Sunteți pe pagina 1din 52

Case neg to War on Drugs af

(KQ lab)
***note you should read either the CP or K
you probs dont need both. There is an extra T
you could read at the end. Have fun and stay
hydrated ***

T- domestic
Domestic surveillance deals with information transmitted
within a country
HRC 14 Human Rights Council 2014 IMUNC2014
Domestic surveillance: Involves the monitoring, interception, collection, analysis, use, preservation, retention
of, interference with, or access to information that includes, reflects, or arises from or a persons
communications in the past, present or future with or without their consent or choice, existing or occurring
inside a particular country.

Violation: they deal with drug cartel that is not within U.S.
Any foreign element means it is not domestic
Olberman 6 Countdown with Keith Olberman, updated
1/26/2006 7:05:00 PM ET White House defines 'domestic' spying
The White House is trying to sell this so hard that it actually issued an official press release titled, Setting the
Record Straight, Charges of Domestic Spying.
Look, your tax dollars in action. Word wealth, SAT training class. As a public service, COUNTDOWN will
now review, and, where applicable, provide translations of the White House take on what domestic means
versus what international means, and then well add a few bonus examples of our own.
Quoting, Deputy Director Of National Intelligence General Michael Hayden, semicolon; One End Of Any
Call Targeted Under This Program Is Always Outside The United States.
This is the glass-is-half-full view of warrantless eavesdropping, much as if a U.S. soldier, who, like the average
human male, has about 12 pints of blood in his body, would lose six of those pints.
Critics of the NSA terrorist surveillance program would say, That soldier is half empty. The White House would
remind you that that soldier is half full.
Anyway, the press release actually gives several examples of the differences between the meanings of these two
words. Definition, Domestic Versus International. Domestic Calls are calls inside the United States.
International Calls are calls either to or from the United States.
And dont forget to deposit $2 for the first five minutes, and an extra $2 to cover the cost of the guy listening in
at the NSA.
Domestic Flights, the White House reminds us, are flights from one American city to another. International
Flights are flights to or from the United States.
So what happens if I call a domestic airline about a flight to Europe, but theyve outsourced their reservation
agents to India? Is that a domestic call about an international flight, or an international call about a domestic
Wait, theres more. Domestic Mail consists of letters and packages sent within the United States, the press
release reads. International Mail consists of letters and packages sent to or from the United States.
And dont forget, we can not only open either kind, kind if we damn well feel like it, but if youre using an
international stamp and we need it for our collection, were keeping it.
One more item from the press release, Domestic Commerce involves business within the United States.
International Commerce involves business between the United States and other countries.
International commerce. You know, the kind of stuff Jack Abramoff did for the -- Huh, leave Abramoff out of
it? Gotcha, sorry.

Well, anyway, if youre still not clear on this domestic-versus-international stuff, as promised, a couple of more
definitions to help pull you through.
Domestic is an adjective describing your dog or cat or any other animal you have as a pet, like a tiger or a boa
constrictor. The Internationale, meanwhile, is the worldwide anthem of those socialists and communists.
Internationals are soccer players who play in countries in which they were not born. Domestics is an old-timey
kind of term for people who cleaned your house.
International is the kind of law that lets us take terror suspects to old Soviet-era gulags in Eastern Europe and
beat the crap out of them, while domestic is the kind of wine they bottle in California.

Ground- No ground for the neg to run any of their args---and this isnt just a
neg whine. There would be no CP solvency other than a stale states debate to run
against small projects affs or city affs
Education- If they are of topic, it ruins the value of debate. The framers of
the resolution created it for a reason : for us to learn about a specific topic. If they
arent on topic and going against the very things we learned in elementary school,
we dont learn about the topic the way we should and thus destroy the value of

Fairness- The af is being unfair with their case and interpretation of the
resolution. This is explained by the fact they explode the topic by underlimiting it,
making it unfair to be the neg because we lose so much ground that we can hardly

Jurisdiction- T is a voter because it is not within the judges jurisdiction to

vote for an untopical case. The judges realm of jurisdiction is the resolution, and
nothing else. Even if the aff proves their untopical case to be a good idea, you cant
vote for them when we show they didnt actually affirm the resolution due to the
fact they are off topic.


Marijuana cp
Plan: The USFG should legalize marihuana in the United
States, and retroactively release those convicted for crimes
related to marihuana and compensate them.
every year tons of people are arrested, convicted, prosecuted,
and ultimately confined in a prison industrial complex that is
growing out of control
BW 12, Brown Watch, News for People of Color, "War on Drugs is a War on Black &
Brown Men - 75 Years of Racial Control: Happy Birthday Marijuana Prohibition",
October 2,
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic
music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relatisons with Negroes,

As we approach the 75th

anniversary of marijuana prohibition in the United States on October 1, it is important to
remember why marijuana was deemed illicit in the first place, and why we as Americans
must open our eyes to the insidious strategy behind 75 years of failed policy and
ruined lives. Marijuana laws were designed not to control marijuana, but to control the Mexican
immigrants who had brought this native plant with them to the U.S. Fears over loss of jobs
entertainers and any others.- Harry Anslinger, first Drug Czar. From [HERE]

and of the Mexicans themselves led cities to look for ways to keep a close eye on the newcomers. In 1914, El Paso Texas became the

This ban gave police the right to

search, detain and question Mexican immigrants without reason , except the suspicion that they
first jurisdiction in the U.S. to ban the sale and possession of marijuana.

were in possession of marijuana. Folklore started to erupt about the effect that marijuana had on those who used it. As Harry

Fast forward to 2012. Marijuana is

still an illicit substance and the laws are still being used to justify the search,
detainment and questioning of populations deemed untrustworthy and suspicious by
modern society, namely the poor and young men of color. A prime example is New Yorks Stop and
Frisk program, which stopped nearly 700,000 people in 2011. Hailed as a strategy for removing guns and violent crime from the
streets, this method of stopping and questioning suspicious individuals, highlights the racial inequities
associated with drug laws. From 2002 to 2011, African American and Hispanic
residents made up close to 90% of people stopped. This is not limited to New York. In California, AfricanAnslinger stated, Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.

Americans are 4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana, 12 times more likely to go to prison with a felony marijuana charge,

The strategy of using marijuana

laws to stop, detain and imprison poor and minority populations must stop NOW. In
the past 75 years we have seen mounting evidence of the benign nature of the
marijuana plant, and its tremendous potential for medical development. But the
rampant misinformation about the effects of marijuana USE is dwarfed by the
lifetime of suffering that a marijuana CONVICTION can bring . In 2010, there were
853,839 marijuana arrests in the U.S., 750,591 of those were for possession. A drug
conviction in America is the gift that keeps on giving. Affected individuals must face
a lifetime of stigma that can prevent employment, home ownership, education,
voting and the ability to be a parent. The issue of mass incarceration and the War on Drugs is featured in the
and 3 times more likely to go to prison with a marijuana possession charge.

new documentary, The House I Live In. In the film, Richard L. Miller, author of Drug Warriors and Their Prey, From Police Power to
Police State, presents a very sinister take on the method behind the Drug War madness. Miller suggests that

drug laws,

such as those for marijuana are part of a process of annihilation aimed at poor and
minority populations. Miller poses that drug laws are designed to identify, ostracize,
confiscate, concentrate, and annihilate these populations by assigning the label of
drug user, criminal, or addict, seizing property, taking away freedom and
institutionalizing entire communities in our ever growing prison system . We can stop this
from happening. Marijuana was deemed illegal without acknowledging science or the will of the people. 75 years later,
50% of the population supports marijuana legalization, and families are still being
torn apart and lives destroyed over the criminal sanctions associated with its use. The most vulnerable members
of our society are also the targets of a prison industrial complex out of control and getting
bigger every day. Someone is arrested for marijuana in the U.S. every 38 seconds , we have no
time to waste, tax and regulate now. Oregon, Colorado and Washington are all considering a more sensible and humane approach

This is a unique
opportunity for citizens to cast a vote heard round the world, to stand up not only for the freedom to consume marijuana,
but against the atrocities and human suffering that result from the criminalization of
to marijuana as all three have tax and regulate initiatives on their ballots this November.

reframing legalization as a question of justice positions it as a

viable alternative to the war on drugs frame
Katherine Tate 14, Professor of Political Science at UC Irvine, Something's in the
Air: Race, Crime, and the Legalization of Marijuana, pg. 9
legalization of personal- use marijuana is the only
alternative to draconian laws drawn up in the "war on drugs" regime of the past
three decades. It is well established that concern and paranoia over petty "crack" cocaine arrests for sales, possession, and
For increasing numbers of Americans,

use drove the mass warehousing of California's prisons and jail populations to become the largest in the United States (Lusane 1991:

the U.S. federal

system of crime control has left minority citizens less able to challenge unfair
sentencing laws. Noting that marijuana possession constituted nearly 8 of 10 drugrelated arrests in the 1990s. Michelle Alexander (2010) insists that this period of "unprecedented
punitiveness" resulted "in prison sentences (rather than dismissal, community service, or probation)" to
the degree that "in two short decades, between 1980 and 2000 the number of
people incarcerated in our nation's prisons and jails soared from roughly 300.000 to
more than 2 million. By the end of 2007, more than 7 million Americansor one in
every 31 adults were behind bars, on probation, or parole" (Alexander 2010. 59). Pushed
by drug prosecutions, the rising rate of incarceration reached unprecedented levels
in the 1990s. Today's movement toward more prisons, mandatory minimums and reinstatement of the death penalty logically
Provine 2007: Reinerman and Levine 1997: Weatherspoon 1998: Weaver 2007). Miller (2008) contends that

followed the racially exploitative "law and order" campaigns of the 1960s and 1970s (Murakawa 2008). Conservative American
politicians use the mythical Black or Hispanic male drug dealer, like the Black female welfare queen, to drum up votes. A widespread

African Americans
bear the brunt of law-and-order management of U.S. marijuana laws because of
how marijuana use is racialized. Political scientist Doris Provine contends that the U.S. government
increased its punitive response toward drug use as a response to racial fears and
stereotypes. She writes: "[d]rugs remain, symbolically, a menace to white, middle-class
values" (2007. 89). Both politicians and media have used this issue to construct a crisis and sustain punitive state drug laws.
The war on drugs, she concludes, has greatly harmed minority citizens through their
imprisonment, contributing to deep inequalities in education, housing, health care,
and equal opportunities to advance economically . The facts of use. sales, and possession, confirmed by
consensus in reported government statistics, advocacy studies, and policy think tanks suggests that

academic and critical legal studies literature, are strikingly different from how the national and local media choose to present them.
One study focusing on marijuana initiate found "among Blacks, the annual incidence rate (per 1.000 potential new users) increased

from 8.0 in 1966 to 16.7 in 1968. reached a peak at about the same time as "Whites" (19.4 in 1976). then remained high throughout
the late 1970s. Following the low rates in the 1980s, rates among Blacks rose again in the early 1990s, reached a peak in 1997 and
1998 (19.2 and 19.1. respectively), then dropped to 14.0 in 1999. Similar to the general pattern for Whites and Blacks. Hispanics'
annual incidence rate rose during late 1970s and 1990s, with a peak in 1998 (17.8)" (National Survey on Drug Use 1999).

Individuals and groups in civil society, advocacy communities, and state legislatures must put
forth a serious struggle among activists and potential coalition partners who can understand
the need for reform as a matter of civil rights and justice, and not the morality of
marijuana consumption. Supporting decriminalization potentially can be the training ground
for a new generation of leadership in addressing the larger problem of mass incarceration and social
and political isolation associated with it. For Black people and their allies who long for the days against all odds
of political education, voter mobilization, legal reform, group solidarity, challenge to the political parties, and political
empowerment, expressed in the modern civil rights movement, the matter of decriminalization is ripe
for galvanizing a collaboration at the grassroots. Too many Blacks have assumed that the "War on Drugs" ended with
the dissipation of the "crack" emergency, when, in sum, marijuana's criminalizationrather than incarcerationof Black people has

mass incarceration has effectively

reasserted Jim Crow second-class citizenship (or no citizenship) rights on African American
been more perennial. If Michelle Alexander (2010) is correct in arguing that

then they must get off the sidelines of the legalization of cannabis or
decriminalization struggle and stop allowing others to fight what is
essentially their battle. This has long been the case in the challenge to the
crushing "prison industrial complex." Whites and others, for the most part,
have been the leaders in reform efforts concerning such things as mandatory
minimums, the old 100:1 gram of cocaine-to-crack formula, and health care
for geriatric or HIV AIDS patients in prisons, while we have seen Calvin
"Snoop- Dogg"' Broadus become more influential than the congressional
Black Caucus to our young. When ordinary people change their thinking and
consciousness and begin to demystify small, personal- use marijuana, then
the leaders will eventually come around without reticence or fear. The

marijuana debate needs to be reframed to remove all penalties against its

use (Scherlen 2012). This is our exit strategy: decriminalization reform is the only path to
reversing the dismal trends minorities face in America.

