Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[20]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[21]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[20]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-03 03:10:16.611
	1	+2016-12-03 03:10:16.0

Caselist.CitesClass[21]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,36 @@
	1	+The US is currently holding terrorists at bay through security tactics that go under the public radar and require extreme efficiency. Atkins 11/17
	2	+
	3	+Doug Atkins writer and contributor to boston globe Nov 17, 2016 Terror at Home: We Are Smarter Than We Think https://ivn.us/2016/11/17/winning-war-terror/
	4	+
	5	+Fear mongering media outlets have convinced many that we are losing the war on terror at home. The truth is, however, that we are doing quite well.¶ According to the October Terror Threat Snapshot, released by the Majority Staff of the Homeland Security Committee, US authorities have arrested 109 suspects in ISIS related incidences since 2014.¶ The report states, “These individuals had, among other acts: plotted attacks; attempted to join ISIS in Iraq and Syria (or facilitated others’ travel); provided money, equipment, and weapons to ISIS; and falsified statements to federal authorities. Eight ISIS-linked terrorists have been killed while carrying out five separate attacks in California, Florida, Massachusetts, Texas, and Minnesota.” Currently, there are over 1,000 active FBI investigations into homegrown terrorism according to Director James Comey. He stated that over 80 percent of those are ISIS related. Since September 11, 2001, there have been at least 171 homegrown jihadist plots in the United States, including attempts to join terrorist groups overseas and execute attacks at home. More than 86 percent of these cases have occurred or been uncovered since 2009.¶ There is a lot of “behind the scenes” action, resulting in statistics like those above, that the general public rarely hears about in mainstream media.¶ Tactics such as leveraging the criminal justice system, seizing financial assets, gathering intelligence, covert operations, restricting movement of suspected terrorists, monitoring social media, and enhanced border restrictions and rules are all tools which aid in capturing US and foreign jihadists. As a result of these methods, fighters traveling into Syria and Iraq (at a one-time high of 2,000 monthly) have now fallen to as few as 50 per month.¶ U.S. efforts to counteract ISIS messaging online have proven an effective way to deter recruitment. ISIS has social media experts, and even hosts real-time Q and A sessions online where recruiters answer questions such as, “How do I travel, undetected, from the US to Syria?” Radical extremists post videos online, encouraging young people who have felt rejected by American society to take up Jihad.¶ According to the Terror Snapshot, here are some of the actions and arrests during this past September which have stopped some of these radicalized individuals from acting:¶ September 8: Marie Castelli, a 56-year-old U.S. citizen and Muslim convert from Maysville, Kentucky, was arrested after issuing violent threats and lying to federal authorities. Castelli promoted ISIS propaganda through social media.¶ September 10: An ISIS-linked cyber hacking group released a “kill list” with information about real estate professionals in the United States and encouraged individuals to locate and attack them.¶ September 18: Ahmad Khan Rahami, a 28-year-old U.S. citizen who was born in Afghanistan and is a resident of Elizabeth, New Jersey, was arrested after launching a bombing campaign targeting multiple locations in New York and New Jersey. Rahami was carrying a journal citing ISIS’s call for its followers in the West to launch attacks at home.¶ September 18: Dahir Adan, a 20-year-old U.S. citizen living in St. Cloud, Minnesota, attacked nearly a dozen people with a knife at a mall. Adan was born to a Somali family in Kenya before immigrating to the United States. Adan reportedly asked victims during his stabbing spree at a mall in Minnesota if they were Muslim. ISIS’s primary media arm claimed Adan was an ISIS supporter shortly after the attack.¶ September 30: Nelash Mohamed Das, a 24-year-old Bangladeshi citizen who has been living in Maryland as a legal permanent resident, was arrested after he plotted to kill a member of the U.S. military on behalf of ISIS.¶ Authorities know that roughly 90 percent of ISIS fanatics charged in the US are male and an average of 26.3 years of age. We are learning how to find these high risk individuals and arrest them. Almost 30 percent of those arrested were planning ISIS related attacks.¶ In a few instances, individuals known to be associated with terrorist groups have unsuccessfully attempted to gain admittance to the US through the refugee program. Over the past fiscal year, the Obama Administration has let almost 13,000 refugees through our borders and planned to allow in even more. By comparison, 1.3 million refugees arrived in Europe during that same time period. Trump has indicated that he intends to reduce these numbers drastically.¶ Although the US has a highly rigorous screening process for incoming refugees (Consuming 18 – 24 months for each person) the Terror Snapshot states that, “American law enforcement and intelligence officials have repeatedly indicated that the U.S. lacks reliable and credible intelligence to properly vet and screen potential Syrian refugees.”¶ President-Elect Trump has repeatedly indicated that he plans to improve this process with what he calls “extreme vetting.”¶ ISIS has proven to be a challenger unlike anything the US has previously faced. Their ability to use the internet and social media to reach high risk individuals and radicalize them to the ISIS cause has created a threat that is difficult to combat. Our intelligence agencies continue to learn and grow, having great, if often unrecognized, successes in protecting the American people.
