, a law professor at Vrije University in Brussels who specializes in privacy. "I
hope there is a best-practices process that prevents us from the totalitarianism of these police forces." The European

Union is likely to require airlines to share information about passengers with

security officials, a measure that languished for four years because of data privacy
concerns after the United States adopted similar measures following the 9/11
attacks. Germany is considering controversial proposals to store more electronic
data to help catch terrorists and confiscate passports of citizens it suspects of
planning to travel to the Middle East to fight alongside the Islamic State. In stormjing the
Paris offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo on Jan. 7, two Islamic extremist brothers attacked freedom of expression,
said Adrienne Charmet of La Quadrature du Net, an Internet rights group in Paris. Officials are cracking down on the same
freedoms in a climate of fear, she said. More than 50 people have been arrested on charges of hate speech in France since the
attacks, and a French court halted an anti-Islamist demonstration on the grounds it would foment Islamophobia. "There is a
certain hypocrisy in defending the freedom of expression and yet treating forms of expression reprehensible and considered
illegal with a lot of severity," Charmet said. Pierre Aidenbaum, mayor of the 3rd Arrondissement in the center of Paris, which
includes part of the city's historic Jewish quarter, maintains the latest moves to quell hate that inspires violence don't compromise
civil liberties. "Of course, there is a risk now into falling into excess. There is a risk in identifying all of France's Muslims for
terrorists, for anti-Semites," Aidenbaum said. "(But) I don't think there is a drift toward not being able to speak out." The new
measures to crack down on terrorism in Europe come amid heightened concern over attacks by homegrown terror cells with close
ties to extremist groups in the Middle East. A bill adopted this month allows German officials to

confiscate national IDs needed for everything from opening a bank account to
getting a cellphone contract of those deemed potentially dangerous "Islamists"
and give them instead a distinctive ID card. "We are greatly worried by the
phenomenon of young people going to Iraq and Syria to fight with terrorists,"
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said. "Because those who return to Germany present the country with a
grave danger." Europol, the European police agency, estimates up to 5,000 European Union residents have traveled to Syria and
Iraq to fight alongside the Islamic State militants. That number reflects deep recruiting networks in largely immigrant
neighborhoods, according to the London-based International Center for the Study of Radicalism. Without wide-ranging authority
to listen into people's electronic communication, it would be impossible to track domestic terror cells in those immigrant
communities, said Andrew Liepman, a former CIA agent and a senior policy analyst at RAND. "The number of suspected
radicals and militants is huge," Liepman said. "It very much impacts the question of balance between privacy and security. For
them to plan something, they have to get together, they have to talk on the phone and e-mail each other. You need to be in their
shorts." There's a big question of whether collecting and storing such data effectively prevents terrorism, said Johannes Caspar,
data protection commissioner in Hamburg, Germany. "It has been established that data retention was already active in France at

the time of the Charlie Hebdo attack and did not prevent it," he said. Failure to prevent attacks isn't an excuse to forgo tracking
potential terrorists, Caspar said. Europeans "have to make a risk assessment of who needs to be surveilled and who doesn't," he
said. That's no easy job: Neither American nor European authorities have sufficient manpower to monitor every suspected
extremist. "The French have an enormous problem," Liepman said. "They have more suspects than they have investigators." In
Germany, Oliver Malchow, chairman of the national police union, said he wants additional
resources for police and counterterrorism officers. "Currently, we are overwhelmed. Our
assignment books are full. We now have even more assignments that deal with fighting terrorism and
ensuring safety at demonstrations," he said. "My colleagues carry a heavy load every day and
weekend, around the clock."

Even if U.S. allies oppose the ideologies of how America fights

terrorism, they will continue to work in cooperation
Parker 2012
(Tom Parker, Counter-Terrorism Strategist at United Nations Counter Terrorism Centre, 9-17-12, U.S. Tactics
Threaten NATO, NationalInterest, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/us-tactics-threaten-nato-7461)

The United States may have taken issue with the traditional idea that wars are
fought between states and not between states and criminal gangs, but its allies
have not. The heads of Britains foreign and domestic intelligence services have
been surprisingly open about the inhibitions that this growing divergence has
caused the transatlantic special relationship, telling Parliament that it has become
an obstacle to intelligence sharing. European attitudes are not going to changethe
European Court of Human Rights is now deeply embedded in European life, and
individual European governments cannot escape its oversight no matter how well
disposed they are to assist the United States. The United States has bet heavily on
the efficacy of a new array of counterterrorism powers as the answer to Al Qaeda. In
doing so it has evolved a concept of operations that has much more in common with
the approach to terrorist threats taken by Israel and Russia than by its European
partners. There has been little consideration of the wider strategic cost of these
tactics, even as the Obama administration doubles down and extends their use. Meanwhile, some of
Americas oldest and closest allies are beginning to place more and more constraints on
working with U.S. forces.

War on terror alt cause out-weighs detention policy and proves

relations are resilient
Chesney 13
(Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law and Non-Resident Senior
Fellow at the Brookings Institution Robert Chesney, PROTECTING U.S. CITIZENS'
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DURING THE WAR ON TERROR House Hearing, 5/22,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg81173/html/CHRG-113hhrg81173.htm)
How ironic, therefore, that certain people believe that these very rights apply within
the United States and may even apply beyond 2014, and yet we see in the United States the
serious contrast with the situation in Afghanistan . We are not experiencing intense armed
fighting on our streets among organized armed groups. No, we are experiencing something else that
is also extremely challenging. We see, on our streets and in our cities, the challenge
of terrorism, whether of the Timothy McVeigh and Tsarnaev brothers type or of the Richard Reid and
Abdulmutallab type, but FBI, local police, Federal and State prosecutors, Article III and State courts are as a matter

I see in Professor Chesney's and Mr. Wittes'

a movement generally away from this wartime
attempt or this attempt to pursue the privileges of armed conflict on the territory of
the United States. We see this in other indications as well. Today's New York Times
of law and practice the right bodies to respond to this ongoing threat.
proposal and the in the comments of Mr. Engel

reports that drone strikes outside of armed conflict zones are declining dramatically.
We are also seeing no further prisoners being sent to Guantanamo. The vast
amount of trials against terror suspects, 200-plus trials, have been in the United
States in regular courts since 9/11. Indeed, the very first asserted wartime privilege
after 9/11 to come to an end came to an end already in 2003, and that, Mr. Chairman, was the
attempt to do search and seizure of cargo ships on the high seas. Yes, during wartime, such search and
seizure may continue, but not in peacetime, and the U.S. gave that up in 2003,
persuaded by our closest ally in so many of these situations, the United Kingdom . In
conclusion, I would emphasize that the United Kingdom and our other close allies
have never accepted this global war on terror . We need to get right on the law so
that we can again have the close cooperation with these allies. That's how we will
overcome terrorism in the world today.

EU relations

EU relations high Cuban embargo lift

Jamaicaobserver 15 July 01, 2015, Limited is a daily newspaper published in

Kingston, Jamaica, EU hails 'historic' restoration of US-Cuba ties,

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/EU-hails--historic--restoration-of-USCuba-ties.
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AFP) The EU on Wednesday welcomed the re-establishment
of full diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba after 54 years, calling it a
"historic milestone". But the European Union also urged further work to lift a trade embargo
established in 1962 which remains in place, calling it "outdated and inconsistent". US President Barack
Obama has also urged Republican-controlled Congress to end the embargo, saying the policy "was not
working". "The announcement that the United States and Cuba are to restore diplomatic relations and
reopen embassies is a truly historic milestone on the path towards full normalisation of relations
between the countries," a statement issued in Brussels said. "At the same time , the EU

encourages both sides to continue working on some outstanding issues, in

particular the lifting of the embargo, which is an outdated and inconsistent
instrument within the evolving context." The EU never fully broke off relations with
Cuba despite frequent criticisms over human rights but the two are aiming to sign a
political framework for dialogue and cooperation by the end of this year.

AT: Allied coop solves terrorism

U.S.-E.U. counterterrorism cooperation is ineffective
Archick 2014
(Kristin Archick, Specialist in European Affairs, 12-1-14, U.S.-EU Cooperation Against Terrorism, Congressional
Research Service, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22030.pdf)

U.S. administrations and many Members of Congress have supported efforts to

enhance U.S.-EU cooperation against terrorism since the 2001 attacks on the United States.
Although some skeptics initially worried that such U.S.-EU collaboration could weaken
strong U.S. bilateral law enforcement relationships with EU member states , the George
Successive

W. Bush Administration essentially determined that the political benefits of engaging the EU as an entity on police
and judicial matters outweighed the potential risks given Europes role as a key U.S. law enforcement partner. They
also hoped that improved U.S.-EU cooperation on border controls and transport security would help authorities on
both sides keep better track of suspected terrorists and prevent them from entering the United States or finding

U.S.-EU counterterrorism cooperation is

complicated by different EU and member state competencies, and U.S. policy
preferences. An increasing number of policy areas relevant to counterterrorism
including data protection, customs, and visasfall under the competence of the Union (i.e., EU
sanctuary in Europe. At the same time, observers note that

members adopt a common policy, agree to abide by its terms, and negotiate collectively with other countries).
However, at times, the United States continues to prefer to negotiate on some issuessuch as the Visa Waiver

this disconnect can lead to frictions in the U.S.-EU

relationship. Nevertheless, both the United States and the EU appear committed to fostering closer cooperation
Programbilaterally, and observers assert that

in the areas of counterterrorism, law enforcement, border controls, and transport security. As noted previously, the
Obama Administration has largely continued the Bush Administrations policy of engagement with the EU in these
areas. U.S.-EU cooperation against terrorism is increasingly viewed as key to combating potential threats posed by
European and American citizens fighting with Islamist groups in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East and
North Africa. U.S. policy makers and analysts contend that the foreign fighter phenomenon also underscores the
importance of existing U.S.-EU information-sharing agreements that help facilitate the sharing of traveler
information and the tracking of potential terrorists. Some U.S. officials have reportedly been encouraging the EU to
move forward with approving and implementing its own system for sharing airline passenger data in order to
improve European capabilities to keep tabs on suspected foreign fighters.78 Aviation and cargo security, U.S border
control measures, and visa policy may continue to be salient issues for Congress that could affect how future U.S.EU cooperation evolves. In September 2014, several congressional hearings were held on countering terrorism and
the potential threats posed by Western foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq.79 As noted previously, various pieces of
legislation have been introduced recently on the VWP; these range from measures to enhance VWP security

Congressional decisions related to

intelligence-gathering reforms and data privacy and protection issues may also
have significant implications for U.S.-EU counterterrorism cooperation in the years
ahead. Possible changes to the laws that govern U.S. surveillance activity, and
congressional reactions to the Obama Administrations proposal to provide EU
citizens judicial redress in the context of a potential U.S.-EU Data Privacy and
Protection Agreement, will be closely watched in Europe. In addition, given the European
Parliaments growing influence in many of the areas related to counterterrorism and its new role
since 2009 in approving international agreementssuch as the U.S.-EU SWIFT and PNR accordsMembers
controls to those that seek to limit or suspend the program.

of Congress may increasingly be able to help shape Parliaments views and responses.

Too many alt causes to allied coop

Archick 2014
(Kristin Archick, Specialist in European Affairs, 12-1-14, U.S.-EU Cooperation Against Terrorism, Congressional
Research Service, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22030.pdf)

Nevertheless, some challenges remain in the evolving U.S.-EU counterterrorism

relationship. Among the most prominent are long-standing data privacy and data
protection concerns, which have long complicated a range of U.S.-EU informationsharing agreements and have received renewed attention in the wake of the
unauthorized disclosures since June 2013 of U.S. National Security Agency ( NSA)
surveillance activities. Other issues that have led to periodic tensions include
detainee policies, differences in the U.S. and EU terrorist designation lists, and
balancing measures to improve border controls and border security with the need to
facilitate legitimate transatlantic travel and commerce.