Legalizing marihuana helps stop racial profiling

Associated Press, 15 (Colorado's pot legalization does little to solve racial
disparity in drug arrests ) m.dawg
The analysis did not break out data for Colorados largest ethnic minority, Latinos.
Thats because data comes from the National Incident-Based Reporting System,
which does not tally numbers for Latinos. Advertisement One of the regions top
officials for coordinating drug enforcement, Tom Gorman of the Rocky Mountain High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, insisted that officers are not racially
profiling pot users. Racial disparities exist in other laws. What does that mean, that
homicide law, rape laws, weapon laws are racist? There are other factors going on
here that we need to address, Gorman said. After legalization, racial disparities did
ease somewhat for marijuana distribution charges. Blacks accounted for about 22%
of such arrests in 2010 and around 18% in 2014. The arrest data got a mixed
response from the regional head of the NAACP. The overall decrease in arrests,
charges and cases is enormously beneficial to communities of color who bore the
brunt of marijuana prohibition, Rosemary Harris Lytle said in a statement.


Terror DA
The threat is increasing recruiting levels are high and the likelihood of a homegrown
attack is huge

VOA News 5/11/15 (Homeland Security Chief: Global Terror Threat Has Entered 'New Phase'")
Appearing on the Fox News Sunday broadcast from Paris, Congressman Michael McCaul, chairman of
the House Homeland Security Committee, said there has been an uptick in threat streams against local
police and military bases. "We're seeing these on an almost daily basis. It's very concerning. I'm over
here with the French counter-terrorism experts on the Charlie Hebdo case, how we can stop foreign
fighters coming out of Iraq and Syria to Europe. But then, we have this phenomenon in the United States
where they (terrorists) can be activated by the Internet. And, really, terrorism has gone viral," said
McCaul. McCaul said the potential terror threat may even be greater than the FBI has outlined. He said
the United States faces two threats: one from fighters coming out of the Middle East and the other from
thousands at home who will take up the call to arms when the IS group sends out an Internet message. He
warned the threat will only get worse, largely because of the existence of so many failed states in the
Middle East and North Africa.

Risk of terrorism is low now because of communciations surveillance

Lewis 14 (senior fellow and director of the Strategic Technologies Program at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies)
(James Andrew, Underestimating Risk in the Surveillance Debate,
There is general agreement that as terrorists splinter into regional groups, the risk of attack increases.
Certainly, the threat to Europe from militants returning from Syria points to increased risk for U.S. allies. The messy U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and (soon) Afghanistan contributes to an increase in risk.24
European authorities have increased surveillance and arrests of suspected militants as the Syrian conflict lures hundreds of Europeans. Spanish counterterrorism police say they have broken up more terrorist cells
than in any other European country in the last three years.25 The chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, who is better placed than most members of Congress to assess risk, said in June 2014
that the level of terrorist activity was higher than he had ever seen it.26 If the United States overreacted in response to September 11, it now risks overreacting to the leaks with potentially fatal consequences.

A simple assessment of the risk of attack by jihadis would take into account a resurgent Taliban, the
power of lslamist groups in North Africa, the continued existence of Shabaab in Somalia, and the
appearance of a powerful new force, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Al Qaeda, previously the leading threat, has
splintered into independent groups that make it a less coordinated force but more difficult target. On the positive side, the United States, working with allies and friends, appears to have contained or eliminated
jihadi groups in Southeast Asia.
Many of these groups seek to use adherents in Europe and the United States for manpower and funding. A Florida teenager was a suicide bomber in Syria and Al Shabaab has in the past drawn upon the
Somalipopulation in the United States. Hamas and Hezbollah have achieved quasi-statehood status, and Hamas has supporters in the United States. Iran, which supports the two groups, has advanced capabilities
to launch attacks and routinely attacked U.S. forces in Iraq. The United Kingdom faces problems from several hundred potential terrorists within its large Pakistani population, and there are potential attackers in
other Western European nations, including Germany, Spain, and the Scandinavian countries. France, with its large Muslim population faces the most serious challenge and is experiencing a wave of troubling antiSemitic attacks that suggest both popular support for extremism and a decline in control by security forces. The chief difference between now and the situation before 9/11 is that all of these countries have put in
place much more robust surveillance systems, nationally and in cooperation with others, including the United States, to detect and prevent potential attacks. Another difference is that the failure of U.S. efforts in

Western targets still remain

of interest, but are more likely to face attacks from domestic sympathizers. This could change if the wellresourced ISIS is frustrated in its efforts to establish a new Caliphate and turns its focus to the West. In
addition, the al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen (al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) continues to regularly plan
attacks against U.S. targets.
The incidence of attacks in the United States or Europe is very low, but we do not have good data on the
number of planned attacks that did not come to fruition. This includes not just attacks that were detected
and stopped, but also attacks where the jihadis were discouraged and did not initiate an operation or press
an attack to its conclusion because of operational difficulties. These attacks are the threat that mass
surveillance was created to prevent. The needed reduction in public anti-terror measures without
increasing the chances of successful attack is contingent upon maintaining the capability provided by
communications surveillance to detect, predict, and prevent attacks. Our opponents have not given up;
neither should we.
Iraq and Afghanistan and the opportunities created by the Arab Spring have opened a new front for jihadi groups that makes their primary focus regional.

Terrorist groups work within drug cartel

Judical Watch, 13 (aw-breaking thrives with secrecy. Judicial Watch fights
government secrecy through litigation under FOIA (Freedom of Information Act),
state Open Records Acts, and related transparency laws. Representative issues and
cases, Mexican Cartels Help Hezbollah Infiltrate U.S.) m.dwag

In a shocking revelation made by a veteran U.S. counterterrorism expert, Hezbollah

has infiltrated the Southwest United States by joining forces with Mexican drug
cartels that have long operated in the region. Judicial Watch has for years reported
on the chilling connection between Islamic extremists and Mexican drug cartels. In
fact, as far back as 2007 JW wrote about an astounding Drug Enforcement Agency
(DEA) report that lays out how Islamic terrorists and Mexican drug gangs have
teamed up to successfully penetrate the U.S. as well as finance terror networks in
the Middle East In Hezbollahs case, a growing business relationship with cartels
has allowed the Shia Islamic militant group to have a growing presence in the U.S.,
says Matthew Levitt, an esteemed terrorism expert with an impressive resume.
Levitt is a former counterterrorism intelligence analyst at the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and State Department counterterrorism adviser. He also served
as the No. 2 intelligence official at the U.S. Treasury where he operated the agencys
terrorism and financial intelligence branch. Levitt offers details of this mind-boggling
collaboration between two powerful criminal enterprises in a new book titled:
Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanons Party of God. A nonprofit dedicated
to exposing the dangers of Islamic extremism, the Clarion Project, profiled the book
in a recent article titled Growing Hezbollah Presence in Southwest U.S.
Hezbollahs business relationship with Mexican drug cartels is a driving force behind
this phenomenon, according to the analysis that quotes alarming excerpts from the
book. For instance in 2009, a former Chief of Operations for the DEA said that
Hezbollah uses the same criminal weapons smugglers, document traffickers and
transportation experts as the drug cartels. A year later a man (Jamal Yousef)
arrested in New York admitted stealing weapons from Iraq for Hezbollah and told
authorities of a Hezbollah stockpile in Mexico that included 100 M-16 assault rifles,
100 AR-15 rifles, 2500 hand grenades, C4 explosives and anti-tank weapons. That
same year a Hezbollah terrorist was captured in Tijuana and a senior Mexican
military officer confirmed the group was conducting explosives training for members
of Mexican drug cartels. In the U.S., law enforcement officials across the nations
Southwest region report a rise in imprisoned gang members with Farsi tattoos that
experts say express loyalty to Hezbollah, the book analysis reveals. One U.S. law
enforcement official is quoted as saying this: You could almost pick your city and
you would probably have a [Hezbollah] presence. This is not surprising considering
that for years a number of reports have exposed the connection between Mexico
and Middle Eastern terrorists. In 2010 a veteran federal agent in the U.S.
immigration system exposed a government cover-up of Middle Eastern terrorists
entering the country through Mexico. The 30-year agent confirmed that thousands
of SIAs (Special Interest Aliens) from terrorist nations like Yemen, Iran, Sudan and
Afghanistanclassified as OTM (Other Than Mexican)were captured along the
southern border. In 2011 a frightening expos broadcast by the worlds largest
Spanish news network documented how Middle Eastern terrorists have infiltrated
Latin American countriesespecially Mexicoto plan an attack against the United
States. The documentary uses undercover videos taken during a seven-month
investigation that prove diplomats from Iran, Venezuela and Cuba planned a
cybernetic attack against the White House, FBI, Pentagon and U.S. nuclear plants. In
a shocking revelation made by a veteran U.S. counterterrorism expert, Hezbollah
has infiltrated the Southwest United States by joining forces with Mexican drug

cartels that have long operated in the region. Judicial Watch has for years reported
on the chilling connection between Islamic extremists and Mexican drug cartels. In
fact, as far back as 2007 JW wrote about an astounding Drug Enforcement Agency
(DEA) report that lays out how Islamic terrorists and Mexican drug gangs have
teamed up to successfully penetrate the U.S. as well as finance terror networks in
the Middle East In Hezbollahs case, a growing business relationship with cartels
has allowed the Shia Islamic militant group to have a growing presence in the U.S.,
says Matthew Levitt, an esteemed terrorism expert with an impressive resume.
Levitt is a former counterterrorism intelligence analyst at the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and State Department counterterrorism adviser. He also served
as the No. 2 intelligence official at the U.S. Treasury where he operated the agencys
terrorism and financial intelligence branch. Levitt offers details of this mind-boggling
collaboration between two powerful criminal enterprises in a new book titled:
Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanons Party of God. A nonprofit dedicated
to exposing the dangers of Islamic extremism, the Clarion Project, profiled the book
in a recent article titled Growing Hezbollah Presence in Southwest
U.S. Hezbollahs business relationship with Mexican drug cartels is a driving force
behind this phenomenon, according to the analysis that quotes alarming excerpts
from the book. For instance in 2009, a former Chief of Operations for the DEA said
that Hezbollah uses the same criminal weapons smugglers, document traffickers
and transportation experts as the drug cartels.

Terrorism guarantees extinction

Hellman, Stanford Engineering Prof, 8

[Martin E., emeritus prof of engineering at Stanford, Spring 2008, Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence
accessed 5-28-14,, hec)
The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the publics mind than the threat of a full-scale
nuclear war, yet this article focuses primarily on the latter. An explanation is therefore in order before
proceeding. A terrorist attack involving a nuclear weapon would be a catastrophe of immense
proportions: A 10-kiloton bomb detonated at Grand Central Station on a typical work day would likely
kill some half a million people, and inflict over a trillion dollars in direct economic damage. America and
its way of life would be changed forever. [Bunn 2003, pages viii-ix]. The likelihood of such an attack is
also significant. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has estimated the chance of a nuclear
terrorist incident within the next decade to be roughly 50 percent [Bunn 2007, page 15]. David Albright,
a former weapons inspector in Iraq, estimates those odds at less than one percent, but notes, We would
never accept a situation where the chance of a major nuclear accident like Chernobyl would be anywhere
near 1% .... A nuclear terrorism attack is a low-probability event, but we cant live in a world where its
anything but extremely low-probability. [Hegland 2005]. In a survey of 85 national security experts,
Senator Richard Lugar found a median estimate of 20 percent for the probability of an attack involving a
nuclear explosion occurring somewhere in the world in the next 10 years, with 79 percent of the
respondents believing it more likely to be carried out by terrorists than by a government [Lugar 2005,
pp. 14-15]. I support increased efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism, but that is not
inconsistent with the approach of this article. Because terrorism is one of the potential trigger
mechanisms for a full-scale nuclear war, the risk analyses proposed herein will include estimating the
risk of nuclear terrorism as one component of the overall risk. If that risk, the overall risk, or both are
found to be unacceptable, then the proposed remedies would be directed to reduce which- ever risk(s)
warrant attention. Similar remarks apply to a number of other threats (e.g., nuclear war between the U.S.
and China over Taiwan). his article would be incomplete if it only dealt with the threat of nuclear
terrorism and neglected the threat of full- scale nuclear war. If both risks are unacceptable, an effort to