	6	+
	7	+Qualified immunity for security officials is necessary to secrecy, efficiency, and flexible decision-making. Samp 6/8
	8	+*Brackets in original
	9	+Richard A. Samp JD Washington Legal Foundation June 8, 2016 Ascroft v Turkmen Amicus Briefs. BRIEF OF FORMER U.S. ATTORNEYS GENERAL¶ WILLIAM P. BARR, ALBERTO R. GONZALES,¶ EDWIN MEESE III, MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, AND¶ DICK THORNBURGH; FORMER FBI DIRECTORS¶ WILLIAM S. SESSIONS AND WILLIAM H. WEBSTER;¶ AND WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION¶ AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Ashcroft-v-Turkmen-WLF-amicus.pdf
	10	+
	11	+The petitions raise issues of exceptional¶ importance. Amici urge the Court to grant review of¶ all three Questions Presented. We write separately to¶ focus particular emphasis on the qualified immunity¶ question. Qualified immunity not only provides¶ government officials with a defense to liability; it also¶ is “an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other¶ burdens of litigation.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S.¶ 511, 526 (1985) (emphasis added). The Court has made¶ clear that the “driving force” behind creation of the¶ qualified immunity doctrine was a desire to ensure¶ that “‘insubstantial claims’ will be resolved prior to¶ discovery.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640¶ n.2 (1987). Yet, the decision below calls into question¶ the ability of high-level Executive Branch officials to¶ win dismissal, on qualified immunity grounds, of even¶ frivolous Bivens litigation filed by anyone claiming to¶ be aggrieved by their official conduct.¶ In the absence of dismissal, those officials face¶ the prospect of discovery proceedings that are highly¶ likely to distract them from their other responsibilities.¶ As former senior Executive Branch officials, the¶ individual amici curiae are concerned by the disruptive¶ effects of such discovery, and they are very concerned¶ that such disruptions are likely to impair the ability of¶ high-level officials to carry out their missions effectively. Review is warranted to determine whether¶ such disruptions are required under the terms of the¶ qualified immunity doctrine and the pleading¶ standards established by the Federal Rules of Civil¶ Procedure, particularly when (as here) the challenged¶ actions involve sensitive national security issues.¶ Respondents raise constitutional claims that are¶ largely the same as those at issue in Iqbal and that¶ arise from precisely the same underlying facts: the¶ detention of Arab/Muslim unauthorized aliens at the¶ MDC under harsh conditions in 2001-02. Iqbal¶ determined that the complaint at issue there did not¶ adequately state a constitutional claim against¶ Ashcroft and Mueller for their alleged role in the¶ detentions. The Second Circuit decision, by reaching¶ the opposite conclusion in connection with a complaint¶ that added little in the way of new factual allegations,¶ is in considerable tension with Iqbal. The same¶ considerations that led the Court to review (and¶ ultimately overturn) the Second Circuit’s assessment¶ of the adequacy of the pleadings in Iqbal should¶ persuade the Court to grant review here as well. In¶ particular, Respondents’ complaint includes no factual¶ allegations from which one can reasonably infer that¶ Ashcroft, Mueller, and Ziglar played any role in¶ determining the conditions of Respondents’¶ confinement.¶ Review is also warranted to determine whether¶ the courts should recognize a judicially inferred¶ damages remedy against senior Executive Branch¶ officials for alleged infringement of Respondents’¶ constitutional rights in the course of carrying out their¶ national security responsibilities. As Petitioners note, the appeals courts are sharply divided on the issue,¶ with the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits¶ issuing decisions that conflict with the decision below.¶ Review is warranted to resolve that conflict.¶ Amici also write separately to note that the¶ Second Circuit’s unprecedented recognition of Bivens¶ actions to challenge Executive Branch national security¶ policy conflicts with decisions of this Court. The Court¶ has cautioned against recognition of new Bivens¶ remedies when, as here, “special factors” counsel¶ hesitation. Those special factors include the national¶ security and immigration-law aspects of this case¶ (areas in which courts traditionally defer to the¶ judgments of the elected branches), the availability of¶ alternative remedies (e.g., habeas corpus proceedings),¶ and the failure of Congress to provide an express¶ damages remedy despite its considerable focus on¶ detention-related issues arising in the course of the¶ 9/11 investigation.