More alt causes to allied cooperation the death penalty and

data privacy overwhelm detention policy
Kerber 2007
(Frank Kerber, Adjunct professor at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public and International Affairs,
June 2007, U.S.-EU Cooperation on Counter Terrorism, American Diplomacy,
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2007/0406/kerb/kerber_useu.html)

There are a number of significant procedural and philosophical differences between

the United States and the European Union that hamper our ability to cooperate fully
on law enforcement and counter terrorism matters. Among these are EU policies on
data protection and the sharing of information, the use of the death penalty, the
application of the principle of double jeopardy, the extradition of nationals, and the
EU view of terrorism as basically a law enforcement issue. Data protection and the
sharing of information Data protection is the single overarching issue that prevents closer enforcement
cooperation. The EU operates under a data protection regime which it expects other countries to adopt before

The U.S. system of data protection for law enforcement information, while largely
having the same objectives as the EU system, is more decentralized and permits
sharing with other U.S. enforcement agencies even for purposes that go beyond the
original purpose for which it was collected. While the EU system is largely confined to First Pillar
sharing information.

matters (economic, social and environmental policies) where the Commission has competence, there is pending

Use of the
death penalty The EU has adopted a blanket prohibition against the use of the death penalty as part of its
legislation that would extend its data protection regime to the Third Pillar (Justice and Home Affairs).

mandatory acquis for all Member States. Historically the impact of this ban has been to make it impossible for the
United States to obtain extradition from anywhere in the EU of a fugitive facing the death penalty unless the United
States provides assurances that the death penalty would not be utilized. Some countries, such as Portugal, forbid

EU policy is a concern for both the U.S.

Department of Justice and the prosecuting offices of most states . Application of the
principle of double jeopardy As part of its integration process in law enforcement, the EU is adopting the
even the use of the sentence of life in prison. This

principle of mutual recognition of the final judgments of all EU courts in criminal justice matters. Accordingly, a final
judgment by a criminal court in one EU Member State will bar extradition to another Member State or any third

Extradition of
nationals The United States extradites its nationals to other countries, unlike many of the EU Member States
country such as the United States involving the same person for the same criminal offense.

that have a total ban on such extraditions to non-EU Member States. While these countries provide for domestic
jurisdiction over their own citizens for crimes they may commit anywhere in the world, as a practical matter such
countries rarely if ever mount domestic prosecutions. Thus, they provide their nationals with a form of safe haven

EU perspective on combating terrorism Many EU

Member States regard terrorism as basically a law enforcement issue. On the other
hand, the United States views terrorism as a national security issue. These differing
perspectives influence the approach to sharing highly classified national security
information in the prosecution of terrorist cases.
for crimes they commit outside the EU.

US not key

US not key to stopping Al Qaeda other countries are better at

capturing key leaders, Lebanon for example.
Karouny, 14
(Miriam, Lebanese army seizes top al Qaeda-linked militant, 12 Feb. 2014, Reuters,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/12/us-lebanon-qaeda-idUSBREA1B13520140212)

(Reuters) - Lebanon's army on Wednesday arrested a senior al Qaeda-linked militant

described by officials as a "mastermind of car bombs" hitting Shi'ite areas in recent
months, triggering a major security sweep in the country. Security sources said the
arrest of Naim Abbas, who confessed to his organizational role, helped uncover two
booby-trapped cars, two weapons depots and led to the arrest of several jihadilinked people. They added his arrest would also help uncover more radical jihadi
cells that have been targeting army posts and Shi'ite areas under the control of the Lebanese Shi'ite
Hezbollah group. The surge in violence in Lebanon is linked to the three-year conflict in neighboring
Syria, with sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims rising on both sides of the border.
The security sources said Abbas played a role in four recent car bomb attacks in southern Beirut and
two more in the mostly Shi'ite town of Hermel in eastern Lebanon, all Hezbollah strongholds. Scores of
civilians were killed in the attacks. Abbas's capture is the second major one after another
al Qaeda-linked leader, Majid al-Majid, was seized in December. He died in custody due
to kidney failure. "He (Abbas) drove the suicide bombers to the southern suburbs . He is the

mastermind of car bombs, he is as important as Majid al-Majid," another source

said. Hours after Abbas's arrest, security forces found a car loaded with 100 kg of
explosives in the Corniche al-Mazraa district of central Beirut and another one with
explosives near the town of Arsal, on the frontier with Syria.

AT: Local intel gathering

Local intel gathering fails Iraq proves
Al-Kadhimi 15 (Mustafa Al-Kadhimi, 6-15-2015, "Overhauling Iraqs intelligence

services," http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/06/iraq-securityintelligence-services-quota-terrorists.html, Date Accessed: 7-3-2015)

Iraq's security and armed forces suffer from a lack of intelligence-gathering
capabilities that has affected their ability to draft plans and mechanisms for
combating terrorism. The parliament's Security and Defense Committee on Aug. 14,
2014, linked deterioration in the security situation to the ineptitude of the security
apparatuses and the state of their intelligence capabilities. This reality stems from
the bitter experience of authorities having failed to anticipate the ongoing attacks
on Iraqi cities, particularly Baghdad. The Security and Defense Committee noted on
May 11 that security breaches and criminal acts are escalating in the city and
asserted that the breaches there are part of the Islamic States (IS) strategy to take
its battle to the capital. Iraqi authorities have also failed to thwart terrorist acts
during direct confrontations with IS. On May 17, IS announced its full control over
the city of Ramadi, after the Iraqi army fled the scene. Iraqs inability to establish an
effective intelligence apparatus, despite security forces waging daily battles against
terrorism and thousands giving their lives, has had a grave and detrimental effect in
reducing the government's political as well as security options. It has also had
catastrophic repercussions on the ground through IS expansion and with security
breaches costing the country dearly in material and human losses. On June 10, Hashd, a
nongovernmental organization examining crimes committed in Iraq for potential genocide, announced, The losses
incurred by the Iraqi security and popular mobilization forces since the fall of Mosul on June 10, 2014, followed by
the security incidents and violent battles against terrorist groups, reached around 40,000 victims, 25,000 injured
and 3,000 missing. What has hindered Iraq from building of an effective intelligence apparatus, despite daily
confrontations with terrorist forces in a fight that, by all measures, is sufficiently expansive to induce learning,
increase knowledge and prompt reassessment? On May 3, the Security and Defense Committee blamed security
lapses on the intelligence services lack of aptitude and vigilance, leading to their failure to understand IS'
movements and maneuvering. Based on a closer analysis of the conduct of the political forces running the country,
however, such a blanket accusation reveals itself to be unjust. All state institutions, including the security agencies,
have fallen victim to the political quota system, enabling the appointment of incompetent individuals to leadership
positions on the basis of political loyalties rather than ability and national needs. Shuruq al-Abaji, a Civil Democratic
Alliance parliamentarian, warned March 23 of sectarian quotas undermining standards of competence, integrity and
the capacity to practice politics. Since 2003, the political parties and factions have been seeking their own share of
the Iraqi intelligence services in addition to their own intelligence. This was reiterated March 9 by the fierce
competition among the parties over who should head the intelligence service. The application of the quota system
to the security agencies, which require particular coordinative aptitudes, has rendered them unable to form unified
commands and deprived them of the mechanisms required for joint coordination, information gathering and
analysis. Having failed to protect its intelligence agencies from a political system predicated on partisan quotas, the
Iraqi political establishment has also as a consequence failed to guarantee their independence. As a result ,

the
intelligence agencies have become fragmented, dominated by cliques of
incompetent individuals and infiltrated by political parties and other exploitative
factions. Intelligence agencies abound, spread throughout the country as
administratively independent entities that answer to the Ministries of Defense and
Interior, the National Security Advisory, counterterrorism agencies and army
intelligence, as well as local governments and special forces units. This expansive
spectrum duplicates instead of complements technical and administrative
responsibilities, leading to further lack of coordination among the intelligence

agencies, exacerbated by a lack of a unified vision to address the dangers that

threaten the country.

Intelligence Failures inevidable

Miller 15 (Chris Miller, May 11, 2015, "Intelligence Failures Are Inevitable. Get

Over it," http://ciceromagazine.com/features/intelligence-failures-are-inevitable/,

Date Accessed: 7-3-2015)
Intelligence failure can be broadly defined as a misunderstanding of the situation
that leads a government (or its military forces) to take actions that are
inappropriate and counterproductive to its own interests. Intelligence failures are
inevitable because there are limits to what intelligence can accomplish. Its
proponents are guilty of overselling its capabilities and its consumers and observers
are guilty of misunderstanding them. To understand what intelligence failure is it is necessary
to understand the different sources of it, identify where failures occur in the intelligence cycle, their
causes, and other factors affecting it. Understanding the complex process of transforming information
into intelligence also means understanding that it would be more shocking not to have intelligence
failures. They are inevitable because intelligence is there to reduce the occurrence or

effect of unanticipated events, not wholly eliminate them as a possibility.

AT: NATO
NATO drives conflict
Lehmann, 14

(Christof, NATP Engineered Conflict Contributes to Slavery and Trafficking. Boko

Harams Mass Kidnapping of Girls, 13 June 2014, http://www.globalresearch.ca/natoengineered-conflict-contributes-to-slavery-and-trafficking-boko-harams-masskidnapping-of-girls/5386789)
The mass kidnapping of Nigerian schoolgirls by Boko Haram is only the tip of on iceberg of slavery in
Africa. Slavery and trafficking is more often than not tied to conflicts in

which core NATO member states and terrorist organizations with ties to
their intelligence services play central roles. Ultimately, conflict, slavery and
trafficking, as well as prostitution are tied to issues about sovereignty. Boko Haram began its
insurgency five years ago. Experts stress that Boko Haram is covertly funded

and
armed by intelligence services of core NATO member states. The function
of the covert support for Boko Haram is the destabilization of a country to
justify a NATO military presence. One of the most recent incidents that supports this
assessment comes from a clandestine recording of a phone conversation between Mustafa Varank,
who has close ties to Tukeys AKP government and Turkeys intelligence service MIT and a Turkish
Airlines official, in which the two are discussing details about arms smuggling to Nigeria. Emma
Christopher, an expert on slavery and human trafficking, stressed that tens of thousands of people are
bought and sold in Nigeria every year. The majority of them are children. Christopher is referring to the
International Labour Organization which estimated that in 2003, as many as six million Nigerian
children had been trafficked at some time in their lives. Core NATO Members Engineered Conflict
Drives Slave and Trafficking Business. This prompts the questions, why the sudden outcry about the
kidnapped Nigerian girls throughout western governments? Why the sudden headlines in western
corporate media? In October 2012, the Irish analyst Finian Cunningham pointed out Boko Harams
role as an instrument of western modo-colonialism, writing: On the surface, a militant

group known as Boko Haram appears to be the protagonist. But some

believe that powerful Western interests are using the violence to
consolidate foreign control over Nigerias vast oil wealth. Cunningham stressed
that some Nigerian analysts believe that the organization is being used by powerful external forces as
a conduit for destabilizing Nigeria. A believe which since then has been substantiated. He quoted
political analyst Olufemi Ijebuode saying: The upshot of this latest massacre is to destabilize the
state of Nigeria by sowing sectarian divisions among the population. The killers may have been Boko
Haram operatives, but Boko Haram is a proxy organization working on behalf of