reduce only the terrorist component would leave humanity in great peril. In fact, societys almost total
neglect of the threat of full-scale nuclear war makes studying that risk all the more important. The cosT
of World War iii The danger associated with nuclear deterrence depends on both the cost of a failure
and the failure rate.3 This section explores the cost of a failure of nuclear deterrence, and the next
section is concerned with the failure rate. While other definitions are possible, this article defines a
failure of deterrence to mean a full-scale exchange of all nuclear weapons available to the U.S. and
Russia, an event that will be termed World War III. Approximately 20 million people died as a result
of the first World War. World War IIs fatalities were double or triple that numberchaos prevented a
more precise deter- mination. In both cases humanity recovered, and the world today bears few scars
that attest to the horror of those two wars. Many people therefore implicitly believe that a third World
War would be horrible but survivable, an extrapola- tion of the effects of the first two global wars. In that
view, World War III, while horrible, is something that humanity may just have to face and from which it
will then have to recover. In contrast, some of those most qualified to assess the situation hold a very
different view. In a 1961 speech to a joint session of the Philippine Con- gress, General Douglas
MacArthur, stated, Global war has become a Frankenstein to destroy both sides. If you lose, you
are annihilated. If you win, you stand only to lose. No longer does it possess even the chance of the
winner of a duel. It contains now only the germs of double suicide. Former Secretary of Defense
Robert McNamara ex- pressed a similar view: If deterrence fails and conflict develops, the present
U.S. and NATO strategy carries with it a high risk that Western civilization will be destroyed
[McNamara 1986, page 6]. More recently, George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam
Nunn4 echoed those concerns when they quoted President Reagans belief that nuclear weapons were
totally irrational, totally inhu- mane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth
and civilization. [Shultz 2007] Official studies, while couched in less emotional terms, still convey the
horrendous toll that World War III would exact: The resulting deaths would be far beyond any
precedent. Executive branch calculations show a range of U.S. deaths from 35 to 77 percent (i.e., 79-160
million dead) a change in targeting could kill somewhere between 20 million and 30 million
additional people on each side .... These calculations reflect only deaths during the first 30 days.
Additional millions would be injured, and many would eventually die from lack of adequate medical care
millions of people might starve or freeze during the follow- ing winter, but it is not possible to
estimate how many. further millions might eventually die of latent radiation effects . [OTA 1979, page
8] This OTA report also noted the possibility of serious ecological damage [OTA 1979, page 9], a concern that as- sumed a new
potentiality when the TTAPS report [TTAPS 1983] proposed that the ash and dust from so many nearly simultaneous

nuclear explosions and their resultant fire- storms could usher in a nuclear winter that might erase
homo sapiens from the face of the earth, much as many scientists now believe the K-T Extinction that
wiped out the dinosaurs resulted from an impact winter caused by ash and dust from a large asteroid or
comet striking Earth. The TTAPS report produced a heated debate, and there is still no scientific
consensus on whether a nuclear winter would follow a full-scale nuclear war. Recent work [Robock
2007, Toon 2007] suggests that even a limited nuclear exchange or one between newer nuclear-weapon
states, such as India and Pakistan, could have devastating long-lasting climatic consequences due to the
large volumes of smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities. While it is uncertain
how destructive World War III would be, prudence dictates that we apply the same engi- neering
conservatism that saved the Golden Gate Bridge from collapsing on its 50th anniversary and assume that
preventing World War III is a necessitynot an option.

No solvency for af
Greenberg, 15 (Andy Greenberg, senior writer for WIRED, covering security, privacy,
information freedom, and hacker culture, Want to See Domestic Spyings Future? Follow the
Drug War) M.dawg

With all those cases in mind, the DEAs now-defunct bulk collection of Americans
phone metadata fits squarely into a long and storied history of drug investigators
using and abusing their surveillance powers. That doesnt make privacy advocates
like it any better. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Human Rights Watch filed a
lawsuit earlier this week to make sure that the program is completely terminated
rather than merely hidden or suspended, considering the 20-year secrecy around
the DEAs phone metadata collection. But given that the DEAs phone surveillance
program stretched back to 1992 with no public oversight, theres little doubt that
drug investigators have since adopted plenty of other stealthy surveillance
techniques to stay a step ahead in the War on Drugs. As in any war without an end,
theres always a budget for new weapons, and plenty of foot soldiers ready to use

The af does nothing to solve local surveillance rooted in

APUZZO 15 (Matt Apuzzo is a reporter for the NYT, and Professor at Georgetown
University, and reported for Associated Press and the Standard-Times, Ferguson
Police Routinely Violate Rights of Blacks, Justice Dept. Finds, MARCH 3, 2015,
Ferguson, Mo., is a third white, but the crime statistics
compiled in the city over the past two years seemed to suggest that only
black people were breaking the law. They accounted for 85 percent of traffic stops, 90 percent

of tickets and 93 percent of arrests. In cases like jaywalking, which often hinge on police discretion, blacks

The racial disparity in those statistics was so

stark that the Justice Department has concluded in a report scheduled for release
on Wednesday that there was only one explanation: The Ferguson Police Department
was routinely violating the constitutional rights of its black residents. The
report, based on a six-month investigation, provides a glimpse into the roots of the
racial tensions that boiled over in Ferguson last summer after a black
teenager, Michael Brown, was fatally shot by a white police officer , making it a
worldwide flash point in the debate over race and policing in America. It describes a city where the
police used force almost exclusively on blacks and regularly stopped
people without probable cause. Racial bias is so ingrained, the report said, that Ferguson officials
accounted for 95 percent of all arrests.

circulated racist jokes on their government email accounts. In a November 2008 email, a city official said Barack
Obama would not be president long because what black man holds a steady job for four years? Another email
included a cartoon depicting African-Americans as monkeys. A third described black women having abortions as a

There are serious problems here that cannot be explained

away, said a law enforcement official who has seen the report and spoke on the condition of
way to curb crime.

anonymity because it had not been released yet. Those findings reinforce what the citys black residents have
been saying publicly since the shooting in August, that the criminal justice system in Ferguson works differently for
blacks and whites. A black motorist who is pulled over is twice as likely to be searched as a white motorist, even
though searches of white drivers are more likely to turn up drugs or other contraband, the report found. Minor,
largely discretionary offenses such as disturbing the peace and jaywalking were brought almost exclusively against
blacks. When whites were charged with these crimes, they were 68 percent more likely to have their cases
dismissed, the Justice Department found. Ive known it all my life about living out here, Angel Goree, 39, who
lives in the apartment complex where Mr. Brown was killed, said Tuesday by phone. Many such statistics surfaced
in the aftermath of Mr. Browns shooting, but the Justice Department report offers a more complete look at the data
than ever before. Federal investigators conducted hundreds of interviews, reviewed 35,000 pages of police records
and analyzed race data compiled for every police stop. The report will most likely force Ferguson officials to either
negotiate a settlement with the Justice Department or face being sued by it on charges of violating the Constitution.
Under Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., the Justice Department has opened more than 20 such investigations into
local police departments and issued tough findings against cities including Newark; Albuquerque, N.M.; and
Cleveland. But the Ferguson case has the highest profile of Mr. Holders tenure and is among the most closely
watched since the Justice Department began such investigations in 1994, spurred by the police beating of Rodney
King in Los Angeles and the riots that followed. While much of the attention in Ferguson has been on Mr. Browns
death, federal officials quickly concluded that the shooting was simply the spark that ignited years of pent-up
tension and animosity in the area. The Justice Department is expected to issue a separate report Wednesday

It is not clear what

changes Ferguson could make that would head of a lawsuit. The report
calls for city officials to acknowledge that the police departments tactics
have caused widespread mistrust and violated civil rights. Ferguson
officials have so far been reluctant to do so , particularly as relations between the city and
clearing the police officer, Darren Wilson, of civil rights violations in the shooting.

Washington have grown strained. Mr. Holder was openly critical of the way local officials handled the protests and
the investigation into Mr. Browns death, and declared a need for wholesale change in the police department.
Ferguson officials criticized Mr. Holder for a rush to judgment and saw federal officials as outsiders who did not
understand their city.

Government officials will continue surveillance regardless and

even if the USFG stops surveillance, other agencies are
capable of replacing that actor
Bernstein, 2015
(Leandra is an author for a world renowned news organization called Sputnik. The article cites a former FBI agent
disclosure. Former FBI agent: Government Likely to Continue Domestic Surveillance
3850.htmlFormer Date Accessed- 7/14/15. Anshul Nanda.)

Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Coleen Rowley claims that the US government
will likely continue its pattern of domestic surveillance . WASHINGTON (Sputnik),
Leandra Bernstein The US government will likely continue its pattern of domestic surveillance following the
Monday court ruling to temporarily extend bulk data collection, whistleblower and former Federal Bureau of

if the past is any predictor of the

future, that US government officials will find yet another way around any
legal restrictions to continue their Total Information Awareness project, Rowley said. On Monday, the
Foreign Information Surveillance Act (FISA) Court issued a ruling
upholding the National Security Agency (NSA) to continue bulk collection
of metadata, a program that was supposed to be ended with the passage of the USA Freedom Act in May
Investigation agent Coleen Rowley told Sputnik. I think,

2015. The ruling was based on a motion filed by civil libertarian groups demanding an immediate end to the
metadata collection program, which was deemed unconstitutional by a US federal appeals court in May 2015.
Asked what the Monday ruling means for the future of government surveillance reform, Rowley stated, I think the
Judge [Michael Mosman] probably answered this in his Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose [the more things
change, the more they stay the same] quote. The new portion of the classified files published by The Intercept
now reveals how easily it can be done: as easy as typing a few words in Google. FLICKR/ DON HANKINS NSA
Spies Can Hack Any Computer in 'A Few Mouse Clicks' The FISA decision to take advantage of the five-month
period to continue mass surveillance did not come as a surprise based on the past record of illegal government
spying, Rowley explained. The FISA Court authorizes surveillance carried out by the US intelligence community.
The Court is permitted to operate in secret, due to the classified activity it oversees. Following the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks, the George W. Bush administration proposed the implementation of a massive data-mining

developed by the Department

of Defense research agency to be capable of analyzing private
communications, commercial transactions and other data domestically and
abroad in order to identify and classify potential terrorist threats . While the
program was never officially implemented, multiple programs across the intelligence
community accomplished a similar efect, as was revealed in classified documents leaked by
program called the Total Information Awareness. The program was

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013. Read more:

Agencies circumvent power that was given to them through

the Congress all the time
Ackerman, 2015
(Spencer Ackerman is an editor/ reporter for the US News in New York. Full Date: June 1, 2015. Fears NSA will seek
to undermine surveillance reform; Privacy advocates are wary of covert legal acrobatics from the NSA similar to
those deployed post-9/11 to circumvent congressional authority
Date Accessed- 7/15/15. Anshul Nanda)

National Security Agency will attempt to weaken new

restrictions on the bulk collection of Americans' phone and email records
with a barrage of creative legal wrangles, as the first major reform of US surveillance powers
Privacy advocates fear the

in a generation looked likely to be a foregone conclusion on Monday. Related: Bush-era surveillance powers expire
as US prepares to roll back NSA power The USA Freedom Act, a bill banning the NSA from collecting US phone data
in bulk and compelling disclosure of any novel legal arguments for widespread surveillance before a secret court,
has already been passed by the House of Representatives and on Sunday night the Senate voted 77 to 17 to
proceed to debate on it. Between that bill and a landmark recent ruling from a federal appeals court that rejected a
longstanding government justification for bulk surveillance, civil libertarians think they stand a chance at stopping
attempts by intelligence lawyers to undermine reform in secret. Attorneys for the intelligence agencies react
scornfully to the suggestion that they will stretch their authorities to the breaking point. Yet reformers remember
that such legal tactics during the George W Bush administration allowed the NSA to shoehorn bulk phone records
collection into the Patriot Act. Rand Paul, the Kentucky senator and Republican presidential candidate who was key
to allowing sweeping US surveillance powers to lapse on Sunday night, warned that NSA lawyers would now make
mincemeat of the USA Freedom Act's prohibitions on bulk phone records collection by taking an expansive view of
the bill's definitions, thanks to a pliant, secret surveillance court. "My

fear, though, is that the

people who interpret this work at a place known as the rubber stamp
factory, the Fisa [court]," Paul said on the Senate floor on Sunday. Paul's Democratic ally, Senator Ron

Wyden, warned the intelligence agencies and the Obama administration against attempting to unravel NSA reform.

intelligence committee has taught me to always be vigilant for

secret interpretations of the law and new surveillance techniques that
Congress doesn't know about," Wyden, a member of the intelligence committee, told the
Guardian. "Americans were rightly outraged when they learned that US intelligence agencies
relied on secret law to monitor millions of law-abiding US citizens. The
American people are now on high alert for new secret interpretations of
the law, and intelligence agencies and the Justice Department would do
well to keep that lesson in mind." The USA Freedom Act is supposed to prevent what Wyden
"My time on the

calls " secret law ". It contains a provision requiring congressional notification in the event of a novel legal

government permitted the NSA to circumvent the Fisa court entirely. Not a
single Fisa court judge was aware of Stellar Wind, the NSA's post-9/11
constellation of bulk surveillance programs, from 2001 to 2004. Energetic legal tactics
interpretation presented to the secret Fisa court overseeing surveillance. Yet in recent memory, the

followed to fit the programs under existing legal authorities after internal controversy or outright exposure. When

continuation of a bulk domestic internet metadata collection program

risked the mass resignation of Justice Department officials in 2004 , an internal