¶ REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION¶ I. REVIEW IS WARRANTED BECAUSE THE¶ DECISION BELOW THREATENS THE¶ ABILITY OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS TO¶ AVOID THE BURDENS OF LITIGATION¶ IMPOSED BY INSUBSTANTIAL CLAIMS¶ The Court has long recognized that significant¶ burdens are imposed on government officials when¶ they are required to defend damages claims filed¶ against them in their individual capacities for actions¶ taken in connection with their employment. As the¶ Court explained in Harlow: Each such suit against high-level¶ government officials almost invariably¶ results in these officials and their¶ colleagues being subjected to extensive¶ discovery into traditionally protected¶ areas, such as their deliberations¶ preparatory to the formulation of¶ government policy and their intimate¶ thought processes and communications at¶ the presidential and cabinet levels. Such¶ discovery is wide-ranging, timeconsuming,¶ and not without considerable¶ cost to the officials involved.¶ Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817 n.29 (quoting¶ Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d 1192, 1214 (D.C. Cir.¶ 1979) (Gesell, J., concurring)).¶ The burdens can be particularly pronounced¶ among officials working on national security matters,¶ where the high level of public passion can result in¶ increased levels of litigation. As Justice Stevens¶ explained:¶ The passions aroused by matters of¶ national security and foreign policy and¶ the high profile of Cabinet officers with¶ functions in that area make them “easily¶ identifiable targets for suits for civil¶ damages.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S.¶ 731, 753 (1982). Persons of wisdom¶ and honor will hesitate to answer the¶ President’s call to serve in these vital¶ positions if they fear that vexatious and¶ politically motivated litigation associated with their public decisions will squander¶ their time and reputation, and sap their¶ personal financial resources when they¶ leave office. The multitude of lawsuits¶ filed against high officials in recent years¶ only confirms the rationality of this¶ anxiety.¶ Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 541-42 (Stevens, J., concurring in¶ the judgment).¶ Events proved Justice Stevens’s prescience.¶ Lawsuits seeking damages from senior Executive¶ Branch officials for actions they took regarding¶ national security matters proliferated throughout the¶ administrations of Presidents Barack Obama, George¶ W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. See, e.g., Lebron v.¶ Rumsfeld, 670 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2012) (suit against¶ Defense Secretaries Leon Panetta and Donald¶ Rumsfeld alleging mistreatment of military detainee);¶ Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (suit against¶ Attorney General alleging improper authorization of¶ material-witness warrants to detain terrorism¶ suspects); Gonzalez v. Reno, 325 F.2d 1228 (11th Cir.¶ 2003) (suit against Attorney General arising from¶ execution of an arrest warrant for six-year-old Elian¶ Gonzalez). A. The Qualified Immunity Doctrine¶ Was Crafted to Reduce the Burden¶ on Government Officials of¶ Defending Against Damages Claims¶ In an effort to reduce the burdens imposed by¶ such suits, the Court has crafted a qualified immunity doctrine designed to provide government officials with¶ not only a defense to liability but also an “immunity¶ from suit.” Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526. The “driving¶ force” behind creation of the doctrine was a desire to¶ ensure that “insubstantial claims will be resolved¶ prior to discovery.” Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 n.2. See¶ also Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001) (“Where¶ the defendant seeks qualified immunity, a ruling on¶ that issue should be made early in the proceedings so¶ that the costs and expenses of trial are avoided where¶ the defense is dispositive.”).¶ Qualified immunity shields a government official¶ from liability in an individual capacity so long as the¶ official has not violated “clearly established statutory¶ or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person¶ would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818. To¶ overcome the defense of qualified immunity the¶ plaintiff must show: (1) the facts, viewed in the light¶ most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrate the¶ deprivation of a statutory or constitutional right; and¶ (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the¶ deprivation. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 199. Courts are¶ “permitted to exercise their sound discretion in¶ deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified¶ immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of¶ the circumstances in the particular case at hand.”¶ Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). Amici¶ submit that review of the second prong—whether the¶ asserted right was “clearly established”—is¶ particularly warranted in this case.