foreign powers. Note, that the rapid growth of the Nigerian economy
and the countrys oil export coincides with the increased incidence of
terroristattacks and the increased presence of US AFRICOM troops. Cultural
Factors Play a Minuscule Role. A relatively small part of African slavery and human trafficking problems are related
to cultural factors. Mauritania is one of the countries where slavery is a remainder of the age-old Arab slave trade
and the colonization of the Maghreb by Arabs. Slavery was banned in Mauritania in 1980. The remaining problems
in Mauritania, as tragic as they are, are minuscule in comparison with the conflict related slavery and trafficking.
Moreover, most slaves in Mauritania are living within family units, which is in stark contrast to the destiny of the
vast majority of those who are enslaved or trafficked in connection with conflicts. Slave Trade in Africa and Middle
East worth 1.6 Billion Annually. In an article about slavery in Africa, Emma Christopher stressed that the NGO Free
the Slaves estimates that 1.6 billion dollar in profit derives from African and Middle Eastern slavery per year.
Christopher adds, that his amount is greater than the combined GDP of eight African countries in 2013.
Christopher stressed that Around 40% of the worlds chocolate comes from cocoa produced in the Ivory Coast and
that children from across West Africa are trafficked to work there: there is no guarantee that those children have not
grown the chocolate you enjoy. What Christopher doesnt address in her article is that

core NATO

member France engineered the 2010 coup dtat against Ivorian President
Laurent Gbagbo who was about to end the French usurpation of the
country and with it the usurpation of the other UMEOA member states.
Neither the conflict in Ivory Coast and the continuation of the slavery in
and around the country can be understood without understanding the
system of usurpation France installed in its former colonies and UMEOA member
states. The system was described in great detail, in the article French Africa Policy Damages African
and European Economies. The problem can be reduced to the following: France has installed
commissars in the UMEOA regions three central banks. The commissars have veto right and can, in
fact, block any financial, monetary or economic decisions. France is printing the regions money, the
Franc CFA in Chemaliers, France. UMEOA member states must deposit 65 % of their foreign
currency reserves in the French National Bank against 0 (ZERO) % interest. France earns about 3 %
interest on the deposits and lends the profit back to individual UMEOA member states against 5 6
% or more as development aid. UMEOA member states must deposit all of their gold reserves in
France. No audit has taken place for decades. Any head of state who wants to get his country out of
the French racket is faced with the prospect of assassination, imprisonment or a coup dtat. Laurent
Gbagbo has since 2010 been held in a prison of the International Criminal Court. Christopher also,
correctly points out that seven types of slavery are prevalent in eastern Congo. Men and boys are
enslaved in the mines of the region, whose products we all have in our mobile phones and other
electronics. A covert investigation in 2013 by Free the Slaves found that more than 90% of mineworkers were enslaved, the majority through debt bondage or having been kidnapped by armed
groups. Nearby, they found women and girls who had been trafficked to work as prostitutes to serve
the miners. (emphasis added) The Sudanese parliament reported in 2008 that at least 35.000 people
remained enslaved, the majority of them being Christians from the South held by Islamic families in
the North. The problem has received little international attention, although it has been noticed when
US and Qatari intelligence services began targeting the country for civil war and its separation into
Sudan and South Sudan. That development came when depletion of oil resources made the exploration
of Sudanese resources attractive. NATO Engineered Conflict and Sex Slavery. October 2013 the
Tunisian Interior Minister Lofti Ben Jeddou complained that Tunisian girls were being trafficked trough
Turkey. Young Tunisian girls are being lured into traps or simply kidnapped
and trafficked to Syria via Turkey. Ben Joddou announced to Tunisias National Assembly,
that Tunisian girls are forced to satisfy the sexual needs of terrorists in Syria under the euphemism
sexual jihad. Ben Jeddou stressed, that Turkey has become a bridgehead for sex jihad and declared
that the trafficked Tunisian girls are forced into having sex with 20 30, in some cases 100 of the holy
warrirors. Ben Jeddou stressed, that most of them return pregnant. Besides the

psychological trauma the young Tunisian girls suffer, the large number of
children which will be born due to the forced sexual service will create a
sociological time bomb in Tunisia. Another problem, which remains largely
unaddressed, is that many of the girls who return, have been infected
with sexually transmittable diseases, including HIV. Yet others again never
return because life has become a chap commodity since the country was
targeted for holy war. It is worth noting that these holy warriors, for the
greatest part, are US-UK-Turkish-Saudi Arabia and Qatar-funded
mercenaries who are fighting a war on behalf of core NATO member states,
CGG member states and Israel. For those who have not noticed the fact yet, a statement of the former
French Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas is a good starting point to understand the situation in Syria.
During an appearance on the French TV channel LPC, Dumas made a short remark, saying that top
British officials were preparing the subversion of Syria with the help of rebels two years before the
first protests in 2011, and that he was asked, whether he wanted to participate. During the TV
appearance on LPC, in June, Dumas said: I am going to tell you something. I was in England two years
before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me,
that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was
organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer Minister of
Foreign Affairs, if I would like to participate. Naturally, I refused, I said I am French, that does not
interest me This does not make sense, it is time to fix all this again. there are some sides who
have the desire to destroy Arab states, like what happened to Iraq and Libya before, particularly given
Syrias special relations with Russia. that if an agreement is not reached, then Israel will attack and

destroy the governments that stand against Israel. Kidnapping

of girls and trafficking of

girls to Syria has also been reported from Mali, invaded by France and
NATO members in 2013 as well as from Egypt and Libya invaded by NATO
and NATO-led Al-Qaeda rebels in 2011. Since 2014 the kidnapping of
girls has begun spreading into Europe, with the disappearance of two
Austrian Bosnian girls being the best known incident.

NATO cannot solve current conflicts

Sputnik News, 15

(United States Cannot Resolve Any International Conflict on Its Own,

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150702/1024127687.html)
MOSCOW (Sputnik) The United States cannot resolve any international conflict on
its own, it is necessary for countries to unite and make collective efforts,
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday. "The nature of the
conflicts that flare up in the modern world is such that even a structure
such as the BRICS is not capable of effectively addressing them without
cooperating with other players. The same applies to any other country or
group of countries neither the United States, the European Union,
NATO, nor anyone else can alone, without genuinely collective joint
efforts, settle any conflict in the world," Lavrov said at a meeting with
participants in the BRICS Youth Summit. The BRICS Youth Summit is being held in
Russia from July 1-7, and brings together about 300 participants. According to
Lavrov, finding solutions to any conflict requires combined efforts from the
international community, as well as from international organizations.

Terror DA Links
Indefinite detention is the ONLY thing preventing terrorism in
certain cases
Scheid, 10
(Don E., Indefinite Detention of Mega-terrorists in the War on Terror, Criminal
Justice Ethics 29.1, 2010)
The most plausible reason for the indefinite detention of terrorist
suspects, I believe, is that they present a serious threat of committing
future terrorist acts. In other words, the interest in preventing a person
from committing terrorist acts could justify incapacitation- thus, preventive
detention. American law allows for preventive detention in a variety of settings.23 A traditional example is

the involuntary civil commitment of a person who is a danger to herself or to others as the result of mental
disorder.24 Like the person with a highly infectious disease who is put in quarantine to protect other members of
the community, the mentally ill person is put in confinement for similar reasons. Another category of preventive
detention one that has developed in recent years- has to do with sexual-predator statutes. These laws provide for
continued incarceration after the sexual offender has completed his criminal sentence in prison. In Kansas v.
Hendricks (1997), the Supreme Court permitted indeterminate detention of dangerous individuals who have
completed their sentences and have not committed any new crime.25 The argument for sexual-predator laws is,
simply, that certain convicted sexual predators are too dangerous to release even after they have served their
criminal sentence. Analogous considerations apply to terrorism suspects. A schizophrenic person who has taken it
into his head to blow up an apartment building because of paranoid delusions can be civilly committed. A
dangerous sexual predator may be preventively detained. By analogy, a mega-terrorist who has taken it into his
head to blow up buildings and kill hundreds of people also ought to be liable to preventive detention. Some terrorist
suspects are simply far too dangerous to release once captured. But how dangerous is dangerous enough to
warrant preventive detention? Dangerousness is a function of the degree of harm or destruction and the likelihood
of its occurrence. What level of harm and what risk of occurrence are great enough to justify preventive detention
are value judgments that society must make. It has been argued that the danger sexual predators pose is no
greater than that of other kinds of violent offenders, and that, if there is no justification for the preventive detention
of other kinds of violent offenders, then neither can the preventive detention of sexual predators be justified. I shall
not join that debate here. It must be acknowledged, however, that the danger the mega-terrorist poses is

If the danger to society

ever warrants preventive detention, certainly that of the mega-terrorist
must. In saying a person is too dangerous to release, the implication is
that, if released, he will not be deterred from further crime by the threat
of future punishment. This may be because he is mentally out of touch with reality, or it may
be that the person has overwhelming urges he cannot control. 26 In the case of
megaterrorists, the individual is undeterrable, presumably, because he is
committed to carrying out terrorist activities as a matter of firm,
ideological conviction and/or religious beliefs. The possibility of being
captured and punished or losing his life does not deter him. In fact, the
prospect of becoming a martyr for his cause may actually be a positive
incentive, as it apparently is for some suicide bombers. Since the person is
undeterrable, his conduct cannot be controlled or significantly influenced
by the threat of future punishment. The state's only realistic option,
therefore, is preventive detention.
many orders of magnitude greater than that of a sexual predator.

Detention has stopped numerous attacks

Holmes 2012 (Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D., Marc A. Thiessen, Clifford D. May and Helle
C. Dale, May 8, 2012, The Obama Doctrine at Year Three: An Assessment,

Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2012/05/the-obamadoctrine-at-year-three-an-assessment)

The problem is that Obama is using drone strikes as a substitute for operations to
actually capture terrorists alive and bring them in for questioning. After 9/11, we
worked with Pakistan and other countries to hunt down senior terrorist leaders and
bring them in for interrogation. We captured people like Abu Zubaydah, Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al Shibh, Ammar al-Baluchi, and many, many others
about a hundred of them in all that were brought into the CIAs interrogation
program and questioned. They gave us information that stopped terrorist attacks:
plots to blow up the U.S. consulate in Karachi; to blow up the U.S. Marine camp in
Djibouti; to explode seven airplanes flying over the Atlantic from cities in Europe to
North America; to fly hijacked airplanes into Heathrow Airport, Londons financial
district, and Big Benthey wanted to bring down Big Ben when they brought down
the Twin Towersand also a plot to fly an airplane into the tallest building on the
West Coast, the U.S. Bank Tower of Los Angeles. Those are all plots that were
broken up because there was open interrogation. The information we got was
obtained from the interrogation of captured live terrorists.

Indefinite detention key to winning the war on terror

Groves and Walsh, 7

(Steven Groves is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for
Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International
Studies, and Brian W. Walshis Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Center for Legal and
Judicial Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, "Dispelling Misconceptions: Guantanamo Bay
Detainee ProceduresExceed the Requirements of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Law,
andCustomary International Law", July 13,
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/dispelling-misconceptions-guantanamo-baydetainee-procedures-exceed-the-requirements-of-the-us-constitution-us-law-and-customaryinternational-law)

Congress should not interfere with the U.S. military's policy of detaining alien
enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay for the duration of the war on terrorism .