NSA draft history records that attorneys found a different legal rationale that " essentially gave NSA the same
authority to collect bulk internet metadata that it had ". After a New York Times story in 2005 revealed the
existence of the bulk domestic phone records program, attorneys for the US Justice Department and NSA argued,
with the blessing of the Fisa court, that Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorized it all along - precisely the
contention that the second circuit court of appeals rejected in May. Despite that recent history, veteran intelligence

NSA lawyers will undermine surveillance

reform. Robert Litt, the senior lawyer for director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said during a public
attorneys reacted with scorn to the idea that

appearance last month that creating a banned bulk surveillance program was " not going to happen ". "The whole
notion that NSA is just evilly determined to read the law in a fashion contrary to its intent is bullshit, of the sort that
the Guardian and the left - but I repeat myself - have fallen in love with. The interpretation of 215 that supported
the bulk collection program was creative but not beyond reason, and it was upheld by many judges," said the

referring to Section 215 of the Patriot Act. This

section that permits US law enforcement and surveillance agencies to
collect business records and expired at midnight, almost two years after the
former NSA general counsel Stewart Baker,
is the

whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed to the Guardian that the Patriot Act was secretly being used to justify the
collection of phone records from millions of Americans. With one exception, the judges that upheld the
interpretation sat on the non-adversarial Fisa court, a body that approves nearly all government surveillance
requests and modifies about a quarter of them substantially. The exception was reversed by the second circuit court
of appeals. Baker, speaking before the Senate voted, predicted: "I don't think anyone at NSA is going to invest in
looking for ways to defy congressional intent if USA Freedom is adopted." The USA Freedom Act,

compromise bill, would not have an impact on the vast majority of NSA
surveillance. It would not stop any overseas-focused surveillance program,
no matter how broad in scope, nor would it end the NSA's dragnets of
Americans' international communications authorized by a diferent law .
Other bulk domestic surveillance programs, like the one the Drug Enforcement Agency
operated, would not be impacted. The rise of what activists have come to call "bulky"

surveillance, like the "large collections" of Americans' electronic communications records the FBI gets to collect
under the Patriot Act, continue unabated - or, at least, will, once the USA Freedom Act passes and restores the
Patriot Act powers that lapsed at midnight on Sunday. Related: FBI used Patriot Act to obtain 'large collections' of
Americans' data, DoJ finds That collection, recently confirmed by a largely overlooked Justice Department inspector
general's report, points to a slipperiness in shuttering surveillance programs - one that creates opportunities for
clever lawyers. The Guardian revealed in 2013 that Barack Obama had permitted the NSA to collect domestic
internet metadata in bulk until 2011. Yet even as Obama closed down that NSA program, the Justice Department

FBI was already collecting the same

"electronic communications" metadata under a diferent authority. It is
unclear as yet how the FBI transformed that authority, passed by Congress for the
inspector general confirms that by 2009, the

collection of "business records", into large-scale collection of Americans' email, text, instant message, internet-

similar power to for the FBI gather domestic internet

metadata, obtained through non-judicial subpoenas called "National
Security Letters", also exists in a different, non-expiring part of the Patriot Act. Jameel Jaffer, the deputy
protocol and other records. And a

legal director of the ACLU, expressed confidence that the second circuit court of appeals' decision last month would
effectively step into the breach. The panel found that legal authorities permitting the collection of data "relevant" to
an investigation cannot allow the government to gather data in bulk - setting a potentially prohibitive precedent for
other bulk-collection programs. "We don't know what kinds of bulk-collection programs the government still has in

conduct bulk collection of

internet metadata, phone records, and financial records. If similar
programs are still in place, the ruling will force the government to
reconsider them, and probably to end them," said Jaffer, whose organization brought the
place, but in the past it's used authorities other than Section 215 to

suit that the second circuit considered. Julian Sanchez, a surveillance expert at the Cato Institute, was more
cautious. "The second circuit ruling establishes that a 'relevance' standard is not completely unlimited - it doesn't
cover getting hundreds of millions of people's records, without any concrete connection to a specific inquiry - but
doesn't provide much guidance beyond that as to where the line is," Sanchez said. "I wouldn't be surprised if the
government argued, in secret, that nearly anything short of that scale is still allowed, nor if the same Fisa court that
authorized the bulk telephone program, in defiance of any common sense reading of the statutory language, went
along with it."

Alt causes
War on Terror is an alt. cause to racism
Miah, 06 (Malik Miah, editor of the US socialist organization Solidarity's
magazine Against the Current. He is a long-time activist in trade unions and a
campaigner for Black rights and works as an aircraft mechanic in San Francisco,
Racist Undercurrents in the "War on Terror") M.dawg
The use of fear and warmongering has convinced most Americans, including African
Americans, that the ends justify the means. The link between racism and the war on
terrorism is therefore generally downplayed or ignored. When Dick Cheney says the
divide between Republicans and Democrats is between the cut and run
Democrats and the Bush Administration, he always adds that the critics of their
policies (that includes torture, imprisonment for life and racial proofing) dont want
to win the war on terrorism. Bush said critics of his policy are enablers of
terrorists. Racial profiling is tacitly considered an acceptable part of conducting
war. The mainstream media, with few exceptions, most notably the editors of The
New York Times, give Bush, Cheney and their operatives a free pass on these issues.
While some debate is taking place on the use of torture and loss of habeas corpus,
little is said about racial profiling. Even civil rights leaders are mostly quiet. Why?
Because no one wants to be labeled as soft on fighting terrorism. If you look like an
Iranian, an Afghani, a South Asian (mainly a Pakistani) or worse an Arab, it is now
okay to racial profile to protect the country. The fact that little is written about the
issue by the mainstream media shows how racism in the war on terrorism is
considered acceptable. I tried to pull up articles on the internet to see how many
times racial profiling, or racism and terrorism, have been written about. Amazingly,
outside the left press, few critical articles or columns have appeared. The majority
of pieces in fact have been in defense of racial profiling as a necessary step in
todays world. The depth of the problem is seen in an article written in 2005 by an
African American Washington Post deputy editorial page editor in an op-ed piece
entitled, You cant fight terrorism with racism. (July 30, 2005). Regarding three oped pieces that had appeared in the Post and The New York Times, Colbert King
wrote: A New York Times op-ed piece by Paul Sperry, a Hoover Institution media
fellow [Its the Age of Terror: What Would You Do?] and a Post column by Charles
Krauthammer [Give Grandma a Pass; Politically Correct Screening Wont catch
Jihadists] endorsed the practice of using ethnicity, national origin and religion as
primary factors in deciding when police should regard as possible terroristsin
other words, racial profiling.

Stop and Frisk is an alt. cause to racism

Rucke, 14 (Katie Rucke, MintPress staff writer and investigative report
specializing in the war on drugs, criminal justice, marijuana legislation, education
and watchdog investigations as well as whistle-blowers, Stop-And-Frisk Policies
Proof Of Racism In America) M.dawg
While many struggle to understand how racism can still exist here, its easy to see
that American society is plagued with racist policies that disproportionately affect

Americans of African, Latin and Middle Eastern descent. As the controversial policy
known as stop and frisk clearly illustrates, those who are black- or brown-skinned
are more often assumed to be engaged in dangerous criminal activity than their
white counterparts. Of the 191,558 times people were stopped and frisked in New
York City in 2013, the person stopped was white only 11 percent of the time. Overt,
violent racism may no longer exist in mainstream America, but white privilege
continues to run rampant in the U.S. A majority of Americans are not only oblivious
to this type of racist policy, but when its pointed out to them, many do nothing to
stop it. Christopher E. Smith, a white man, attorney and criminal justice professor, is
the father of a biracial son who has darker skin. In the April 2014 issue of The
Atlantic, Smith shared how his sons skin color has directly influenced the way
people, especially law enforcement, treat him. Even when Smiths 21-year-old son, a
student at Harvard University, was working as an intern on Wall Street, Smith says
his son was stopped and frisked on more than one occasion by police. These
officers sometimes didnt even identify themselves as NYPD officers until after the
frisk was completed. On one occasion, while wearing his best business suit, [my
son] was forced to lie face-down on a filthy sidewalk becausewell, lets be honest
about it, because of the color of his skin, Smith wrote. He detailed how his black inlaws have also been disproportionately stopped by police while on their way to his
home for family events and holidays such as Thanksgiving. Some of Smiths
relatives have even had guns pointed at their heads while being interrogated
by police officers, who Smith says stopped his in-laws solely because of
the color of their skin. Because of this stereotypical assumption that a black,
Latino or Middle Eastern person would be engaged in criminal behavior, Smith
proposed an experiment in which police officers would be required to stop and frisk
10 white people five men and five women for every three non-white
people they stopped without a warrant, suspicion or probable cause.
Smith said if police officers stopped and frisked white people in a manner
similar to what young people of color have experienced throughout the
years, white people would begin to argue that its a waste of the officers
time to impose these searches on innocent people, and stop-and-frisk
policies may cease to exist.

Nietzsche 1NC w/ link

Sufering cannot be eliminated but worse than sufering is
meaningless sufering its only a question of the meaning we
impose on sufering and how we learn from it - pitying the
suferer further increases the sufering that they feel
Kain 07 (Philip J., Nietzsche, Eternal Recurrence, and the Horror of Existence,
The Journal of Nietzsche Studies 33 (2007) 49-63) Franzy
Eternal recurrence also gives suffering another meaning. If one is able to embrace
eternal recurrence, if one is able to turn all "it was" into a "thus I willed it," then one
not only reduces suffering to physical suffering, breaks its psychological
stranglehold, and eliminates surplus suffering related to guilt, but one may even in
a sense reduce suffering below the level of physical suffering. One does not do this
as the liberal, socialist, or Christian would, by changing the world to reduce
suffering. In Nietzsche's opinion that is impossible, and, indeed, eternal recurrence
of the same rules it outat least as any sort of final achievement.23 Rather,
physical suffering is reduced by treating it as a test, a discipline, a training, which
brings one greater power. One might think of an athlete who engages in more and
more strenuous activity, accepts greater and greater pain, handles it better and
better, and sees this as a sign of greater strength, as a sign of increased ability. Pain
and suffering are turned into empowerment. Indeed, it is possible to love such
suffering as a sign of increased power. One craves pain"more pain! more pain!"
(GM III:20). And the more suffering one can bear, the stronger one becomes.
If sufering is self-imposed, if the point is to break the psychological
stranglehold it has over us, if the point is to turn suffering into empowerment,
use it as a discipline to gain greater strength, then it would be entirely inappropriate
for us to feel sorry for the sufferer. To take pity on the sufferer either would
demonstrate an ignorance of the process the sufferer is engaged in, what the
sufferer is attempting to accomplish through suffering, or would show a lack of
respect for the sufferer's suffering (GS 338; D 135). To pity the suferer, to wish
the suferer did not have to go through such sufering, would demean the
suferer and the whole process of attempting to gain greater strength
through such sufering.
Let us try again to put ourselves in Nietzsche's place. He has sufered for
years. He has sufered intensely for years. He has come to realize that he
cannot end this sufering. He cannot even reduce it significantly. But he
has finally been able to break the psychological stranglehold it has had
over him. He is able to accept it. He wills it. He would not change the
slightest detail. He is able to love it. And this increases his strength. How,
then, would he respond to our pity? Very likely, he would be ofended. He
would think we were patronizing him. He would not want us around. He would
perceive us as trying to rob him of the strength he had achieved, subjugate him
again to his suffering, strip him of his dignity. He would be disgusted with our
attempt to be do-gooders, our attempt to impose our own meaning on his

sufering (treating it as something to pity and to lessen) in opposition to

the meaning he has succeeded in imposing on it.
Nietzsche wagers a lot on his commitment to the notion that sufering
cannot be significantly reduced in the world. For if it can, then pity and
compassion would be most important to motivate the reduction of suffering.
Nietzsche is so committed to the value of suffering that he is willing to remove, or at
least radically devalue, pity and compassion. [End Page 60]
To appreciate how committed he is, suppose we are incorrigible do-gooders
liberals, socialists, or Christians. We just cannot bear to see anyone suffer. Suppose
we find a researcher who is working on a cure for Nietzsche's disease. This
researcher thinks that within a few years a drug can be produced to eliminate the
disease. Suppose the researcher is right. And suppose that just as Nietzsche has
solidly committed to eternal recurrence, just as he is able to love his fate, just as he
has decided he would not change the slightest detail of his life, we tell him about
this cure.
How would Nietzsche respond? Would he accept the cure? Would he give up his
hard-won attitude of accepting his migraines, nausea, and vomiting, of refusing to
desire any change? Would he revert to his old attitude of hoping to reduce his
suffering, trying out whatever might accomplish this? Would he give his illness a
chance to reassert its psychological stranglehold? We must remember that our
supposition is that he would actually be cured in a few years. But he would also
forgo the discipline, the strengthening, the empowerment that a commitment to
eternal recurrence and amor fati would have made possible. Although his illness
would be cured, he would not have developed the wherewithal to deal with any
other sufferingin a world characterized by the horror of existence. We cannot
know whether Nietzsche would decide to take the cure or not. What we can be sure
of is that if he did, he would not be the Nietzsche we know.
Kierkegaard retells the story of Abraham and Isaac. God commands Abraham to
take his only son to Mount Moriah and to sacrifice him there as a burnt offering.
Faithful Abraham sets off to obey God's will. But just as he arrives, just as he has
drawn his knife, just as he is about to offer his son, he is told instead to sacrifice the
ram that God has prepared. Kierkegaard suggests that if he had been in Abraham's
position, if he had sufficient faith in God and had obeyed him as Abraham did, if he
had been able to summon the same courage, then, when he got Isaac back again
he would have been embarrassed. Abraham, he thinks, was not embarrassed. He
was not embarrassed because he believed all along, by virtue of the absurd, that
God would not require Isaac.24
What about Nietzsche? Let us assume that Nietzsche has fully committed to eternal
recurrence and amor fati, that he has come to love his fate, that he has decided he
would not change the slightest detail. Moreover, he has announced this to the world
in his writings. Let us assume that over the years this commitment has empowered
him, given him greater strength. We do-gooders now inform him that we can cure
his disease and eliminate his suffering. Even further, suppose we were able to prove
to him that eternal recurrence is impossible. Would Nietzsche be embarrassed?