	12	+
	13	+The AFF ruling on qualififed immunity limits it for all officials – courts take previous rulings to apply up the executive ladder. Cornyn et al 01
	14	+ (John, Andy Taylor First Assistant Attorney General Gregory S. Coleman Solicitor General Counsel of Record Lisa R. Eskow Assistant Solicitor General P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 936-1700 Counsel for Amici Bill Pryor Attorney General of Alabama 11 South Union Street Montgomery, AL 36130 Bruce M. Botelho Attorney General of Alaska P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, AK 99811-0300 Mark Pryor Attorney General of Arkansas 323 Center St., Ste. 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Bill Lockyer Attorney General of California 1300 1 Street, Ste. 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Ken Salazar Attorney General of Colorado 1525 Sherman St., 7th Fl. Denver, CO 80203 Richard Blumenthal Attorney General of Connecticut 55 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06141-0120 M. Jane Brady Attorney General of Delaware 820 N. French St. Wilmington, DE 19801 James E. Ryan Attorney General of Illinois 100 W. Randolph St., 12th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Richard P. Ieyoub Attorney General of Louisiana P.O. Box 94095 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9095 J. Joseph Curran, Jr. Attorney General of Maryland 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202 Thomas F. Reilly Attorney General of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 Mike Moore Attorney General of Mississippi P.O. Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205 Joseph P. Mazurek Attorney General of Montana 215 N. Sanders P.O. Box 201401 Helena, MT 59620-1401 Don Stenberg Attorney General of Nebraska 2115 State Capitol Lincoln, NE 68509 Eliot Spitzer Attorney General of New York The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 Heidi Heitkamp Attorney General of North Dakota 600 E. Boulevard Ave. Bismarck, ND 58505-0040 Betty D. Montgomery Attorney General of Ohio 30 E. Broad St., 17th Fl. Columbus, OH 43215 W.A. Drew Edmondson Attorney General of Oklahoma 2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Ste. 112 Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4894 Hardy Myers Attorney General of Oregon 1162 Court St. N.E. Salem, OR 97310 D. Michael Fisher Attorney General of Pennsylvania 16th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Charles M. Condon Attorney General of South Carolina P.O. Box 11549 Columbia, SC 29211 Mark Barnett Attorney General of South Dakota 500 East Capitol Avenue Pierre, SD 57501-5070 Paul G. Summers Attorney General of Tennessee 425 Fifth Ave., North Nashville, TN 37243 Jan Graham Attorney General of Utah 236 State Capitol Salt Lake City, UT 84114 William H. Sorrell Attorney General of Vermont 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609-1001 Christine O. Gregoire Attorney General of Washington 1125 Washington Street P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 Brief of The States of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,¶ Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Washington as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner)
	15	+The “reasonable mistake” is one of the core tenets of qualified immunity jurisprudence. In fact, were this Court to prohibit or limit the applicability of qualified immunity and the “reasonable mistake” with respect to excessive force claims, that philosophical departure would have ripple effects beyond the excessive force context. If officers who make *21 reasonable, albeit mistaken, judgments about the necessity of force can be categorically excluded from the ambit of qualified immunity, other public employees exercising discretionary functions might fear that their immunity protections could be forfeited next. This could dissuade individuals from taking government jobs. Public servants should not have to worry that courts might make policy-based distinctions about which types of duties should be afforded immunity protections, and which should not. To transform qualified immunity into a guessing game would defeat the purpose of the doctrine. Harlow's objective legal reasonableness test was designed to strike a balance between the need to vindicate civil rights abuses and the need to promote public service and shield government officials from insubstantial civil rights claims. It is inevitable that public servants will err; and when they do, they should be secure in knowing that their errors will not subject them to liability, or suit, provided they err in a manner that is objectively reasonable. Harlow's compromise may be imperfect, but it should be preserved, as it strikes the best “balance between the evils inevitable in an available alternative.” See Harlow, 457 U.S., at 813.