These detainees should not be released until the cessation of hostilities in Afghanistan and elsewhere or until such

Calls by Members of Congress

and the "international legal and human rights community" to release the approximately
380 detainees remaining in Guantanamo are reckless in the extreme and not
supported by the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, the Geneva Conventions, or
customary international law. Congress should decline to take the extraordinary step of providing the writ
time that the detainees are no longer a threat to U.S. and Coalition forces.

of habeas corpus to the unlawful enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, none of whom are U.S. citizens or

Even if granting non-citizens who are unlawful enemy combatants the

right to habeas corpus were the right decision for this war -and it decidedly is not-it would
set a dangerous precedent for America's ability to fight future wars, including
conventional wars in which enemy combatants are affiliated with nation-states . In any
legal residents.

future conflict, the international community, including the United Nations, would surely demand that prisoners of
war held by U.S. forces have access to U.S. courts to try their claims that they are being held unjustly. Further,
granting the writ of habeas corpus to non-citizens who are unlawful enemy combatants is almost certain to
embolden liberal and progressive jurists to "discover" new constitutional rights for U.S. enemies to access U.S.

extending habeas corpus to Guantanamo Bay will impede

the effectiveness of military operations and place an unnecessary burden on U.S.
military forces in the field.[22]
courts to try their claims. Finally,

Indefinite detention is necessary to prevent attacksmultiple

scenarios
Walen, 11
(Alec, Professor of Law at Rutgers School of Law, June 22, "A Unified Theory of Detention,
With Application to Preventitive Detention for Suspected Terrorists", Maryland Law Review,
No. 4, V 70, http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=3466&context=mlr, Newton: NOTE: ST=Suspected Terrorist, LTPD=long-term
preventive detention)
Because the jurisdictional limitations would not apply to most cases going forward, Waxmans second concernthat

the conditions of capture would make it difficult to use normal evidentiary rules to
prosecute STsis the primary obstacle to prosecuting STs domestically in the future. But,

that concern would not apply to domestic prosecutions of terrorists captured in the United States. This is not to
deny that prosecuting domestic terrorism cases is difficult; it is only to say that prosecuting domestic STs is not so
distinctly difficult that there is reason to use LTPD instead. 78 These distinctive difficulties seem likely to arise only
with regard to STs who are captured abroad or who are captured domestically but whose prosecution would depend
on evidence obtained from abroad. 79 To deal with those cases in which prosecution of STs might be distinctly more
difficult than prosecution of normal criminals, President Obama has agreed to use Military Commissions (MCs) for
the prosecution of some Guantanamo detainees. 80 These MCs allow the prosecution, for example, to use different
evidentiary rules that admit more hearsay than would be allowed in a civilian trial. 81 Use of these different
evidentiary rules should not be automatically disqualifying. What matters is that criminal trials preserve
fundamental procedural fairness. If trials do not preserve fundamental fairness, howeverif the trial system is
corrupted by reliance on unreliable hearsay; if the defendant is prevented from seeing secret evidence, such that
he does not have a fair opportunity to respond to it, or even to advise his counsel (who might be allowed to see it)
how best to respond to it; 82 or if the standard for conviction is allowed to slip below proof beyond a reasonable
doubt 83 then the State might as well admit that its concern is not so much with punishing past crimes as it is
with preventing future ones. For if the State uses such unreliable procedures, then it is implicitly admitting that it
does not really care about proving that the detainee committed a crime; it is simply using the facade of the
criminal law in order to lock up someone considered to be a future threat. In that case, pretending to use criminal
law is pointless; it would be more honest and more effective simply to move into a regime that uses LTPD. But if
MCs can maintain basic procedural fairness, they can provide a meaningful alternative forum that accommodates
the special problems that arise in dealing with evidence obtained abroad. 84 In sum, there is actually not much
reason to think prosecutions of STs captured in the United States are beyond the capacity of U.S. courts. Nor are STs
typically super-villains capable of wreaking the kind of destruction on the United States that some authors

many STs who could be prosecuted

in the United States are captured abroad in conditions where evidentiary issues
complicate the prospects of obtaining a successful prosecution. Second, as in any
criminal case, there is always a chance the prosecution will fail to obtain a
conviction. And, finally, if there is strongperhaps clear and convincing evidence that an
ST is a significant terrorist capable of contributing in a distinctive and nontrivial way
to the kinds of terrorist attacks that do cause harm at the very high end of the
criminal spectrum, then there is good reason to question whether such a person
should simply be released if he is not convicted of a crime . Jack Goldsmith, a former Assistant
presuppose they are. The real problems, instead, are these: First

Attorney General in the George W. Bush administration, made this last point when he wrote that, in criticism of the

Obama administrations drive to prosecute STs, high-stakes terrorism trials are problematic in part because the

government cannot afford to let the defendant go . 85 While I would disagree with this position if
it was applied to U.S. citizens, Goldsmith is, I believe, correct with regard to STs from other countries. If these
STs were released abroad into countries where the policing capacity could not
adequately ensure that they did not return to terrorist activitiesincluding activities
that would affect U.S. citizens abroad, our allies, and the United States itselfthen
there is good reason to consider using LTPD in those cases.

Indefinite detention is uniquely important released prisoners

have become terrorist leaders

Scheid, 10
(Don E., Indefinite Detention of Mega-terrorists in the War on Terror, Criminal Justice Ethics
29.1, 2010)
Apart from this hypothetical,

there are reports of any number of actual terrorism

prisoners who have been released only to rejoin jihad and their fight
against the West. For example, one Guantanamo detainee, Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul,

was transferred to Afghanistan in 2007 and then released by the Kabul government. According to
reports, he is now the commander of operations for the Taliban in southern
Afghanistan. Another detainee, Said Ali al-Shihri, was returned to his native Saudi Arabia in
2007 and is now reportedly a leader of al-Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen. 29 The
argument from dangerousness is essentially a utilitarian or consequentialist one. It
is a kind of cost benefit argument, balancing individual liberty against the collective security of society.

To mistakenly release an enemy soldier during a conventional war

between states may be of little consequence; but in a fight with megaterrorists where each one is intent on killing thousands of civilians, a
mistaken release could be disastrous. Referring to military conscription, Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes long ago noted, "No society has ever admitted that it could not sacrifice individual
welfare to its own existence."30 When the stakes are high enough, it will do so. I believe this

consequentialist approach is essentially correct, but it is important to

emphasize that there is no suggestion here that we detain people
indiscriminately. The idea is to detain indefinitely only very dangerous
persons, that is, megaterrorists. In the context of domestic criminal law, a standard objection to a

purely consequentialist rationale for punishment is that it would justify the punishment of innocent
persons in cases where that served the greater good of society-for example, the case of punishing a
person, known only by authorities to be innocent, as a scapegoat in order to "send a message" to the
populace and thereby increase the level of general deterrence. I am certainly not suggesting that we
detain indefinitely persons who are not terrorists -even if, in some peculiar circumstance, it might
seem advantageous to do so. First, it would be grossly unjust to those individuals. Furthermore, if it
became an established practice, the fact that innocent persons were being indefinitely detained would
soon leak out and the state's moral authority would be undermined. Obviously, we must focus

on terrorists and do our best to determine that the people we put in

confinement are, indeed, terrorists. This means we must have procedures for
determining who is and who is not a mega-terrorist in the first place.

Death penalty CP
The United States federal government should abolish the
death penalty.

European counties refuse to extradite to the US because of the

death penalty
Dieter, 3
(Richard C., International Influence on the Death Penalty in the U.S.,
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/984)

Although there have been foreign nationals on death rows in the U.S. in the past, the issue received
scant attention until executions of such persons began occurring regularly in the 1990s. Even then, the
raising of the Vienna Convention as a legal challenge to the death penalty was rare. There was little
knowledge of how many foreign nationals were present on death row, and from what countries. Today,
all that has changed. Both defense attorneys in the U.S. and officials from other countries

are aware of this issue and that there are at least 118 foreign nationals
from 30 different countries on death rows across the U.S. In addition to the
execution of foreign nationals, there are numerous instances where people wanted
for crime in the U.S. are arrested in other countries. The question of extradition
and the possible use of the death penalty has raised major concerns throughout
Europe, Canada, Mexico, and parts of Africa. The urgency of this issue has been heightened by the
events of Sept. 11 and the war on terrorism . Suspected terrorists not only may face the
death penalty in the U.S. if extradited, but they may also be tried in a military tribunal
that lacks the normal due process afforded defendants in the civilian courts. While the U.S. sorely
wants to bring such suspects to justice, many countries just as strongly believe that

the death penalty is a human rights issue and extradition in such

circumstances would be a violation of deeply held principles. In a measure of

the direct influence that countries can have when they hold something the U.S. wants, states and the
federal government have agreed to drop the prospect of capital punishment in numerous cases in
exchange for extradition from other countries. Similarly, following a visit by British Prime Minister Tony
Blair to Washington recently, the U.S. announced that the death penalty would not be sought against
two British citizens who were among the first six to be tried under the new military tribunals. It appears
that a similar rule will apply against two Australian citizens who have also been held at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, awaiting military tribunals. A More Cohesive Opposition Clearly, the world is more
interconnected than ever before. Interests of trade, the promotion of human rights, fighting terrorism,
and international development, all require greater cooperation among countries. The U.S. is keenly
aware of these new realities and has sought allies for its military interventions in Kuwait, Afghanistan,
and Iraq. The U.S. concern was also demonstrated by its angry reaction to being excluded from the
U.N. Commission on Human Rights in 2001 (though it has now regained its seat). The U.S. is facing a
further embarrassment if it loses its observer status in the Council of Europe, which has been directly
tied to movement on the death penalty issue. In the long run, the reason why international

opposition to the death penalty may finally be having a significant impact

on the U.S. is that this opposition is more cohesive than ever before. The
United States closest allies in Europe and North America are unanimous in
rejecting the death penalty and they do not hesitate to let their views be
known. New countries can only be admitted to the growing European Union, a body whose size and

economy may soon equal or surpass the U.S., if they renounce the death penalty. Courts in countries
such as Canada and Mexico, and

throughout Europe, have begun to consistently

refuse extradition as long as the death penalty is a possibility in the U.S.

And, on the issue of the execution of juvenile offenders, every country of the world, with the possible
exception of Somalia, has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child forbidding such executions.

In the face of such consistent and adamant challenges to the death

penalty, the U.S. risks becoming isolated at a time when it can least afford
it.

Abolition resolves extradition conflicts and restores relations

Warren, 4

(Mark, Death, Dissent, and Diplomacy: The US Death Penalty as an Obstacle to

Foreign Relations, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 13.2)
Rather than receding in importance, the death penalty controversy has
advanced steadily to the center of post-September 11th foreign policy
considerations. A new extradition agreement with the United States was
delayed by nearly a year as EU officials sought and obtained the right to refuse any return
without guarantees that the death penalty would not be imposed or carried out.17 The prospect
of U.S. military tribunals imposing death sentences at Guant.namo Bay
sent shock waves through the Western coalition. "The death sentence
cannot be applied by military courts as this would make the international
coalition lose the integrity and credibility it has so far enjoyed," warned
European Commission spokesman Diego de Ojeda. 7 ' Even the capture of
Saddam Hussein prompted controversy, after President Bush suggested that execution
would be the appropriate punishment.'72 The Portuguese Prime Minister, a vocal supporter of the U.S.led invasion of Iraq, declared in an interview that "under no circumstances should the death penalty be
applied."1'73 UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stressed that any trial for Hussein must meet
international standards. 74 "As secretary general, as the UN, as an organization, we are not going to
now turn around and support the death penalty," he insisted.175 This is the new reality

within which U.S. diplomacy must function. The day is long gone when the
United States could credibly argue that retention of the death penalty is a
purely internal matter with no transnational repercussions. The rules for
acceptable international conduct are changing, and the United States increasingly finds itself on the
wrong side of what is now a fundamental human rights issue .