Maybe. But it is not absolutely clear that he would be. He might respond that
believing in eternal recurrenceperhaps even by virtue of the absurdallowed him
to face the horror of existence. He might respond that it does not really matter
whether his life will actually return. The only thing that matters is the attitude
he [End Page 61] was able to develop toward his present life. He might respond
that it does not really matter that it has become possible to cure his
particular illness; there is still plenty of other sufering to be faced given
the horror of existence. He might respond that what matters is the
strength he was able to gain from believing in eternal recurrence and
loving his fate, not whether eternal recurrence is actually true.

Demanding social justice for historical injustice codifies

resentment and locks subordinated groups in their
Brown, Professor of Womens Studies @ UC Santa Cruz, 19 95 [Wendy, States of
Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity pg. 66-70]

Liberalism contains from its inception a generalized incitement to what Nietzsche terms ressentiment, the
moralizing revenge of the powerless,"the triumph of the weak as weak. "22 This incitement to
ressentitnent inheres in two related constitutive paradoxes of liberalism: that between individual liberty and
social egalitarianism, a paradox which produces failure turned to recrimination by the subordinated,
and guilt turned to resentment by the "successful"; and that between the individualism that legitimates
liberalism and the cultural homogeneity required by its commitment to political universality, a paradox which

stimulates the articulation of politically significant differences on the one hand, and the
suppression of them on the other, and which offers a form of articulation that presses against the
limits of universalist discourse even while that which is being articulated seeks to be harbored
withinincluded inthe terms of that universalism. Premising itself on the natural equality of human beings,
liberalism makes a political promise of universal individual freedom in order to arrive at social equality, or
achieve a civilized retrieval of the equality postulated in the state of nature. It is the tension
between the promises of individualistic liberty and the requisites of equality that yields
ressentiment in one of two directions, depending on the way in which the paradox is brokered. A
strong commitment to freedom vitiates the fulfillment of the equality promise and breeds ressentiment as welfare
state liberalism --- attenuations of the unmitigated license of the rich and powerful on behalf of the "disadvantaged."
Conversely, a strong commitment to equality, requiring heavy state interventionism and economic redistribution,
attenuates the commitment to freedom and breeds ressentiment expressed as neoconservative antistatism, racism,
charges of reverse racism, and so forth. However, it is not only the tension between freedom and

equality but the prior presumption of the self-reliant and self-made capacities of liberal subjects,
conjoined with their unavowed dependence on and construction by a variety of social relations
and forces, that makes all liberal subjects, and not only markedly disenfranchised ones,
vulnerable to ressentiment: it is their situatedness within power, their production by power, and
liberal discourse's denial of this situatedness and production that cast the liberal subject into
failure, the failure to make itself in the context of a discourse in which its selfmaking is assumed,
indeed, is its assumed nature. This failure, which Nietzsche calls suffering, must either find a reason within
itself (which redoubles the failure) or a site of external blame upon which to avenge its hurt and redistribute its pain.

Here is Nietzsche's account of this moment in the production of ressentiment: For every sufferer
instinctively seeks a cause for his suffering, more exactly, an agent; still more specifically, a guilty
agent who is susceptible to suffering in short, some living thing upon which he can, on some
pretext or other, vent his affects, actually or in effigy . . . . This ... constitutes the actual physiological
cause of ressentiment, vengefulness, and the like: a desire to deaden pain by means of affects, . . . to
deaden, by means of a more violent emotion of any kind, a tormenting, secret pain that is
becoming unendurable, and to drive it out of consciousness at least for the moment: for that one
requires an affect, as savage an affect as possible, and, in order to excite that, any pretext at all.
Ressentiment in this context is a triple achievement: it produces an affect (rage, righteousness) that overwhelms the
hurt; it produces a culprit responsible for the hurt; and it produces a site of revenge to displace the hurt (a place to
inflict hurt as the sufferer has been hurt). Together these operations both ameliorate (in Nietzsche's term,
"anaesthetize") and externalize what is otherwise "unendurable." In a culture already streaked with the

pathos of ressentiment for the reasons just discussed, there are several distinctive characteristics
of late modern postindustrial societies that accelerate and expand the conditions of its
production. My listing will necessarily be highly schematic: First, the phenomenon William
Connolly names "increased global contingency", combines with the expanding pervasiveness and
complexity of domination by capital and bureaucratic state and social networks to create an
unparalleled individual powerlessness over the fate and direction of one's own life, intensifying
the experiences of impotence, dependence, and gratitude inherent in liberal capitalist orders and
constitutive of ressentiment.24 Second, the steady desacralization of all regions of life -- what
Weber called disenchantment, what Nietzsche called the death of god would seem to add yet
another reversal to Nietzsche's genealogy of ressenti;nent as perpetually available to "alternation
of direction." In Nietzsche's account, the ascetic priest deployed notions of "guilt, sin, sinfulness,
depravity, damnation" to "direct the ressentiment of the less severely afflicted sternly back upon
themselves . . . and in this way exploit[ed] the bad instincts of all sufferers for the purpose of
selfdiscipline, selfsurveillance, and selfovercoming. "25 However, the desacralizing tendencies
of late modernity undermine the efficacy of this deployment and turn suffering's need for
exculpation back toward a site of external agency.26 Third, the increased fragmentation, if not
disintegration, of all forms of association not organized until recently by the commodities
marketcommunities, churches, familiesand the ubiquitousness of the classificatory, individuating
schemes of disciplinary society, combine to produce an utterly unrelieved individual, one without
insulation from the inevitable failure entailed in liberalism's individualistic construction27 In
short, the characteristics of late modern secular society, in which individuals are buffeted and
controlled by global configurations of disciplinary and capitalist power of extraordinary
proportions, and are at the same time nakedly individuated, stripped of reprieve from relentless
exposure and accountability for themselves, together add up to an incitement to ressentiment that
might have stunned even the finest philosopher of its occasions and logics Starkly accountable
yet dramatically impotent, the late modern liberal subject quite literally seethes with
ressentiment. Enter politicized identity, now conceivable in part as both product of and reaction to this
condition, where "reaction" acquires the meaning Nietzsche ascribed to it: namely, an effect of
domination that reiterates impotence, a substitute for action, for power, for selfaffirmation that reinscribes
incapacity, powerlessness, and rejection. For Nietzsche, ressentiment itself is rooted in reaction

-- the
substitution of reasons, norms, and ethics for deeds -- and he suggests that not only moral
systems but identities themselves take their bearings in this reaction. As Tracy Strong reads this

element of Nietzsche's thought: Identity ... does not consist of an active component, but is reaction
to something outside; action in itself; with its inevitable self-assertive qualities, must then become
something evil, since it is identified with that against which one is reacting. The will to power of
slave morality must constantly reassert that which gives definition to the slave: the pain he suffers by being in
the world. Hence any attempt to escape that pain will merely result in the reaffirmation of painful
structures. If the "cause" of ressentitnent is suffering, its "creative deed" is the reworking of this
pain into a negative form of action, the "imaginary revenge" of what Nietzsche terms "natures
denied the true reaction, that of deeds."29 This revenge is achieved through the imposition of
suffering "on whatever does not feel wrath and displeasure as he does30 (accomplished
especially through the production of guilt), through the establishment of suffering as the measure
of social virtue, and through casting strength and good fortune ("privilege," as we say today) as
self-recriminating, as its own indictment in a culture of suffering: "it is disgraceful to be
fortunate, there is too much misery.31 But in its attempt to displace its suffering, identity structured by
ressentiment at the same time becomes invested in its own subjection. This investment lies not only in its
discovery of a site of blame for its hurt will, not only in its acquisition of recognition through its history of
subjection (a recognition predicated on injury, now righteously revalued), but also in the satisfactions of revenge,
which ceaselessly reenact even as they redistribute the injuries of marginalization and subordination in a liberal
discursive order that alternately denies the very possibility of these things and blames those who experience them for
their own condition. Identity politics structured by ressentiment reverse without subverting this blaming structure:
they do not subject to critique the sovereign subject of accountability that liberal individualism presupposes, nor the
economy of inclusion and exclusion that liberal universalism establishes. Thus, politicized identity that presents
itself as a selfaffirmation now appears as the opposite, as predicated on and requiring its sustained rejection by a
"hostile external world."32

The alt is to affirm every moment of our lives. We can not

eliminate the sufering we have or will experience. All we can
adjust is how we relate to it.
Kain 07 (Philip J., Nietzsche, Eternal Recurrence, and the Horror of Existence,
The Journal of Nietzsche Studies 33 (2007) 49-63) Franzy
Nietzsche embraces the doctrine of eternal recurrence for the first time in The Gay
Science 341:
The greatest weight.What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you
into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: "This life as you now live it and have
lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will
be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and
everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the
same succession and sequenceeven this spider and this moonlight between the
trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is
turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!"
Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who
spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would
have answered him: "You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine." If
this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps
crush you. The question in each and every thing, "Do you desire this once more and

innumerable times more?" would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight. Or
how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave
nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?
(GS 341)6
It is not enough that eternal recurrence simply be believed. Nietzsche
demands that it actually be loved. In Ecce Homo, he explains his doctrine
of amor fati: "My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that
one wants nothing to be diferent, not forward, not backward, not in all
eternity. Not merely bear what is necessary, still less conceal it . . .
but love it" (EH"Clever" 10; cf. GS 276). In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra
says: "To redeem those who lived in the past and to recreate all 'it was' into a 'thus I
willed it'that alone should I call redemption" (Z II: "On Redemption"; cf. Z III: "On
Old and New Tablets" 3). To turn all "it was" into a "thus I willed it" is to accept fate
fully, to love it. One would have it no other way; one wants everything eternally the
same: "Was that life? . . . Well then! Once more!" (Z IV: "The Drunken Song" 1).
How are we to understand these doctrines? Soll argues that eternal recurrence of
the same would not crush us at all. If every detail of one recurrence were exactly
the same as every detail of another, if they were radically indistinguishable,
recurrence would not be terrifying. To be terrified, Soll thinks, we would have to be
able to accumulate new experience from cycle to cycle, remember past recurrences,
and tremble in anticipation of their return. If all recurrences were exactly the same,
if new experience could not build and accumulate, recurrence would be a matter of
complete indifference.7 I think this view is mistaken. In the first place, people who
lead a life of intense suffering often look forward to death as [End Page 53] an
escape from that suffering. Aeneas, for example, when he visits the underworld in
book VI of the Aeneid, expects just that. When he finds that he will have to be
reincarnated, he is appalled. His next reincarnated life, it is true, would not be
exactly the same, as for Nietzschean eternal recurrence, but Aeneas seems to
expect it to be similar enough in its misery and suffering. And despite the fact that
in his reincarnated life he would not remember his present life, Aeneas is
nevertheless horrified at the idea that he will have to go through it all again.8
Furthermore, although it is true that experience cannot build and accumulate from
cycle to cycle, nevertheless, we must recognize that there are places in which
Nietzsche suggests that it is possible to remember earlier recurrences.9 Moreover,
we can certainly be aware of other recurrences in the sense that we believe in them
the demon informs us of these other recurrences. This raises no problems as long
as the very same memory, awareness, and reaction recur in each and every cycle at
the very same pointeach and every cycle must be exactly the same. It is possible
that Soll assumes that such memories, awarenesses, and reactions would
necessarily make the cycles different because they would have to be absent in at
least one cyclethe first.10 But that would be a mistake. Nietzsche is quite clear.
Time is infinite (Z III: "On the Vision and the Riddle" 2; WP 1066)there is
no first cycle. These memories, awarenesses, and reactions could occur in all cycles
at exactly the same point in the sequence.