	16	+
	17	+Flexibility is key to fighting terror Kirchner ‘14
	18	+Richard (Rik) Kirchner, Jr. is Chief Executive Officer of KIRIK International, Inc., and Executive Director of the Institute for Surveillance and Threat Detection, a first of its kind educational center dedicated solely to the discipline of Surveillance Detection and Behavioral Detection, delivering Antiterrorism and Threat assessment, development, and implementation to High Value Target and Critical Infrastructure/Key Resource program managers for comprehensive Threat Detection programs with subject matter expertise in Hostile Surveillance, Threat Detection, and Threat Management. “Surveillance and Threat Detection: Prevention versus Mitigation.” Elsevier. 2014. https://books.google.com/books?id=NYS-AQAAQBAJandpg=PA37andlpg=PA37anddq=22search+and+seizure22+and+22prevent+terrorism22andsource=blandots=jMP5xoUYQkandsig=u-N0ufTTRfALYHgFDQ_ZNtlWgYMandhl=enandsa=Xandved=0ahUKEwiO94Lu0rHQAhVnrVQKHW63AW8Q6AEISjAJ#v=onepageandq=22search20and20seizure2220and2022prevent20terrorism22andf=false JJN
	19	+While counterterrorism and terrorism prevention are concepts traditionally associated with our nation’s intelligence agencies, there are many basic avenues law enforcement can take in fighting terrorism. Simply keeping an eye out for indicators of preincident planning is integral to counterterrorism efforts nationwide. Patriot Act provisions assist law enforcement efforts greatly by facilitating more efficient terrorist monitoring and probable cause development. Finally, familiarization with state and federal law pertaining to the prevention of terrorist attacks is an absolute must. Terrorism presents a challenge to law enforcement as it requires police to act proactively against crimes (terrorist acts) that, in many cases, have not yet been committed. If the police wait, as they do traditionally, to react to terrorist crimes after they are committed, then the roles of the police are that of a first responder and an investigator. The public, however, expects police to deal with terrorism differently. This is mainly because crimes such as rape, theft, robbery, and even murder target the individual while terrorism targets the public. As such, the public demands that the police act to prevent terrorism before it becomes a criminal reality. Police officers are given the rights to search and seizure based on probable cause (Terry vs Ohio) and to stop a person for inquiry based on reasonable suspicion. These rights were afforded to officers in order to help them prevent a crime that they believe is about to occur. To prove a crime, officers need to find evidence. However, when it comes to terrorism, evidence and weapons are not always there to find even at the execution of the attack. Let’s consider 9/11 and assume for a minute that the terrorists would have been caught prior to boarding the planes. Would we have had the foresight to articulate probable cause based on the terrorists’ behavior and, if so, would we have regarded their box cutters as weapons (evidence) for a possible hijacking? Probably not. In order to reach reasonable suspicion, officers must rely on their training and experience to come up “with an articulable and particularized belief that criminal activity is afoot” Orleans vs United States, 517 U.S. 690 696 (1996) Illinois vs Gates, 462 U.S at 235. To be able to articulate terrorism-related reasonable suspicion, officers must be trained and gain experience in terrorism methods of operations. In other words, officers must be able to look at a situation or activity (suspicion) and have the capability to explain what they are seeing through their terrorist eyes. Officers are not trained (or not having the experience) in doing offensive surveillance, building a bomb or developing a terrorist plan among other things, will never be able to explain what they see as a terrorism-related reasonable cause. As in the case of reasonable suspicion, to develop probable cause, officers need to fall back on their training and experience in order to describe “known facts and circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found” Orleans vs United States, 517 U.S. 690 696 (1996) Illinois vs Gates, 462 U.S. at 213,238 (1983). Finding bombs and terrorist weapons is a difficult task, as almost anything can be used as a weapon and bombs appear in countless shapes and forms. In order to develop a terrorist-related