America's split with its

Western colleagues over the propriety of executions has moved beyond

polite disagreement and is directly impacting foreign policy objectives
and undermining important bilateral relations . Participation in executions, however
indirectly, is a line that many countries crucial to U.S. security interests simply will not cross. As the

Council of Europe's Secretary-General wrote in an article directed at

American readers, these developments "are not symptoms of an
ephemeral trend, but the consequence of a profound belief that the death
penalty has no place in a civilized democracy."'

2NC solvency
Death Penalty key issue to US- EU terror cooperation and
extradition treaties
Archick 14

Kristin Archick,Specialist in European Affairs, 12-1-2014, U.S.-EU Cooperation

Against Terrorism Congressional Research Service,
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22030.pdf
U.S.-EU efforts against terrorism have produced a number of new accords that seek
to improve police and judicial cooperation. In 2001 and 2002, two U.S.-Europol
agreements were concluded to allow U.S. law enforcement authorities and Europol
to share both strategic information (threat tips, crime patterns, and risk
assessments) as well as personal information (such as names, addresses, and
criminal records). U.S.-EU negotiations on the personal information accord proved
especially arduous, as U.S. officials had to overcome worries that the United States
did not meet EU data protection standards. The EU considers the privacy of
personal data a basic right, and EU regulations are written to keep such data out of
the hands of law enforcement authorities as much as possible. EU data protection
concerns also reportedly slowed negotiations over the 2006 U.S.-Eurojust
cooperation agreement noted above. In 2007, the United States and the EU also
signed an agreement that sets common standards for the security of classified
information to facilitate the exchange of such information. In 2010, two new U.S.EU-wide treaties on extradition and mutual legal assistance (MLA) entered into
force following their approval by the U.S. Senate and the completion of the
ratification process in all EU member states.16 These treaties, signed by U.S. and
EU leaders in 2003, seek to harmonize the bilateral accords that already exist
between the United States and individual EU members, simplify the extradition
process, and promote better information-sharing and prosecutorial cooperation.
Washington and Brussels hope that these two agreements will be useful tools in
combating not only terrorism, but other transnational crimes such as financial
fraud, organized crime, and drug and human trafficking. In negotiating the
extradition and MLA agreements, the U.S. death penalty and the extradition of EU
nationals posed particular challenges. Washington effectively agreed to EU
demands that suspects extradited from the EU will not face the death penalty,
which EU law bans. U.S. officials also relented on initial demands that the treaty
guarantee the extradition of any EU national. They stress, however, that the
extradition accord modernizes existing bilateral agreements with individual EU
members, streamlines the exchange of information and transmission of documents,
and sets rules for determining priority in the event of competing extradition
requests between the United States and EU member states. The MLA treaty will
provide U.S. authorities access to European bank account and financial information
in criminal investigations, speed MLA request processing, allow the acquisition of
evidence (including testimony) by video conferencing, and permit the participation
of U.S. authorities in joint EU investigations.17

Abolishing the Death Penalty would resolve extradition

problems
McDonnell 04
Thomas M. McDonnell, The Death Penalty--An Obstacle to the "War on Terrorism"?,
37 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 353 (2004), available at
http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/279/.
At a time when we need help from other countries the most, retaining the death
penalty alienates a growing number of countries that have abolished the death
penalty or are taking steps to abolish or limit it. As of this writing, 112 countries
have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, while only eighty-three
countries retain the death penalty.285 Virtually all of Europe, including many of
the Soviet Union's former satellite states, have abolished the death penalty.2s6 All
our NATO allies, with the exception of Turkey, have done Neither Canada nor Mexico
has the death penalty. Of the other thirty-three nations in the Western hemisphere,
only the United States, Guyana, Guatemala, and Belize permit capital
punishment.288 European countries strongly oppose the death penalty.289 As
leading proponents of the four currently operating international criminal tribunals,
the Europeans successfully argued for banning capital punishment from the
sentencing authority of the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal
Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the Special Court for Sierra
Leone.290 Many abolitionist countries refuse to extradite fugitives to
death penalty states absent an absolute assurance that the death penalty will
not be carried out. For example, the Home Secretary of staunch ally Great Britain
has told U.S. officials that he "would approve extradition [of suspected terrorists]
only if the Unites States waived the right to impose the death penalty."292 The
Supreme Court of Canada has taken the unusual step of requiring the Minister of
Justice of Canada to demand assurances from the United States that it will not
impose capital punishment on Canadian citizens whose extradition is ~ou~ht.~g~
Insisting on executing members of a1 Qaeda could thus deprive us of necessary
evidence and, in some cases, of the fugitives themselves.294 In short, our closest
allies are abolitionist states. To the extent that we use the death penalty in the
war on terror we may find those allies reluctant to cooperate fully with us. 295 The
threat of an eventual death sentence for Mr. Moussaoui makes it difficult for any
European country to determine how far to cooperate with the American
investigation. Outlawing the death penalty is a condition of membership to the 15nation European Union, and the Council of Europe, which embraces more than 40
countries, not only forbids the death penalty but also recently decided that it should
not apply even in wartime.296

K2 allies
Abolishing the death penalty restores relationships with key
European allies
Warren, 4

(Mark, Death, Dissent, and Diplomacy: The US Death Penalty as an Obstacle to

Foreign Relations, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 13.2)
The United States' isolation on a core social policy issue would be little
more than a statistical curiosity if the death penalty did not arouse such
strong feelings abroad and cast so much discredit on America's human rights
leadership. Reflecting on his four years as U.S. Ambassador to France, Felix Rohatyn observed:
[N]o single issue evoked as much passion and as much protest as executions in the United States.
Repeated protests in front of the embassy in Paris, protests at our consulates and, just recently, a
petition signed by 500,000 French men and women delivered to our embassy in Paris were part of a
constant refrain.19 Sustained exposure to this criticism brought Rohatyn around from favoring the
death penalty to supporting a moratorium on executions, concluding that "some 300 million of
our closest allies think capital punishment is cruel and unusual and it might be
worthwhile to give it some further thought."" A senior correspondent with Newsweek predicted that
the "values gap" between the Old and New World would "eventually have political ramifications ....

Increasingly, Europe will find it difficult (and unpopular) to be allied with a

nation whose values it doesn't share - not to mention to be led by it."'"
Unquestionably, adverse public reaction to particularly troubling capital cases adds
to negative perceptions of America abroad. The news that Spanish national
Joaquin Martinez had been sentenced to death on the basis of
questionable evidence sparked public outrage in Spain.22 King Juan Carlos appealed to U.S.
authorities, while the Spanish public contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to a defense fund.23
Martinez was eventually acquitted of all charges following a highlypublicized retrial and returned to a
tumultuous welcome in Spain.24 Within days of his return , Martinez had become "a symbol

of Europe's disdain for a U.S. execution policy seen as applying mostly to

the poor, nonwhite and the mentally deficient."25

EU relations not high because of death penalty dilema

(Juergen Baetz, 2-18-2014, "Europe's hostility to capital punishment at origin

of U.S. execution drug dilemma," http://www.dallasnews.com/news/localnews/20140218-europe-s-hostility-to-capital-punishment-at-origin-of-u.s.-executiondrug-dilemma.ece, Date Accessed: 7-2-2015) //DK

BRUSSELS Theres one big reason why the United States has a dearth of
execution drugs so acute that some states are considering solutions such as firing
squads and gas chambers: Europes fierce hostility to capital punishment. The
phenomenon started nine years ago when the EU banned the export of products
used for execution, citing its goal to be the leading institutional actor and largest
donor to the fight against the death penalty. But beefed up European rules mean
the results are being most strongly felt in the United States now, with shortages
becoming chronic and gruesome executions making headlines. In Ohio last month,
Dennis McGuire took 26 minutes to die after a previously untested mix of chemicals
began flowing into his body, gasping repeatedly as he lay on a gurney. On Jan. 9,
Oklahoma inmate Michael Lee Wilsons last words were: I feel my whole body
burning. The dilemma again grabbed national attention this week when an

Oklahoma pharmacy agreed Monday to refrain from supplying an execution drug to

the Missouri Department of Corrections for an upcoming lethal injection. Death row
inmate Michael Taylors had argued in a lawsuit that recent executions involving the
drug pentobarbital would likely cause inhumane pain and, ahead of a hearing
set for Tuesday, The Apothecary Shoppe said it would not provide the drug. EU
nations are notorious for disagreeing on just about everything when it comes to
common policy, but they all strongly and proudly agree on one thing:
abolishing capital punishment. Europe saw totalitarian regimes abuse the death
penalty as recently as the 20th century, and public opinion across the bloc is
therefore staunchly opposed to it. The EUs uncompromising stance has set off a
cat-and-mouse game, with U.S. corrections departments devising new ways to carry
out lethal injections only to hit updated export restrictions within months. Our
political task is to push for an abolition of the death penalty, not facilitate its
procedure, said Barba Lochbihler, chairwoman of the European Parliaments
subcommittee on human rights. Europes tough stance has caused U.S. states to
start experimenting with new drug mixtures, even though convicts lawyers and
activists argue they increase the risk of painful prolonged death and may violate the
constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In an upcoming execution in
Louisiana, the state is set to follow Ohios example in using the untested drug
cocktail used in McGuires execution. It changed its execution protocol last week to
use Ohios two-drug combination because it could no longer procure pentobarbital,
a powerful sedative. The execution was scheduled for February, but was stayed
pending a federal judges examination in April regarding whether the state can
proceed with the plan to execute Christopher Sepulvado, convicted in the 1992
killing of his 6-year-old stepson. In 2010, Louisiana switched from the established
three-drug protocol to a one-drug pentobarbital lethal injection, but eventually that
drug also became unavailable because of European pressure. The lethal injection
that they are using now in certain states has never been tested, verified, let alone
been approved for executions, said Maya Foa of Reprieve, a London-based charity
fighting the death penalty. This amounts to using humans as guinea pigs. No
doctor would ever do that. Ohio prosecutors counter that condemned inmates are
not entitled to a pain-free execution under the Constitution. Even if the effect of the
two drugs used by Ohio presents some inherent risk of discomfort, that does not
amount to cruel and unusual punishment, Christopher Conomy, an assistant Ohio
attorney general, argued in court documents last month. The U.S. execution
dilemma goes back to 2005, when the EU restricted exports of goods for the
purpose of capital punishment or for the purpose of torture. That ban includes
items such as electric chairs and lethal injection systems. The drug shortage then
started biting in 2010 when Hospira Inc., the sole U.S. manufacturer of sodium
thiopental, a sedative that is part of the normal three-drug mixture, stopped
production. A few months later, Hospira dropped plans to produce it in Italy because the
government there asked for guarantees that it would never be used in executions. States in 2011
switched to pentobarbital, but Denmark-based Lundbeck Inc., the drugs only U.S.-licensed maker,
faced a public backlash and quickly said it would put the medication off-limits for capital punishment
through a tightly controlled distribution system. Fearing for their reputation, the companies never
wanted to see their drugs used in executions. As U.S. authorities started looking for other sources,
Britain went ahead and restricted exports of sodium thiopental and other drugs at the end of 2010.