Still, Soll argues that it is "impossible for there to be among different recurrences of
a person the kind of identity that seems to exist among the different states of
consciousness of the same person within a particular recurrence. . . . Only by
inappropriately construing the suffering of some future recurrence on the model of
suffering later in this life does the question of eternal recurrence of one's pain weigh
upon one with 'the greatest stress.'"11 I think this too is mistaken. I can very well
not want to live my life again even if in the next cycle I will not remember the pain
of this cycle. If I am to love my life, not want to change the slightest detail, if I am to
desire to live it again, it does not matter if in the future cycle I do not remember this
cycle. If the demon tells me, if I believe, that the future cycle will be exactly the
same, if I know that now, then it could be quite difficult, right now, to be positive
enough about my existing painful life to choose to go through it again, even if when
I do go through it again I will not remember it.
Soll's point gains whatever plausibility it has by looking back from a future life at our
present life and denying that we could remember anything or tremble in
anticipation of its return. But that is not the only perspective one can take on the
matter, and it is not the perspective Nietzsche wants to emphasize. For Nietzsche
the demon forces us to look over our present life, reflect on it, test our attitude
toward it, and assess the degree of positiveness we have toward it. We do that by
asking how we feel about having to live it over again without the [End Page
54] slightest change. What is relevant here is how we feel about our present life at
the present moment.12
It is also irrelevant to suggest that there is insufficient identity for me to think that it
will really be me in the next cycle. The point, for Nietzsche, is how I react to
my present lifethe threat of a future life is brought up to elicit this reaction . If I do
not identify with the person who will live my next life, if I do not care
about that person, if I consider that person an other, then I evade the
question the demon put to meand I avoid the heart of the issue. The
question is whether I love my life, my present lifelove it so completely
that I would live it again. I am being asked if I would live my life again to see if I
love my present life. If I insist on viewing the liver of my next life as an other, the
least I should do is ask myself whether I love my present life enough that I could
wish it on another.
At any rate, Nietzsche claims that just thinking about the possibility of
eternal recurrence can shatter and transform us.13 In published works,
eternal recurrence is presented as the teaching of a sage, as the revelation of a
demon, or as a thought that gains possession of one. In The Gay Science 341, we
must notice, eternal recurrence is not presented as a truth. Many commentators
argue that it simply does not matter whether or not it is true; its importance lies in
the effect it has on those who believe it.14
I have written at length about this complex doctrine elsewhere. I refer the reader
there for further treatment of details.15 What I want to do here is point out that the
philosopher who introduces eternal recurrence, the philosopher who believes
in amor fati, is the very same philosopher who also believes in the horror of

existence. This is a point that is never emphasizedindeed, it is hardly even noticed

by commentators.16 Lou Salom tells us that Nietzsche spoke to her of eternal
recurrence only "with a quiet voice and with all signs of deepest horror. . . . Life, in
fact, produced such suffering in him that the certainty of an eternal return of life
had to mean something horrifying to him."17
Try to imagine yourself with a migraine. Imagine yourself in a feverish state
experiencing nausea and vomiting. Imagine that this sort of thing has been going on
for years and years and that you have been unable to do anything about it. Extreme
care with your diet, concern for climate, continuous experimenting with medicines
all accomplish nothing. You are unable to cure yourself. You have been unable to
even improve your condition significantly.18 You have no expectation of ever doing
so. Suppose this state has led you to see, or perhaps merely confirmed your insight
into, the horror and terror of existence. It has led you to suspect that Silenus was
right: best never to have been born; second best, die as soon as possible. All you
can expect is suffering, suffering for no reason at all, meaningless suffering. You
have even thought of suicide (BGE 157).19 Now imagine that at your worst
moment, your loneliest loneliness, a demon appears to you or you imagine a demon
appearing to you. And this demon tells you that you will have to live your life over
again, innumerable times more, and that everything, [End Page 55] every last bit of
pain and suffering, every last migraine, every last bout of nausea and vomiting, will
return, exactly the same, over and over and over again.
What would your reaction be? If your reaction were to be negative, no one would
bat an eye. But what if your reaction was, or came to be, positive? What if you
were able to love your life so completely that you would not want to
change a single momenta single moment of sufering? What if you were
to come to crave nothing more fervently than the eternal recurrence of
every moment of your life? What if you were to see this as an ultimate
confirmation and seal, nothing more divine? How could you do this? Why would you
do this? Why wouldn't it be madness? What is going on here? How has this been
overlooked by all the commentators? This cries out for explanation.
Eternal recurrence, I think we can say, shows us the horror of existence. No matter
what you say about your life, no matter how happy you claim to have been, no
matter how bright a face you put on it, the threat of eternal recurrence brings out
the basic horror in every life. Live it over again with nothing new? It is the "nothing
new" that does it. That is how we make it through our existing life. We hope for, we
expect, something new, something different, some improvement, some progress, or
at least some distraction, some hope. If that is ruled out, if everything will
be exactly the same in our next life, well that is a different story. If you think you are
supremely happy with your life, just see what happens if you start to think that you
will have to live it again.
Suppose that you can, as Aristotle suggested, look back over your life as a whole
and feel that it was a good onea happy one. Would that make you want to live it
again? Would you at the moment in which you feel that your life was a happy one
also crave nothing more fervently than to live it again? What if your life was a

joyous life or a proud life? It is quite clear that you could have a very positive
attitude toward your life and not at all want to live it again. In fact, wouldn't the
prospect of eternal repetition, if the idea grew on you and gained possession of you,
begin to sap even the best life of its attractiveness? Wouldn't the expectation of
eternal repetition make anything less appealing? Wouldn't it empty your life of its
significance and meaning? Most commentators seem to assume that the only life
we could expect anyone to want to live again would be a good life. That makes no
sense to me. On the other hand, most people would assume that a life of intense
pain and suffering is not at all the sort of life it makes any sense to want to live
again. I think Nietzsche was able to see that a life of intense pain and suffering is
perhaps the only life it really makes sense to want to live again. Let me try to
For years Nietzsche was ill, suffering intense migraines, nausea, and vomiting. Often
he was unable to work and confined to bed. He fought this. He tried everything. He
sought a better climate. He watched his diet fanatically. He experimented with
medicines. Nothing worked. He could not improve his condition. His suffering was
out of his control. It dominated his life and determined his [End Page 56] every
activity. He was overpowered by it. There was no freedom or dignity here. He
became a slave to his illness. He was subjugated by it. What was he to do? At the
beginning of the essay "On the Sublime," Schiller writes:
[N]othing is so unworthy of man than to suffer violence. . . . [W]hoever suffers this
cravenly throws his humanity away. . . . This is the position in which man finds
himself. Surrounded by countless forces, all of which are superior to his own and
wield mastery over him. . . . If he is no longer able to oppose physical force by his
relatively weaker physical force, then the only thing that remains to him, if he is not
to suffer violence, is to eliminate utterly and completely a relationship that is so
disadvantageous to him, and to destroy the very concept of a force to which he
must in fact succumb. To destroy the very concept of a force means simply to
submit to it voluntarily.20
Although Nietzsche did not go about it in the way Schiller had in mind, nevertheless,
this is exactly what Nietzsche did. What was he to do about his suffering? What was
he to do about the fact that it came to dominate every moment of his life? What
was he to do about the fact that it was robbing him of all freedom and dignity? What
was he to do about this subjugation and slavery? He decided to submit to it
voluntarily. He decided to accept it fully. He decided that he would not change one
single detail of his life, not one moment of pain. He decided to love his fate. At the
prospect of living his life over again, over again an infinite number of times, without
the slightest change, with every detail of suffering and pain the same, he was ready
to say, "Well then! Once more!" (Z IV: "The Drunken Song" 1). He could not
change his life anyway. But this way he broke the psychological stranglehold it had
over him. He ended his subjugation. He put himself in charge. He turned all "it was"
into a "thus I willed it." Everything that was going to happen in his life, he accepted,
he chose, he willed. He became sovereign over his life. There was no way to
overcome his illness except by embracing it.

I think we are now in a position to see that for eternal recurrence to work,
for it to have the efect that it must have for Nietzsche, we must accept
without qualification, we must love, everysingle moment of our
lives, every single moment of sufering. We cannot allow ourselves to be
tempted by what might at first sight seem to be a much more appealing
version of eternal recurrence, that is, a recurring life that would include
the desirable aspects of our present life while leaving out the undesirable
ones. To give in to such temptation would be to risk losing everything that has been
gained. To give in to such temptation, I suggest, would allow the suffering in our
present life to begin to reassert its psychological stranglehold. We would start to slip
back into subjugation. We would again come to be dominated by our suffering.
We [End Page 57] would spend our time trying to minimize it, or avoid it, or
ameliorate it, or cure it. We would again become slaves to it.
For the same reason, I do not think it will work for us to accept eternal
recurrence merely because of one or a few grand momentsfor the sake
of which we are willing to tolerate the rest of our lives. Magnus holds that all
we need desire is the return of one peak experience.21 This suggests that our
attitude toward much of our life, even most of it, could be one of toleration,
acceptance, or indifferenceit could even be negative. All we need do is love one
great moment and, because all moments are interconnected (Z IV: "The Drunken
Song" 10;WP 1032), that then will require us to accept all moments. This would be
much easier than actually loving all moments of one's lifeevery single detail. The
latter is what is demanded inEcce Homo, which says that amor fati means that one
"wants nothing to be different" and that we "[n]ot merely bear what is
necessary . . . but love it" (EH "Clever" 10, emphasis added [except to love]). We
want "a Yes-saying without reservation, even to suffering. . . . Nothing in existence
may be subtracted, nothing is dispensable . . ." (EH "BT" 2). If we do not
loveevery moment of our present life for its own sake, those moments we do not
love, those moments we accept for the sake of one grand moment, I suggest, will
begin to wear on us.22 We will begin to wish we did not have to suffer through so
many of them, we will try to develop strategies for coping with them, we will worry
about them, they will start to reassert themselves, they will slowly begin to
dominate us, and pretty soon we will again be enslaved by them. Our attitude
toward any moment cannot be a desire to avoid it, change it, or reduce itor it will
again begin to dominate us. Indeed, in Ecce Homo, Nietzsche says that he had to
display a "Russian fatalism." He did so by
tenaciously clinging for years to all but intolerable situations, places, apartments,
and society, merely because they happened to be given by accident: it was better
than changing them, than feeling that they could be changedthan rebelling
against them.
Any attempt to disturb me in this fatalism, to awaken me by force, used to annoy
me mortallyand it actually was mortally dangerous every time.

Accepting oneself as if fated, not wishing oneself "different"that is in such

cases great reason itself.
(EH "Wise" 6)
Eternal recurrence is an attempt to deal with meaningless suffering. It is an attempt
to do so that completely rejects an approach to suffering that says, Let's improve
the world, let's change things, let's work step by step to remove sufferingthe view
of liberals and socialists whom Nietzsche so often rails against. If it is impossible to
significantly reduce suffering in the world, as Nietzsche thinks it is, then to make it
your goal to try to do so is to enslave yourself to that suffering. [End Page 58]

Marijuana cp extensions

2nc overview
The counterplan is the best option in the round. It solves for all
of the plan plus more then the plan can solve. Legalizing
marijuana makes it so that racism is solved better then the af
does as well as eliminating the terrorism that would be caused
by doing the af.

AT: perm(2nc)
Group the perms:
Either they are severance or intrinsic because they change the aff and add
sequencing - voting issue for competitive equity
-ORThey dont solve - if we win a 1% risk of a link to the DA you
should prefer the counterplan, which solves better then case

AT: legalizing marijuana doesnt stop

racial profiling
Racial progress has occurred though legal change and more in
the area of drug laws is still possible---reject pessimism
because it ignores specific reforms that achieved lasting
reductions in racial inequality
Michael Omi 13, and Howard Winant, Resistance is futile?: a response to Feagin
and Elias, Ethnic and Racial Studies Volume 36, Issue 6, p. 961-973, 2013 Special
Issue: Symposium - Rethinking Racial Formation Theory
In Feagin and Elias's account, white racist rule in the US A appears unalterable and permanent.
There is little sense that the white racial frame evoked by systemic racism theory changes in significant ways over historical time.