probable cause, officers need to rely more on information provided by the suspect than on tangible evidence. To obtain this information, officers must utilize different questioning techniques then those used when interviewing suspected criminals. Approaching the suspect from a “law enforcement” angle will probably not work because the suspect has yet to have broken the law in the case of identifiable reasonable suspicion and probable cause . Moreover, cooperation and information are needed to establish probable cause or refuse the reasonable suspicions found. Asking for an ID and checking the suspect’s criminal record are unlikely to help the officer because most terrorist avoid criminal activities and their records are therefore clean. The key to success lies in open-ended, public service-oriented and inquisitive questioning geared toward refuting reasonable suspicions. In essence, the questioning that the officer conducts should resemble that of a receptionist asking politely about the intentions of a visitor entering a building and not that of an officer who has just pulled over a person for speeding recklessly on the highway.
	20	+
	21	+A single coordinated attack escalates and kills billions Myhrvold 2014
	22	+Myhrvold 2014 (Nathan P chief executive and founder of Intellectual Ventures and a former chief technology officer at Microsoft; Strategic Terrorism: A Call to Action; cco.dodlive.mil/files/2014/04/Strategic_Terrorism_corrected_II.pdf; kdf)
	23	+Technology contains no inherent moral directive—it empowers people, whatever their intent, good or evil. This has always been true: when bronze implements supplanted those made of stone, the ancient world got scythes and awls, but also swords and battle-axes. The novelty of our present situation is that modern technology can provide small groups of people with much greater lethality than ever before. We now have to worry that private parties might gain access to weapons that are as destructive as—or possibly even more destructive than— those held by any nation-state. A handful of people, perhaps even a single individual, could have the ability to kill millions or even billions. Indeed, it is possible, from a technological standpoint, to kill every man, woman, and child on earth. The gravity of the situation is so extreme that getting the concept across without seeming silly or alarmist is challenging. Just thinking about the subject with any degree of seriousness numbs the mind. The goal of this essay is to present the case for making the needed changes before such a catastrophe occurs. The issues described here are too important to ignore. Failing nation-states—like North Korea—which possess nuclear weapons potentially pose a nuclear threat. Each new entrant to the nuclear club increases the possibility this will happen, but this problem is an old one, and one that existing diplomatic and military structures aim to manage. The newer and less understood danger arises from the increasing likelihood that stateless groups, bent on terrorism, will gain access to nuclear weapons, most likely by theft from a nation-state. Should this happen, the danger we now perceive to be coming from rogue states will pale in comparison. The ultimate response to a nuclear attack is a nuclear counterattack. Nation states have an address, and they know that we will retaliate in kind. Stateless groups are much more difficult to find which makes a nuclear counterattack virtually impossible. As a result, they can strike without fear of overwhelming retaliation, and thus they wield much more effective destructive power. Indeed, in many cases the fundamental equation of retaliation has become reversed. Terrorists often hope to provoke reprisal attacks on their own people, swaying popular opinion in their favor. The aftermath of 9/11 is a case in point. While it seems likely that Osama bin Laden and his henchmen hoped for a massive overreaction from the United States, it is unlikely his Taliban hosts anticipated the U.S. would go so far as to invade Afghanistan. Yes, al-Qaeda lost its host state and some personnel. The damage slowed the organization down but did not destroy it. Instead, the stateless al-Qaeda survived and adapted. The United States can claim some success against al-Qaeda in the years since 9/11, but it has hardly delivered a deathblow. Eventually, the world will recognize that stateless groups are more powerful than nation-states because terrorists can wield weapons and mount assaults that no nationstate would dare to attempt. So far, they have limited themselves to dramatic tactical terrorism: events such as 9/11, the butchering of Russian schoolchildren, decapitations broadcast over the internet, and bombings in major cities. Strategic objectives cannot be far behind.