This move underlines this governments moral opposition to the death penalty in
all circumstances, Business Secretary Vince Cable said then. Germanys government also urged
pharmaceutical companies to stop exports, and the countrys three firms selling sodium thiopental
promised not to sell to U.S. prison authorities. The EU then updated its export regulation in late 2011
to ban the sale of eight drugs including pentobarbital and sodium thiopental if the purpose is to

use them in lethal injections. That produced a flurry of action in the United States. In May 2012
Missouri announced it would switch to using the anesthetic propofol, infamous for its role in Michael
Jacksons overdose death. But propofol, too, was manufactured in Europe, by Germanys Fresenius
Kabi. Missouris plan prompted an outcry across Europe and the EU threatened to restrict propofol
exports. That in turn provoked a medical outcry in the U.S. because propofol is used in about 95
percent of surgical procedures requiring an anesthetic, according to the American Society of
Anesthesiologists. Fresenius Kabi, whose slogan is caring for life, swiftly moved amid a blitz of bad
PR and EU threats to introduce a stringent distribution control to prevent sales to U.S. prisons. Another
manufacturer, Germanys B. Braun, immediately followed suit.

Key issue
The Death Penalty is the EU major foreign policy objective
Ford 14
Matt Ford, 5-1-2014, Clayton Lockett and the World's Deepening Death-Penalty
Divide The Atlantic,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/05/clayton-lockett-and-theworlds-deepening-death-penalty-divide/361482/
Oklahoma's botched execution of Clayton Lockett on Tuesday night "showed vividly
that the death penalty is a brutal form of punishment which disregards human
dignity," the office of European Union High Representative Catherine Ashton told me
in a statement on Wednesday. Lockett died after spending 45 minutes writhing in
pain from an experimental drug cocktail that had been secretly obtained by state
officials and not evaluated by medical professionals. Charles Warner, a second
inmate who was scheduled to die the same night, received a temporary stay of
execution from Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, pending an investigation. "The
European Union is opposed to the use of capital punishment in all cases and under
any circumstances," said Ashton, Europe's top diplomat, "based on the conviction
that the death penalty is cruel, inhumane and irreversible, and its abolition is
essential to protect human dignity." France's Foreign Ministry also issued a
denunciation and urged Oklahoma and other U.S. states to impose a moratorium on
executions. The death penalty's universal abolition is a major EU foreign-policy
objective, and EU officials have spoken out strongly against high-profile U.S.
executions in the past. Ashton condemned the state of Texas in January for
executing Edgar Tamayo Arias, a Mexican national, who had been denied the right
to contact Mexican diplomatic officials during his arrest in violation of the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations. EU agencies also fund U.S. groups opposed to the
death penalty, while EU lawyers' briefs were cited by the U.S. Supreme Court when
the justices forbade executing the mentally disabled in 2002 and minors in 2005.
The most successful effort in this arena came in December 2011, when the
European Commission imposed an EU-wide export ban on certain drugs used in
lethal injections, including pentobarbital and sodium thiopental, to the United
States. U.S. manufacturers had already refused to sell drugs used in standard lethal
injections to state prisons, citing ethical obligations. With their last major supply
lines severed by Europe, corrections officials in multiple states turned to back-alley
distributors overseas and then to poorly-regulated compounding pharmacies in the
United States. Some states also changed their execution protocols to adjust to the
supply shortage, substituting court-sanctioned drug cocktails with experimental
ones.

The EU is firmly against the death penalty and will do anything

to stop it
Ford, 14

(Matt Ford Is An Associate Editor At The Atlantic, Where He Covers Law and The
Courts., "Can Europe End the Death Penalty in America?,"

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/02/can-europe-end-thedeath-penalty-in-america/283790/, Date Accessed: 7-2-2015)

Ohio corrections officials had used an experimental two-drug cocktail of midazolam,
a sedative and anesthetic, and hydromorphone, a painkiller and morphine
derivative, to execute McGuire. Three weeks later, on February 7, Ohio Governor
John Kasich delayed the state's next scheduled execution, of the convicted murderer
Gregory Lott, until November while the state reviews McGuires execution and
determines what to do next. Why did Ohio, which has used lethal injection since it
resumed executions in 1999, suddenly try an unproven chemical mixture on
McGuire? The answer lies in a growing shortage of standard lethal-injection drugs
brought about primarily by a 2011 export ban by the European Union, the effects of
which are starting to be felt in death-row chambers across America. The ban
severed U.S. prisons from the last large-scale manufacturers of sodium thiopental, a
key anesthetic in lethal injections. In recent years, some smaller drugmakers
elsewhere in the world have also declined to sell sodium thiopental and other lethalinjection drugs to U.S. states, citing activist pressure, the fear of lawsuits, and their
ethical obligations. The EU embargo has slowed down, but not stopped
executions, Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information
Center in Washington, D.C, told me. It has made the states seem somewhat
desperate and not in control, putting the death penalty in a negative light, with an
uncertain future. Lethal injection is by far the predominant method of execution in
the United States. Before the drug shortage, virtually every lethal-injection protocol
used the same three-drug method. A first drug, sodium thiopental, anesthetized the
prisoner. Then a second drug, pancuronium bromide, paralyzed the inmate and
halted his or her breathing. Finally, an injection of potassium chloride stopped the
heart. Jay Chapman, an Oklahoma medical examiner with little pharmacology
experience, first proposed the three-drug protocol in 1977. Asked about his
qualifications by a New York Times reporter 30 years later, Chapman described
himself as an expert in matters after death but not in getting people that way.
Texas became the first state to use lethal injection when it executed Charles Brooks,
Jr. on December 7, 1982. Since then, U.S. states have executed over 1,000 deathrow inmates by lethal injection. By the time the three-drug cocktail's
constitutionality came before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 in Baze v. Rees, lethal
injection had become the preferred method of execution for 36 states and the
federal government. Thirty of those states used Chapmans method. The U.S.
Supreme Court upheld the three-drug protocol in a 7-2 decision. The European
Union, for its part, makes no secret of its death-penalty stance. EU guidelines call
for its universal abolition and declare that doing so would [contribute] to the
enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights.
EU diplomats and leaders frequently petition U.S. governors and state parole boards
to halt forthcoming executions. Sometimes, the supranational organization even
works in more subtle ways: EU agencies contributed over $4.8 million in donations
to U.S. anti-death-penalty organizations between 2009 and 2013.

The European Union and parliament have made the death

penalty the key issue
Warren, 4
(Mark, Death, Dissent, and Diplomacy: The US Death Penalty as an Obstacle to
Foreign Relations, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 13.2)

Half a century later, the President of the European Parliament released an

open letter to the American public on a social issue attracting the same kind of
international concern as racial segregation once did.54 The letter addressed the
apologetic notion that the death penalty was permissible so long as it reflected
the popular will: When President Kennedy put an end to the racial segregation that was still in place in
certain states, he had the courage, probably at the risk of his own life, to go against the wishes of a
large number of people who were determined to maintain the existing system even by violent means.
Do today's politicians really wish to appear a pale shadow of those great visionaries who forged the
American nation's unity and set it on the path to greatness ? Not out of any desire to stand

as judge, but in a spirit of true friendship towards one of the world's

leading countries, I express the wish that the United States will join
Europe in banning the death penalty, a punishment which no longer has
any place in our world as the new millennium opens." The open letter is
remarkable, but hardly unique. Since 1998, the European Union has
intervened repeatedly in U.S. executions through clemency appeals or by
conveying its abolitionist views directly to local legislators. 56 Given the general
reluctance of nations to intrude on each other's internal affairs, what could legitimize direct
interventions that circumvent diplomatic channels? The answer lies in the evolving

interpretation of human rights norms, a process that has done more to

transform the global death penalty debate than any other development in
the modern era.

Refused extraditions
The EU has refused extraditions because of the death penalty
Gibson, 14
(James Gibson, 5-5-2014, "Europe taught America how to end the death penalty.
Now maybe it finally will,"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/05/america-end-deathpenalty-finally, Date Accessed: 7-2-2015)
Coverage of America's latest lethal injection debacle has played and replayed the
ugly details of last Tuesday's botched execution in Oklahoma, once again throwing
the nation's death penalty problems into the international spotlight. Experimental
drug combinations. Secret procedures. Proposals for the return of the electric chair
and firing squads. Every one of those problems, it should be noted, can be traced
back to European activism. For decades, Europe has done all it could to bring its
anti-death penalty stance to the United States. We've seen international covenants
and conventions, refusals to expedite in capital cases , good old-fashioned
diplomacy, even EU briefs to the US supreme court. Nothing has worked. Until now.
Over the last several years, Europe has found a way to export its rejection of capital
punishment ... by refusing to export lethal injection drugs to the United States. In
the private sector, European pharmaceutical companies caught wind of the
increasing reality that their products were being diverted to execution chambers, so
they either imposed end-user agreements on buyers or stopped producing the
drugs altogether. In the public sector, Britain responded by imposing export controls
on drugs used for lethal injection and joined a chorus of countries calling for the
European Commission to do the same, which it did. When it comes to the death
penalty, the United States today is what South Africa was in the 1980s. It is the
subject of a targeted boycott of goods based on behavior that the rest of the world
views as immoral. That's a mighty strange place to be for the self-declared leader of
the free world. You might ask: so what? The US is still executing, and Europe's boycott hasn't
slowed down executions in states like Texas, where the death penalty is as much a part of life as grits
are for breakfast in the American South. If anything, the dearth of lethal injection drugs has provided
an excuse for blood-thirsty states to speed up executions, rather than slow them down. That much is
true, but Europe's boycott is the reason states are experimenting with new lethal injection drug
protocols. It's the reason they are fighting to protect the secrecy of their sources. It's the reason they
are considering far more controversial methods of execution. Those developments may seem
desperate and dangerous, but they are having second-order effects that have opened up a new legal
frontier: Americans are a litigious bunch, and new avenues of attack on experimental drug cocktails
and the shroud of secrecy surrounding their use could bog down the administration of the death
penalty for years. And this level of public attention to capital punishment has not been seen in
decades. Every new debacle creates space in the public discourse to talk about its problems. Grossly
inadequate counsel. Racial discrimination. Geographic arbitrariness. Excessive cost. Exonerations of
death row inmates over 140 of them so far. A final effect of Europe's activism may be in US

legal norms. The American jurisprudence of death pins constitutional protection on

"evolving standards of decency" and relies on what the states are doing as primary
evidence of what those standards of decency are. The more states walk away from
the death penalty, the more likely the US supreme court will at some point turn the
lights out on America's machinery of death. Historically, the death penalty has
been the epitome of American exceptionalism and isolationism. In the
wake of Europe's lethal injection drug boycott, America can take steps to
maintain its exceptionalism. It can double-down on death, no matter what the EU does. If it

cannot inject inmates, it can hang them. Or shoot them. Or electrocute or gas them. But the same is
not true for American isolationism on the death penalty. That is gone for good . A perfect storm is

now swirling around capital punishment in America, and it is a storm that Europe
has had a strong hand in creating. Granted, it likely won't affect states where the death penalty
is deeply entrenched. But six US states have abolished the death penalty in the last seven years, and
its legitimacy in the United States is evaporating with every execution gone horribly wrong. For other
governors leaning toward a humane solution to this increasingly inhumane problem, last Tuesday
night's disaster in Oklahoma may just be enough bad publicity to tip the scales. As Brendan Behan
said, there's no such thing as bad publicity except your

The EU will not extradite any person with a high sentence

unless the US bans the Death Penalty
EU Council 06 (The European Council, December 2006, Article 11: Capital
punishment Convention, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/pc-oc/978-928716076-8.pdf)
If the offence for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the
law of the requesting Party, and if in respect of such offence the death penalty is not
provided for by the law of the requested Party or is not normally carried out ,
extradition may be refused unless the requesting Party gives such assurance as the
requested Party considers sufficient that the death penalty will not be carried out.
Under this article extradition may be refused if the law of the requesting Party lays
down the death penalty for the offence committed by the person whose extradition
is requested and if the death penalty is not provided for under the laws of the
requested Party. The requested Party may, however, grant extradition if the
requesting Party gives such assurance as may be considered satisfactory that the
death penalty will not be carried out. The assurance given may vary according to
the country concerned and even according to the particular case . It may, for example,

be a formal undertaking not to carry out the death penalty, an undertaking to recommend to the head
of the state that the death penalty be commuted, a simple statement that it is intended to make such
a recommendation or an undertaking to return the person extradited if he is condemned to death . It is

in any case for the requested Party to decide whether the assurances given are
satisfactory. This point has been of particular importance in cases involving
extradition to the United States. In the jurisprudence of the court of Human Rights
in the Soering case, it was further clarified that in cases where the person
concerned could risk the death penalty, the European Convention on
Human Rights would take precedence over the obligation to extradite in
an extradition convention . The jurisprudence of the Italian Constitutional
Court in the case of Venezia (ITA- 1996-2005) went further, stating that it is
contrary to the Italian Constitution for Italy to help execute penalties
which cannot be imposed for any offence in Italy (namely, the death penalty and
punishments contrary to humane precepts) and that as the prohibition of the death penalty in Italy is
unconditional, a person may not be extradited to a state where they may be
susceptible to the death penalty, even when adequate assurances are provided
by the requesting state that this will not be the case.