They dismiss important rearrangements and reforms as merely a distraction

from more ingrained structural oppressions and deep lying inequalities that continue to define US
society (Feagin and Elias 2012, p. 21). Feagin and Elias use a concept they call surface flexibility to argue that white elites
frame racial realities in ways that suggest change, but are merely engineered to reinforce the underlying structure of racial
oppression. Feagin and Elias say the phrase racial democracy is an oxymoron a word defined in the dictionary as a figure of
speech that combines contradictory terms. If they mean the USA is a contradictory and incomplete democracy in respect to race

disagree. The USA is a racially despotic country in many ways, but in our view it is also in many respects a
racial democracy, capable of being influenced towards more or less inclusive
and redistributive economic policies, social policies, or for that matter, imperial policies. What is distinctive about our own
and racism issues, we agree. If they mean that people of colour have no democratic rights or political power in the USA,

epoch in the USA (post-Second World War to the present) with respect to race and racism? Over the past decades there has been a
steady drumbeat of efforts to contain and neutralize civil rights, to restrict racial democracy, and to maintain or even increase racial
inequality. Racial disparities in different institutional sites employment, health, education persist and in many cases have
increased. Indeed, the post-2008 period has seen a dramatic increase in racial inequality. The subprime home mortgage crisis, for
example, was a major racial event. Black and brown people were disproportionately affected by predatory lending practices; many

It would be easy to conclude, as

that white racial dominance has been continuous and
unchanging throughout US history. But such a perspective misses the
dramatic twists and turns in racial politics that have occurred since the Second
World War and the civil rights era. Feagin and Elias claim that we overly inflate the
significance of the changes wrought by the civil rights movement, and that we overlook
the serious reversals of racial justice and persistence of huge racial inequalities (Feagin
and Elias 2012, p. 21) that followed in its wake. We do not. In Racial Formation we wrote about racial reaction in a chapter
lost their homes as a result; race-based wealth disparities widened tremendously.
Feagin and Elias do,

of that name, and elsewhere in the book as well. Feagin and Elias devote little attention to our arguments there; perhaps because

While we argue that the right wing was able to rearticulate

race and racism issues to roll back some of the gains of the civil rights movement, we
also believe that there are limits to what the right could achieve in the post-civil
rights political landscape. So we agree that the present prospects for racial justice are
demoralizing at best. But we do not think that is the whole story. US racial conditions
have changed over the post-Second World War period, in ways that Feagin and Elias tend to downplay or neglect.
Some of the major reforms of the 1960s have proved irreversible; they have set
powerful democratic forces in motion. These racial (trans)formations were the results of unprecedented
political mobilizations, led by the black movement, but not confined to blacks alone. Consider the desegregation of the
armed forces, as well as key civil rights movement victories of the 1960s: the Voting Rights Act, the
Immigration and Naturalization Act (Hart- Celler), as well as important court decisions like Loving v.
they are in substantial agreement with us.

Virginia that declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional . While we have the greatest
respect for the late Derrick Bell, we do not believe that his interest convergence hypothesis effectively explains all these
developments. How does Lyndon Johnson's famous (and possibly apocryphal) lament upon signing the Civil Rights Act on 2 July 1964

The US racial regime has been

transformed in significant ways. As Antonio Gramsci argues, hegemony proceeds through the incorporation
We have lost the South for a generation count as convergence?

of opposition (Gramsci 1971, p. 182). The civil rights reforms can be seen as a classic example of this process; here the US racial
regime under movement pressure was exercising its hegemony. But Gramsci insists that such reforms which he calls passive
revolutions cannot be merely symbolic if they are to be effective: oppositions must win real gains in the process. Once again, we

important if partial victories that

shifted the racial state and transformed the significance of race in everyday life.
And yes, we think that further victories can take place both on the broad terrain of the
state and on the more immediate level of social interaction: in daily interaction, in the human psyche and across civil
society. Indeed we have argued that in many ways the most important accomplishment of the antiracist movement of the 1960s in the USA was the politicization of the social. In the USA and indeed around the
globe, race-based movements demanded not only the inclusion of racially defined
others and the democratization of structurally racist societies, but also the
recognition and validation by both the state and civil society of raciallydefined experience and identity. These demands broadened and deepened
democracy itself. They facilitated not only the democratic gains made in the USA by the
black movement and its allies, but also the political advances towards equality, social justice and inclusion accomplished
are in the realm of politics, not absolute rule. So yes, we think there were

by other new social movements: second-wave feminism, gay liberation, and the environmentalist and anti-war movements among

By no means do we think that the post-war movement upsurge was an

unmitigated success. Far from it: all the new social movements were subject to the same rearticulation (Laclau and

Mouffe 2001, p. xii) that produced the racial ideology of colourblindness and its variants; indeed all these movements confronted
their mirror images in the mobilizations that arose from the political right to counter them. Yet even their incorporation and

even the need to

develop the highly contradictory ideology of colourblindness, reveal the
transformative character of the politicization of the social. While it is not possible here to explore so extensive a
containment, even their confrontations with the various backlash phenomena of the past few decades,

subject, it is worth noting that it was the long-delayed eruption of racial subjectivity and self-awareness into the mainstream political
arena that set off this transformation, shaping both the democratic and anti-democratic social movements that are evident in US

use of racial
categories can be imprecise. This is not their problem alone; anyone writing about
race and racism needs to frame terms with care and precision, and we undoubtedly get
fuzzy too from time to time. The absence of a careful approach leads to racial
lumping and essentialisms of various kinds. This imprecision is heightened in
polemic. In the Feagin and Elias essay the term whites at times refers to all whites, white
elites, dominant white actors and very exceptionally, anti-racist whites , a category in
politics today. What are the political implications of contemporary racial trends? Feagin and Elias's

which we presume they would place themselves. Although the terms black, African American and Latino appear, the term

it is important
not to frame race in a bipolar manner. The black/white paradigm made more
sense in the past than it does in the twenty-first century. The racial make-up of the
nation has now changed dramatically. Since the passage of the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, the USA has
people of colour is emphasized, often in direct substitution for black reference points. In the USA today

become more coloured. A majorityminority national demographic shift is well underway. Predicted to arrive by the mid-twentyfirst century, the numerical eclipse of the white population is already in evidence locally and regionally. In California, for example,
non-Hispanic whites constitute only 39.7 per cent of the state's population. While the decline in the white population cannot be
correlated with any decline of white racial dominance, the dawning and deepening of racial multipolarity calls into question a
sometimes implicit and sometimes explicit black/white racial framework that is evident in Feagin and Elias's essay. Shifting racial
demographics and identities also raise general questions of race and racism in new ways that the systemic racism approach is not
prepared to explain.3 Class questions and issues of panethnicizing trends, for example, call into question what we mean by race,
racial identity and race consciousness. No racially defined group is even remotely uniform; groups that we so glibly refer to as Asian
American or Latino are particularly heterogeneous. Some have achieved or exceeded socio-economic parity with whites, while
others are subject to what we might call engineered poverty in sweatshops, dirty and dangerous labour settings, or prisons.
Tensions within panethnicized racial groups are notably present, and conflicts between racially defined groups (black/brown
conflict, for example) are evident in both urban and rural settings. A substantial current of social scientific analysis now argues that
Asians and Latinos are the new white ethnics, able to work toward whiteness4 at least in part, and that the black/white bipolarity
retains its distinct and foundational qualities as the mainstay of US racism (Alba and Nee 2005; Perlmann 2005; Portes and Rumbaut

2006; Waters, Ueda and Marrow 2007). We question that argument in light of the massive demographic shifts taking place in the
USA. Globalization, climate change and above all neoliberalism on a global scale, all drive migration. The country's economic
capacity to absorb enormous numbers of immigrants, low-wage workers and their families (including a new, globally based and very
female, servant class) without generating the sort of established subaltern groups we associate with the terms race and racism, may
be more limited than it was when the whitening of Europeans took place in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In other words
this argument's key precedent, the absorption of white immigrants of a different color (Jacobson 1998), may no longer apply.
Indeed, we might think of the assimilationist model itself as a general theory of immigrant incorporation that was based on a
historically specific case study one that might not hold for, or be replicated by, subsequent big waves of immigration. Feagin and
Elias's systemic racism model, while offering numerous important insights, does not inform concrete analysis of these issues. It is
important going forward to understand how groups are differentially racialized and relatively positioned in the US racial hierarchy:
once again racism must be seen as a shifting racial project. This has important consequences, not only with respect to emerging
patterns of inequality, but also in regard to the degree of power available to different racial actors to define, shape or contest the
existing racial landscape. Attention to such matters is largely absent in Feagin and Elias's account. In their view racially identified
groups are located in strict reference to the dominant white racial frame, hammered into place, so to speak. As a consequence,
they fail to examine how racially subordinate groups interact and influence each others boundaries, conditions and practices.
Because they offer so little specific analysis of Asian American, Latino or Native American racial issues, the reader finds her/himself
once again in the land (real or imaginary, depending on your racial politics) of bipolar US racial dynamics, in which whites and blacks
play the leading roles, and other racially identified groups as well as those ambiguously identified, such as Middle Eastern and
South Asian Americans (MEASA) play at best supporting roles, and are sometimes cast as extras or left out of the picture entirely.

We still want to acknowledge that blacks have been catching hell and have borne
the brunt of the racist reaction of the past several decades. For example, we agree
with Feagin and Elias's critique of the reactionary politics of incarceration in the USA. The new Jim
Crow (Alexander 2012) or even the new slavery that the present system practises is something that was just in its beginning
stages when we were writing Racial Formation. It is now recognized as a national and indeed global scandal.

be understood?

How is it to

Of course there are substantial debates on this topic, notably about the nature of the prison-industrial

beyond Feagin and

Elias's denunciation of the ferocious white racism that is operating here, deeper
political implications are worth considering. As Alexander (2012), Mauer (2006), Manza and Uggen
(2008) and movement groups like Critical Resistance and the Ella Baker Center argue, the upsurge over recent
decades in incarceration rates for black (and brown) men expresses the fear-based, law-and-order appeals that
complex (Davis 2003, p. 3) and the social and cultural effects of mass incarceration along racial lines. But

have shaped US racial politics since the rise of Nixonland (Perlstein 2008) and the Southern strategy. Perhaps even more central,

aims at restricting the increasing impact of voters of colour in a

demographically shifting electorate. There is a lot more to say about this, but for the present two key points
stand out: first, it is not an area where Feagin and Elias and we have any sharp disagreement, and second, for all the
horrors and injustices that the new Jim Crow represents, incarceration , profiling
and similar practices remain political issues. These practices and policies are
not ineluctable and unalterable dimensions of the US racial regime. There
have been previous waves of reform in these areas. They can be transformed
again by mass mobilization, electoral shifts and so on. In other words, resistance
is not futile. Speaking of electoral shifts and the formal political arena, how should President Barack Obama be politically
racial repression

situated in this discussion? How do Feagin and Elias explain Obama? Quite amazingly, his name does not appear in their essay. Is he
a mere token, an oreo, a shill for Wall Street? Or does Obama represent a new development in US politics, a black leader of a mass,
multiracial party that for sheer demographic reasons alone might eventually triumph over the white people's party, the Republicans?
If the President is neither the white man's token nor Neo, the One,5 then once again we are in the world of politics: neither the neartotal white despotism depicted by Feagin and Elias, nor a racially inclusive democracy. President Obama continues to enjoy
widespread black support, although it is clear that he has not protected blacks against their greatest cumulative loss of wealth in
history. He has not explicitly criticized the glaring racial bias in the US carceral system. He has not intervened in conflicts over
workers rights particularly in the public sector where many blacks and other people of colour are concentrated. He has not
intervened to halt or slow foreclosures, except in ways that were largely symbolic. Workers and lower-middle-class people were the
hardest hit by the great recession and the subprime home mortgage crisis, with black families faring worst, and Latinos close behind
(Rugh and Massey 2010); Obama has not defended them. Many writers have explained Obama's centrism and unwillingness to raise
the issue of race as functions of white racism (Sugrue 2010). The black community and other communities of colour as well
remains politically divided. While black folk have taken the hardest blows from the reactionary and racist regime that has mostly
dominated US politics since Reagan (if not since Nixon), no united black movement has succeeded the deaths of Malcolm and
Martin. Although there is always important political activity underway, a relatively large and fairly conservative black middle class, a
black bourgeoisie in Frazier's (1957) terms, has generally maintained its position since the end of the civil rights era. Largely based
in the public sector, and including a generally centrist business class as well, this stratum has continued to play the role that Frazier
and before him, Charles S. Johnson. William Lloyd Warner, Alison Davis and other scholars identified: vacillation between the
white elite and the black masses. Roughly similar patterns operate in Latino communities as well, where the working towards
whiteness framework coexists with a substantial amount of exclusion and super-exploitation. Alongside class issues in
communities of colour, there are significant gender issues. The disappearance of blue-collar work, combined with the assault by the
criminal justice system chiefly profiling by the police (stop and frisk) and imprisonment, have both unduly targeted and victimized

Women of colour are also targeted, especially by violence,

discrimination and assaults on their reproductive rights (Harris-Perry 2011); profiling is everywhere
black and brown men, especially youth.