Politics
indefinite detention is controversial in congress, but also in the Supreme Court

RT 14
RT News, RT news covers the major issues of our time, Congress reaffirms indefinite detention of Americans under
NDAA, Published: 05-22-2014, http://rt.com/usa/160832-ndaa-gitmo-detention-approved/

The US House of Representatives approved an annual defense spending bill early

Thursday after rejecting a proposed amendment that would have prevented the
United States government from indefinitely detaining American citizens . An
amendment introduced in the House on Wednesday this week asked that Congress
repeal a controversial provision placed in the National Defense Authorization Act of
2012 that has ever since provided the executive branch with the power to arrest
and detain indefinitely any US citizen thought to be affiliated with Al-Qaeda or
associated organizations. This amendment would eliminate indefinite detention in
the United States and its territories, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Washington), a co-author of the failed
amendment, said during floor debate on Wednesday, So basically anybody that we captured, who we
suspected of terrorist activity, would no longer be subject to indefinite detention , as is
now, currently, the law. "That is an enormous amount of power to give the executive, to
take someone and lock them up without due process ," Smith added. "It is an enormous amount
of power to grant the executive, and I believe places liberty and freedom at risk in this country." Pres. Barack
Obama vowed when he signed the 2012 NDAA into law on December 31, 2011 that he would not use the indefinite

the
White House fought back adamantly and appealed a District Court ruling that initially
reversed the indefinite detention clause, eventually sending the challenge to the
Supreme Court where it stalled until earlier this month with the justices there said
they would not consider the case. The bill sponsored by Smith and co-author Rep. Paul Broun (Rdetention powers provided to him by Congress. When that provision was challenged in federal court, however,

Georgia) would have given the legislative branch a chance to repeal the same provisions that SCOTUS declined to

A separate proposal from Rep.

Smith meant to expedite the shut-down of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba was also rejected early Thursday; an amendment from Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Florida) intended to cut
hear, but the bipartisan amendment failed on a vote of 191 to 230.

federal funding for recreational facilities at Gitmo, however, was approved in the NDAA draft that left the House on
Thursday.

Hillery will inevitably have debates about indefinite

detainment
NEWELL 15JIM NEWELL MAY 6, 2015, Politics writer Salon, Democrats protect
Hillary plan: How the DNCs thin debate schedule hands Clinton the advantage,
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/06/democrats_protect_hillary_plan_how_the_dncs_thi
n_debate_schedule_hands_clinton_the_advantage/

The Democratic National Committee finally announced its preliminary schedule for Democratic
presidential debates on Tuesday. It will sanction six (6) debates beginning this fall. Iowa, New
Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina will each get one, with two more to be determined by some
sort of geographical YOLO algorithm. The DNC will also adopt the RNCs enforcement mechanism: Any
candidate or debate sponsor wishing to participate in DNC debates, must agree to participate
exclusively in the DNC-sanctioned process, the DNCs statement reads. Any violation would result in
forfeiture of the ability to participate in the remainder of the debate process. Six debates, meaning
Hillary Clinton will interact with her challenger(s) and the media for a grand total of six to nine

hours over the course of the primary process.

Any participation in black market debates will

result in indefinite imprisonment in Debate Gitmo. For whom is this a favorable
schedule: Hillary Clinton or the field? Lets compare the reactions from the Clinton campaign
and the campaign-in-waiting of one of her few likely challengers, Martin OMalley. From that
fount of terse, occasional decrees, the Hillary Clinton Twitter feed: And from Team OMalley:
If Governor OMalley decides to run, we will expect a full, robust, and inclusive set of
debatesboth nationally and in early primary and caucus states, said OMalley spokesman
Lis Smith. This has been customary in previous primary seasons. In a year as critical as
2016, exclusivity does no one any favors. Six is a compromise between the number of
debates the Clinton campaign would prefer, which is zero, and the number her challengers
would prefer, which is infinity. That the Clinton campaign appears satisfied with this
compromise and OMalleys campaign does not indicates that the Clinton got the better of
this negotiation. Makes sense. Its not unfair to describe the Democratic National Committee
as an informal adjunct of the Hillary Clinton campaign. She is the establishment front-runner
the most establishment-y front-runner there has been in the modern era in either party,
really and the Democratic National Committee is quite literally the Democratic Party
establishment. For all the public comments the DNC will issue about how its hoping for an
open, competitive, democratic nomination process, its job is to protect Hillary Clinton from
being unduly tarnished ahead of the general election. I write none of this with malice. Its
just the way things are! And given the way things are, if, say, Bernie Sanders gave Hillary
Clinton a run for her money or even took the nomination, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman
Schultz would have a heart attack. In its statement the DNC writes that a six sanctioned
debate schedule is consistent with the precedent set by the DNC during the 2004 and 2008
cycles. Well, not really. There were north of 10 debates in the 2004 cycle not all DNCsanctioned, but this was before the DNC penalized candidates for appearing in nonsanctioned debates. And in 2008 there were 27 Democratic debates, according to National
Journal. (OK, 27 debates was a bit much. One moment I distinctly remember was the
weekend before the New Hampshire primary. The candidates debated Saturday night and
again on Sunday morning. Ruining everyones goddamn weekend! Sheesh.) Six debates is
not many debates and serves to the challengers disadvantage. Its not that Hillary Clinton is
a poor debater. It was actually one of her strengths against Barack Obama in 2008. I doubt
she is terrified of Bernie Sanders or Martin OMalley. But she doesnt want to give them any
oxygen, either. Her challengers will benefit naturally from exposure on the same stage as
Hillary Clinton. And the exclusivity clause is to prevent Martin OMalley, Bernie Sanders, Jim
Webb and whoever else from holding their own gathering in some college dorm room and
asking WHERES HILLARY? SHES AFRAID. Its good that the Clinton campaign will at least do
these six debates, since it was reportedly considering not debating at all at one point. But
the DNCs plan still favors Clinton, and Wasserman Schultz will face pressure to add extra
debates if this competition gets closer than expected.

Hillary is against indefinite detainment

Greenwald 12 Glenn Greenwald, 20 November 2012, Glenn Greenwald is a
fomer columnist on civil liberties and US national security issues for the Guardian.
An ex-constitutional lawyer, he was until 2012 a contributing writer at Salon, US
battles Iraq and Afghanistan over detention without charges,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/20/iraq-afghanistan-daqduqindefinite-detention
For several decades, the US government - in annual "human rights" reports issued
by the State Department (reports mandated by the US Congress) - has formally
condemned nations around the globe for the practice of indefinite detention:
imprisoning people without charges or any fixed sentence. These reports, said
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her preface to last year's document, are

grounded in the principle that "respect for human rights is not a western construct
or a uniquely American ideal; it is the foundation for peace and stability
everywhere." That 2011 report condemned numerous nations for indefinite
detention, including Libya ("abuse and lack of review in detention"), Uzbekistan
("arbitrary arrest and detention"), Syria ("arbitrary arrest and detention"), and Iran
("Authorities held detainees, at times incommunicado, often for weeks or months
without charge or trial").

Obama doesnt support indefinite detention

Davis 13 Charles Davis, April 30th, 2013,

US President Barack Obama today condemned the Guantanamo Bay prison camp
run by US President Barack Obama, channeling the moral outrage last heard on the
2008 campaign trail. The idea that we would still detain forever a group of
individuals that have not been tried, that is contrary to who we are, that is contrary
to our interests and it has to stop, the president said during a press conference at
the White House.

Security K Links

Terrorism
Their terrorism impacts are grounded in biopolitical security of
privileged forms of lifethe War on Terror has directly
contributed to the domestic security industrial complex where
ALL of us are subject to becoming the terrorist
Lisle 13

(Debbie Lisle is a Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Cultural Studies in the School
of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy at Queens University Belfast, Frontline
leisure: Securitizing tourism in the War on Terror, 2013 44: 127 Security Dialogue, DOI:
10.1177/0967010613479426, April 19th, 2013)
[http://sdi.sagepub.com/content/44/2/127]

To even begin to see the different ways in which tourism intersects with the War on
Terrors matrix of exceptionality and securitization, it is necessary to acknowledge
that security and governance now operate in multiple scales and sites. First, they operate
through a biopolitical register in which life itself becomes the object of
security (Dillon and Lobo-Guerrero, 2008). Viral, microbial, bacterial, corporeal,
technological and informational registers are now part of the War on Terrors
security apparatus, and are thus legitimate sites for increasingly invasive
interventions made in the name of stopping terrorism. Scholars in international
relations have been at the forefront of demonstrating the biopolitical nature of
international borders how they can be operationalized anywhere (e.g. in bodily
organs, in abstract algorithms) and used to preemptively identify all potentially
threatening forms of life (Amoore, 2006; Muller, 2011; Salter, 2008; VaughanWilliams, 2009). Second, security and governance are not just mobilized through
discourses and speech acts: they operate at a material register that brings human
and non-human agents into emergent assemblages (Aradau, 2010; Coward, 2012). As Aradau
(2010: 497505) argues, materiality has been overlooked not only by constructivist approaches to
securitization, but also by Foucault himself, whose idea of discourse remains wedded to a linguistic
model. Third, security and governance are not reducible to state force: they also

operate in the unexpected and mundane worlds of everyday life through the
feelings, experiences, practices and actions of people outside the realm of
formal politics (Pain and Smith, 2008: 2). Familiar spaces (e.g. city streets,
shopping malls, airports), activities (e.g. visiting the library, attending a peaceful
demonstration) and routines (e.g. taking public transport, booking flights online) are
now important sites of intervention where privileged bodies and forms of life are
more precisely, clearly and preemptively secured against deviant bodies and forms
of life (Amoore, 2007, 2009; Anderson, 2010; Nadesan, 2008; Pain and Smith,
2008). Fourth, security and governance do not simply involve the production of particular
subjectivities (e.g. the terrorist, the border guard, the citizen), but also seek to transform,
regulate and manage the behaviour, conduct and disposition of those subjectivities.
Here, Foucaults account of governmentality the conduct of conduct has been enormously helpful in
demonstrating which behaviours, attitudes and dispositions are enabled and incentivized by new forms of global
security, and which are isolated and targeted (Amoore, 2006, 2007; Burchell et al., 1991; De Larrinaga and Doucet,
2010; Foucault, 2010; Larner and Walters, 2006). Finally, the security and governance mobilized by the War on
Terror have a particular geopolitics.