(Glover 2009). Here again we are in the realm of racial politics. Debate proceeds in the black community on Obama's credibilty,
with Cornel West and Tavis Smiley leading the critics. But it seems safe to say that in North Philly, Inglewood or Atlanta's Lakewood
section, the president remains highly popular. Latino support for Obama remains high as well. Feagin and Elias need to clarify their
views on black and brown political judgement. Is it attuned to political realities or has it been captured by the white racial frame? Is
Obama's election of no importance? *** In conclusion, do Feagin and Elias really believe that white power is so complete, so
extensive, so sutured (as Laclau and Mouffe might say) as they suggest here? Do they mean to suggest, in Borg-fashion, that
resistance is futile? This seems to be the underlying political logic of the systemic racism approach, perhaps unintentionally so. Is
white racism so ubiquitous that no meaningful political challenge can be mounted against it? Are black and brown folk (yellow and
red people, and also others unclassifiable under the always- absurd colour categories) utterly supine, duped, abject, unable to exert
any political pressure? Is such a view of race and racism even recognizable in the USA of 2012? And is that a responsible political
position to be advocating? Is this what we want to teach our students of colour? Or our white students for that matter? We suspect

racial conflict, both within (and against) the

state and in everyday life, is a fundamentally political process. We think that they would
also accept our claim that the ongoing political realities of race provide extensive
evidence that people of colour in the USA are not so powerless, and that whites
are not so omnipotent, as Feagin and Elias's analysis suggests them to be. Racial formation theory allows us to see
that if pressed, Feagin and Elias would concur with our judgement that

that there are contradictions in racial oppression. The racial formation approach reveals that white racism is unstable and constantly
challenged, from the national and indeed global level down to the personal and intra-psychic conflicts that we all experience, no

have been enormous increases in racial inequality in recent years. But movementbased anti-racist opposition continues, and sometimes scores victories. Challenges
to white racism continue both within the state and in civil society . Although
matter what our racial identity might be. While racism largely white continues to flourish, it is not monolithic. Yes,

largely and properly led by people of colour, anti-racist movements also incorporate whites such as Feagin and Elias themselves.

Movements may experience setbacks, the reforms for which they fought may be
revealed as inadequate, and indeed their leaders may be co-opted or even eliminated, but racial
subjectivity and self-awareness, unresolved and conflictual both within the individual psyche and
the body politic, abides. Resistance is not futile.

Case extensions
Going onto case, look at the plan in the vacuum theres a large
solvency deficit. The af has no way to stop the war on drugs,
and there are multiple alternate causes in the squo to the
racism they say is being caused currently by the war on the
drugs, the counterplan is ultimatley going to solve better then
the plan could ever do anyway.

AT: plan wont get circumvented

Terror DA extensions

The terror DA becomes an immediate net benefit coming out of
the 1nc at the point in which the f cant solve for terrorist
groups the work within drug cartel you should prefer the
counterplan which solves for the plan plus more
on an impact level the DA takes out impact the af may garner,
due to the pure fact the impact to the DA is extinction

AT: terror low in squo now

Terror threat high nowencryption and radicalization
Investor's Business Daily, 6-23-2015, "Despite Obama's Claim, Our Terror Threat Level Is High,"

Homeland Security: The president repeatedly claims we're safer than ever. The
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee just warned of the opposite.
Apparently we have difficulty tracking U.S.-based terrorist cells. The attitude of the
Obama administration toward terrorism is summed up by the National Terrorism
Advisory System page on the Homeland Security website. "There are no current
alerts," it reports. And "there are no expired alerts." Nearby is the question, "Was
this page helpful?" The answer is no. The five post-9/11 color-coded terrorism alert
levels, abandoned in 2011, were lampooned by comedians for being vague and
based on hidden criteria. With the threat level never dropping below "elevated"
(yellow), down to "guarded" (blue) or "low" (green), the public was ignoring it, it was
said. But now, in its place, is a National Terrorism Advisory System that never issues
alerts. In fact, over nearly six and a half years, President Obama has not once,
under either the old or new system, issued an alert. Last August he promised
"things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago, or
30 years ago." That contradicted his own Joint Chiefs chairman, secretary of
defense, and even his then-Attorney General Eric Holder, who called potential
undetectable explosives smuggled in from Syria the most frightening thing he had
seen while in office. Enter House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, RCalif., who told CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday that "we face the highest threat
level we have ever faced in this country today . .. including after 9/11." Because of
obstacles such as encrypted Internet chat rooms, "we are having a tough time
tracking terrorist cells," according to Nunes. And "the flow of fighters" from Western
nations who have been radicalized into the Islamic State, but "who have now come
out" and may seek to commit terrorist attacks back home, is another reason the
threat is greater than ever. Nunes noted that the FBI has "cases open in 50 states."
Then there is civil war in Yemen, with the AQAP branch of al-Qaida "everywhere,"
according to Nunes. Last September, outlining his noncombat approach against the
Islamic State, Obama cited his Yemen policy as the model. Eleven days later,
Iranian-backed Houthi rebels toppled the U.S.-backed government. Obama is poised
to make a nuclear deal with those same Iranians, lifting sanctions and handing
Tehran tens of billions in cash to terrorize even more and gain regional dominance
all before getting nuclear weapons, which will launch an atomic arms race in the
Mideast. Russia's new aggressiveness counters Obama's claims that the Cold War is
ancient history. Iran, the Islamic State and other terrorists are actually, while lacking
Moscow's massive nuclear arsenal, a greater threat because of the theocraticbased, self-destructive irrationality and instability underlying their motivations. The
Soviets, after all, never murdered thousands of Americans on their own soil. Far less
powerful Islamist fanatics did. Under the old color-coded system, today's level of
alert would be "severe" (red).

Terror threat high nowAl Qaeda initiatives prove

Mail Online, 7-15-2015, "Terror alert remains high,"
Britain and the US remained on terror alert today, following a call from Osama bin
Laden's deputy for Muslims to attack the "missions" of the two countries. An audio
tape said to have come from Ayman al-Zawahri was played on Arabic television
station al-Jazeera, urging "brothers" to follow the example of the September 11
hijackers. "Consider your 19 brothers who attacked America in Washington and New
York with their planes as an example," said the voice, identified as al-Zawahri by alJazeera, which did not say how it got the tape. "Attack the missions of the United
States, the UK, Australia and Norway and their interests, companies and employees.
Turn the ground beneath their feet into an inferno and kick them out of your
countries," said the tape. "Know that you are not alone in this battle. Your
mujahadeen brothers are following the enemies as well and are lying in wait for
them." Al-Zawahri, who has not been seen since the war in Afghanistan, lashed out
at Arab leaders for offering "airports and the facilities" to the Allied troops, in an
apparent reference to the war on Iraq. His call to arms came as British and US
embassies in the Saudi capital Riyadh remained shut amid fears they could be
targeted in "imminent" terrorist attacks, and America upped its homeland terror
alert status. Hijack plot foiled And details emerged of a possible al Qaida plot to
hijack a civilian airliner in the Saudi town of Jeddah and crash it into a bank.
According to reports, three armed Moroccans arrested in Jeddah's airport on Monday
had planned the suicide hijack and hoped to crash the plane into the headquarters
of Saudi's National Commercial Bank. It was not clear if they were linked to last
week's triple suicide bombings of foreign residential compounds in Riyadh which
killed 34, including two Britons, or similar bombings in Morocco on Friday. Security
boosted Security officials warned that al Qaida appeared to be entering an "active"
phase of attacks, aimed at showing it was still operational despite the so-called "war
on terror". The British, German and Italian embassies in the Saudi capital Riyadh
closed to the public yesterday following intelligence reports that terrorist attacks
were being planned. The British consulate in Jeddah and trade office in al Khobar
were also closed from yesterday. It is expected the offices will reopen on Saturday,
although the situation will be kept under review. The US closed its embassy and
consulates in the Middle Eastern kingdom on Tuesday, a week after the series of
suicide bomb attacks in Riyadh. The Bush administration raised America's terror
alert level to orange, its second highest level, amid fears that the wave of terrorist
attacks in Saudi, Morocco and Israel will spread to the US.

Homegrown terrorism on the rise74 plots discovered

Carrie Blackmore, 1-17-2015, "Number of homegrown terrorists is rising,"
CINCINNATI We are far from knowing the outcome of the case against Christopher
Cornell, the young local man accused of plotting an attack on the U.S. Capitol, but if
he is convicted, he would be added to a growing list of homegrown jihadist

terrorists. From Sept. 11, 2001, to January 2014, there were 74 known terrorist plots
perpetrated by Americans, lawful U.S. residents or visitors largely radicalized here in
the United States, according to the most recent data reported by the Congressional
Research Service. Five of those plots were carried out before law enforcement was
able to intervene. Fifty-three of the cases almost 72 percent happened after April
2009. That's a 152 percent increase over that time period and constitutes a spike,
according to the report by the service, an agency that works exclusively for the U.S.
Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and members of the
House and Senate. "It may be too early to tell how sustained this uptick is," the
report reads. "Regardless, the apparent spike in such activity after April 2009
suggests that ideologies supporting violent jihad continue to influence some
Americans even if a tiny minority." A review of the 74 cases shows that just seven
were initiated by someone working independently, a lone wolf. Forty-five of the 74
planned to attack a domestic target.

Case turns?
Terrorism is used as a justification for increased surveillance
empirics prove and turns case
Haggerty and Gazso 2005 (Kevin, Professor of Criminology and Sociology at
the University of Alberta; Amber, Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology
at York University, The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de
sociologie, Vol. 30, No. 2 ( Spring, 2005), pp. 169-187 Seeing beyond the Ruins:
Surveillance as a Response to Terrorist Threats JSTOR; accessed 7/17/15 JH @ DDI)
A climate of fear and anxiety helped ease the passage of such laws (Davis, 2001). However,
a great deal of organizational opportunism was also at work. Many of the surveillance proposals
adopted in the days after the attack were recycled from earlier legislative efforts . In
previous incarnations these proposals had often been legitimated as essential for the international "war on drugs"

The September 11 th attacks gave the

authorities a new and apparently unassailable legitimation for long-standing
legislative ambitions. Before the dust had settled on Manhattan, the security
establishment had mobilized to expand and intensify their surveillance capabilities,
justifying existing proposals as necessary tools to fight the new war against
terrorism. Ultimately, the police, military and security establishment reaped an unanticipated windfall of
or to address other crimes, such as money laundering.

increased funding, new technology and loosened legislative constraints by strategically invoking fears of future
attacks. There are several examples of such opportunism. Since at least 1999, when Congress initially turned down
their request, the U.S. Justice Department has lobbied for the development of new "secret search" provisions.
Likewise, prior to the attacks, the FBI and the National Telecommunications and Information Systems Security
Committee had a lengthy shopping list of desired surveillance-related measures including legal enhancements to
their wiretapping capabilities, legal constraints on the public use of cryptography, and provisions for governmental

All of
these proposals were recycled and implemented after the September 11th attacks
now justified as integral tools in the "war on terrorism." New provisions requiring banks to
agents to compel Internet service providers to provide information on their customers (Burnham, 1997).

exercise "due diligence" in relation to their large depositors were originally justified by the authorities as a means to
counter the "war on drugs." The opportunism of many of these efforts was inadvertently revealed by an RCMP
Sergeant when, during a discussion about new official antiterrorism powers to monitor financial transactions, he
noted that: "We've been asking for something like this for four years. It's really our best weapon against biker
gangs" [emphasis added] (Corcan, 2001). In Canada, the Federal Privacy Commissioner was particularly alarmed by
the development of what he referred to as a "Big Brother database." This amounts to a detailed computerized
record of information about Canadian travelers. Although justified as a means to counter terrorism, the data will be

Such provisions
raise the specter of informational "fishing expeditions." Indeed, the Canadian government has
made available to other government departments for any purpose they deem appropriate.

already indicated that this ostensible anti-terrorist database will be used to help monitor tax evaders and catch
domestic criminals. It will also be used to scrutinize an individual's travel history and destinations, in an effort to try
and determine whether they might be a pedophile or money launderer (Radwanski, 2002). While these are laudable

a host of other surveillance agendas have been furthered by

capitalizing on the new anti-terrorism discourse.
goals, they also reveal how

T its
Interpretation- Its can refer to geography
Words and Phrases 6 vol 22B p 524
Nev. 1963. In constitutional provision authorizing Legislature to exceed debt limitation if necessary,
expedient or advisable for protection and preservation of any of its property or natural resources, the term
"its" has geographical rather than proprietary connotation. Const, art. 9, 3.Marlette Lake Co. v,
Sawyer, 383 P.2d 369, 79 Nev. 334. States 115.

Violation-the af uses the term its as a means of

possession, rather than a term to refer to geography
Limits- Prevents explosion of the topicour interpretation limits the topic to a
discussion of how we should curtail domestic surveillance, using the word its with
this definition prevents the topic from becoming about anything the aff pleases.

Grammatical precisionour interp preserves the meaning of the phrase its

Ground- No ground for the neg to run any of their args---and this isnt just a
neg whine. There would be no CP solvency other than a stale states debate to run
against small projects affs or city affs
Education- If they are of topic, it ruins the value of debate. The framers of
the resolution created it for a reason : for us to learn about a specific topic. If they
arent on topic and going against the very things we learned in elementary school,
we dont learn about the topic the way we should and thus destroy the value of

Fairness- The af is being unfair with their case and interpretation of the
resolution. This is explained by the fact they explode the topic by underlimiting it,
making it unfair to be the neg because we lose so much ground that we can hardly

Jurisdiction- T is a voter because it is not within the judges jurisdiction to

vote for an untopical case. The judges realm of jurisdiction is the resolution, and
nothing else. Even if the aff proves their untopical case to be a good idea, you cant
vote for them when we show they didnt actually affirm the resolution due to the
fact they are off topic.