The idea that everyone is a potential terrorist, and

everywhere is a potential target, does not mean that practices of security and governance occur with
the same intensity or force with respect to all sites and subjects. Indeed, much critical work has exposed the

familiar geopolitical cleavages that underscore liberal adventures of war, intervention and political violence, as well
as less explicit forms of differentiating, controlling and intervening in populations in the name of protecting the
liberal order (Amoore, 2009; Amoore and De Goede, 2008; Aradau and Van Munster, 2007; Dillon and Neal, 2008;
Dillon and Reid, 2009; Evans, 2010; Ingram and Dodds, 2009; Jabri, 2006). All this is to say th at

practices of
security and governance operate in pernicious ways and in unforeseen registers,
which sets the context for how we might begin to understand how even the trivial
life-worlds of leisure, travel and relaxation have been assimilated into the War on
Terror.

Focus on the unending threat of terrorism allows for the use of

unlimited violence. This means wars of extermination that risk
the survival of humanity.
Puar and Rai 4 (Jasbir, Asst Prof of Gender @ Rutgers and Amit, Prof of English
@ FSU, Social Text 22:3//shree)
But perhaps most crucial is the very grammar involved: the obsessive use of the
future tense signals both a founding anxiety of (and in) this discourse and the
drawing of the subject of counterterrorism to the pleasures of the always as yet
unimagined. As if projecting itself into an always already mastered future, where the
risk of terrorism is neutralized before actualization, the time of counterterrorism
discourse is always in a future that is continuous with a fixed and romanticized
national past. Derrida once said, "The future can only be anticipated in the form of
an absolute danger. It is that which breaks absolutely with constituted normality and can only be
proclaimed, presented, as a sort of monstrosity." Counterterrorism is a technology that dreams of managing and
mastering this monstrosity by targeting subjectivities, communities, countries, and, indeed, time itself. Thus, if "the
United States will confront the threat of terrorism for the foreseeable future," the counterterrorism imaginary
aspires to the total management of this "foreseeable" political risk.38 In that sense its immediate precursor and ally
is the technology of insurance. In insurance, the term risk designates neither "an event nor a general kind of event
occurring in reality (the unfortunate kind) but a specific mode of treatment of certain events capable of happening
to a group of individualsor, more exactly, to values or capitals possessed or represented by a collectivity of
individuals: that is to say, a population. Nothing is a risk in itself ;

there is no risk in reality. But on the

other hand, anything can be a risk; it all depends on how one analyzes the danger,
considers the event."39 In the counterterrorism imaginary, risk names a [End Page
92] procedure of assessment, counterintelligence, containment, and projection into
the future. Its analysis is predicated on the fixity of implacably opposed political
forces whose only resolution resides in the murderous destiny of the United States
to manage democracy for the world (it is our "calling," as President Bush says). Moreover, the sliding
between structure and network returns here in the form of a sort of insurance value. The sliding between the
securely fixed and the terrifyingly unmoored that names the essential dynamic of counterterrorism technologies
generates specific kinds of self-legitimating exchange values that have innumerable trajectories and their own
surplus: cultural (counterterrorism revalues Western civilization), political (it gives the security state the aura of a
need), economic (the economics of fear drives the billions of dollars spent on everything from spy planes to home
security systems), and affective (fear itself has been given a new value after 9/11). Risk is at once the technology of
the future that calls forth all the arts of prediction that science can conjure in its mission to master the future and
the abstract machine that diagrams our present. But these termspre-sent, futureare no longer actually
operative in community formations of terrorist risk. They interpenetrate at each moment, determining each other in
a dance of pure repetition. Thus when Randy Martin states that risk "is a rhetoric of the future that is really about
the present; it is a means of price setting on the promise that a future is attainable," one must see that, first, risk
(financial or terroristic) is not merely a rhetoricit is an abstract machine whose shiny surfaces do not reflect or

form assemblages with other machines, like panopticism,

biopolitics, or necropolitics; and second, the future is now: the ambivalence of the
present has given way to the anxieties of the present-future, this anxiety is itself a
temporality, an impossible becoming-totalitarian.40 Terrorist risk engenders a nation or, better,
signify something as much as they

civilizational burden unequally shared between members of a risk community. Members of that community would
include the capitalist elite from all countries, but not all could exercise equally the right to articulate a position in a

"collectively binding" process of "decision making,"41 which demonstrates the discursive kinship to ecological risk.

Terrorist risk is both an acknowledgment of the limits of knowledge and a kind of

abstract but very real spur forever driving into the bodies of these men and women,
driving them to produce absolute knowledge of the other, to connect bodies to
security machines, to detain, harass, and always surveil citizens and immigrants
and thereby multiply the borders to be policed (and, of course, as Homi K. Bhabha so

brilliantly points out, it is the enunciation of the stereotype that is crucial to this paradox).42 In that
sense, the terrorist threat draws its enemies (the civilized subjects [End Page 93] of modern risk
communities) to a future that has already excluded it. In the future, when it will come, and it will
certainly come, there will be no terrorism; meanwhile, in the present, its seemingly infinite proliferation
only means that all we are saying is beside the point: we must exterminate the brutes.43 In
any case, what becomes possible through this preliminary diagram of terrorist risk is the return of the
early modern practice of a "good risk," which is affirmative and designed to be "embraced for selfbetterment."44 Because terrorist risk is both a burden of civilization for the transnational risk
community against the axis of evil and a mission for the truth, the good, and humanity, danger is
revalued as a civilizational value. That is why the civilized are waging an unending war. With
every new body bag and suicide bomber the value of "danger" goes up. Counterterrorism, as Achille
Mbembe has so movingly shown, is a war machine that assembles, on the same plane of immanence,
strategies and rationalities of discipline, biopolitics, and now, once again, necropolitics. As strategy,
rationality, and discourse, what this document outlines is a civilizational project machined to a
necropolitics. As we have shown, civilization is the nodal point for multiple axes of power: a
normalizing sexuality as well as a white supremacist agenda operate through it; "free and open
economies" (it goes without saying today that a very closed capitalist restructuring is implied by this
phrase) are enshrined in its charter; future-oriented, market-savvy subjective forms are produced
through its normalization practices; an implicitly Christian cosmology gives its adherents a sense of
mission; microtechnologies of surveillance and policingeverything from a total awareness database
to eye recognition softwareoperate at speeds up to a hundred times faster than current computer
processors.45 This civilizational project also puts in place specific spaces of participation and
resistanceartificial negativity, Adorno once called it; the "subaltern public sphere" is another version
of itwhere civility, reason, and the rule of law govern who has a voice, what enunciations are heard,
and the parameters of debate. But all dissent of course is treason in a state of emergency, and so the
spaces of resistance alternate as holding cells as well.

US-EU-NATO
By defining security around the predominance of US influence,
every conflict of interests becomes justification for
militarization, escalating to war.
Campbell 98 (David, Professor International Politics at University of New Castle,
"Writing Security; United States Foreign Policy the Politics of Identity," 31-33)
Most important just as the source of danger has never been fixed, neither has the
identity that it was said to threaten. The contours of this identity have been the
subject of constant (re)writing; no rewriting in the sense of changing the meaning,
but rewriting in the sense of inscribing something so that which is contingent and
subject to flux is rendered more permanent. While one might have expected few if
any references to national values or purposes in confidential prepared for the inner
sanctum of national security policy (after all, don't they know who they are or what
they represent?) the texts of foreign policy are replete with statements about the
fulfillment of the republic, the fundamental purpose of the nation, God given rights ,
moral codes, the principles of European civilization, the fear of cultural and spiritual
loss, and the responsibilities and duties thrust upon the gleaming example of
America. In this sense, the texts that guided national security policy did more than
simply offer strategic analysis of the "reality" they confronted: they actively
concerned themselves with the scripting of a particular American identity. Stamped
"Top Secret" and read by only the select and power few, the texts effaced the boundary between inside and outside
with their quasi-Puritan figurations. In employing this mode of representation, the foreign policy texts of the
postwar period recalled the seventeenth-century literary genre of the jeremiad, or political sermon, in which Puritan
preachers combined searing critiques with appeals for spiritual renewal. Later to establish the interpretive
framework for national identity, these exhortations drew on a European tradition of preaching the omnipresence of
sin so as to instill the desire for order but they added a distinctly affirmative moment: The American Puritan
jeremiad was the ritual of a culture on an errand - which is to say, a culture based on a faith in process. Substituting
teleology for hierarchy, it discarded the Old War ideal of stasis for a New World vision of the future. Its function was
to create a climate of anxiety that helped release the restless "progressivist" energies required for the success of

the venture. The European jeremiad thrived on anxiety, of course .

Like all "Traditionalist" forms of

ritual, it used fear and trembling to teach acceptance of fixed social norms. But the

American jeremiad went much further. It made anxiety its end as well as its means. Crisis was the
social norm it sought to inculcate. The very concept of errand after all, implied a state of unfulfillment.
The future, though divinely assured, was never quite there, and New England's Jeremiahs set out to
provide the sense of insecurity that would ensure the outcome. Whereas the Puritan jeremiads were
preached b y religious figures in public, the national security planners entreated in private the urgency of the
manifold dangers confronting the republic. But the refrains of their political sermons have occupied a prominent
place in postwar political discourse. On two separate occasions (first in 1950, and t hen in 196), private citizens with
close ties to the foreign policy bureaucracy established a "Committee on the Present Danger" to alert a public they
perceived as lacking resolve and will to necessity of confronting the political and military threat of communism and

More recently, with Pentagon planners concerned about the "guerillas,

assassins, terrorists, and subversives" said to be "nibbling away" at the U nited
States, proclamations that the fundamental values of the country are under threat have been no less insistent.
As Oliver North announced to the U.S. Congress: "It is very important for the
American people to know that this is a dangerous world; that we live at risk and that
this nation is at risk in a dangerous world ." And in a State Department report, the 1990s were
the Society Union.

foreshadowed as an era in which divergent political critiques nonetheless would seek equally to overcome the
"corruption" and "profligacy" induced by the "loss" of "American purpose" in Vietnam the "moral renewal." To this
end, the rendering of Operation Desert Shield-turn-Storm as an overwhelming exhibition of America's rediscovered

The cold war, then , was both a struggle that exceeded the
military threat of the Soviet Union and a struggle into which any number of potential
mission stands as testament.

candidates, regardless of their strategic capacity , were slotted as a threat. In this

sense, the collapse, overcoming, or surrender of one of the protagonists at this
historical junction does not mean "it" is over. The cold war's meaning will
undoubtedly change, but if we recall that the phrase cold war was coined by a
fourteenth century Spanish writer to represent the persistent rivalry between
Christians and Arabs, we come to recognize that the sort of struggle the phrase
demotes is a struggle over identity: a struggle that is no context-specific and thus
not rooted in the existence of a particular kind of Soviet Union. Besides, the United
States-led war against Iraq should caution us to the fact that the Western (and
particularly American) interpretive dispositions that predominated in the post-World
War II international environment - with their zero-sum analyses of international
action, the sense of endangerment ascribed to all the activities of the other, the
fear of internal challenge and subversion, the tendency to militarize all response, and the
willingness to draw the lines of superiority/inferiority between us and them - were
not specific to one state or ideology. As a consequence, we need to rethink the
convention understanding of foreign policy, and the historicity of the cold war in
particular.