	24	+
	25	+Trump responds with Nukes in the Middle East against ISIS. Borgwardt 3/31
	26	+
	27	+Elizabeth Borgwardt is a history professor at Washington University and the author of The Nuremberg Idea, forthcoming from Knopf. “9/11: What Would Trump Do?” http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-2016-terrorist-attack-foreign-policy-213784 March 31, 2016
	28	+
	29	+Donald Trump’s March 21 interview with the Washington Post editorial board should make every potential voter’s blood run cold. After noting that ISIS should be knocked out flat, yet indicating that large numbers of U.S. troops should not be involved, Mr. Trump suggested that it was better to be “unpredictable” in the face of U.S. enemies, before twice dodging a question about whether he would advocate the use of tactical nuclear weapons against ISIS. (To be fair, the interview transcript indicates that much more time was spent discussing Mr. Trump’s hand size than anything to do with nuclear weapons.)¶ All this was before the attacks in Belgium; my sense is that a 9/11-style attack on U.S. soil would mean that any remaining restraints to the use of weapons of mass destruction—including nuclear weapons—would likely be swiftly swept aside.¶ General Douglas MacArthur had notoriously floated the idea of using nuclear weapons against China in the Korean conflict (1950-53) when he was concerned about Chinese moves to support North Korean aggression. In posthumously published interviews, MacArthur said that he could have won the war in ten days: “I would have dropped 30 or so atomic bombs … strung across the neck of Manchuria. For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the North.”¶ Part of MacArthur’s logic was that the United States would have needed to fight communist China eventually, so it would be best to nuke them while they were still weak, recovering from World War II and the Chinese Revolution (1949), as opposed to fighting them later after they had become much stronger. “That makes sense to me!” opined a Trump backer with whom I recently spoke on this topic. And yet, I offered, most Americans today are probably pretty happy that we didn’t use nuclear weapons against China in the Korean war, or would be if they knew anything about that historical interlude. “I guess,” he said. “But why not press your advantage when you have one?”¶ I offer this example because my sense is that in a putative Trump administration, “the gloves would be off” and all barriers—including public opinion—to the first use of various kinds of weapons of mass destruction would likely be at an all-time low. Bruce Cumings, the leading U.S. historian of Korea, has commented on the MacArthur incident in an analysis from back in 2004. Cumings noted that “MacArthur sounds like a warmongering lunatic” for advocating the use of nuclear weapons, but also explained that, astonishing as it might seem, the general actually had some support for his outlandish proposal. Cumings also noted that MacArthur’s conduct, quite appropriately, contributed to the celebrated war hero’s dismissal by President Truman. But that was then.
	30	+
	31	+Use of nukes in the ME causes extinction. Russel 9
	32	+
	33	+Russell 9 – Senior Lecturer in the Department of National Security Affairs @ Naval Postgraduate School ¶ James, “Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Nuclear War and Escalation in the Middle East,” Online
	34	+
	35	+
	36	+Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests in the bargaining framework that can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the presence of non-state actors that introduce unpredictability into relationships between the antagonists; (3) incompatible assumptions about the structure of the deterrent relationship that makes the bargaining framework strategically unstable; (4) perceptions by Israel and the United States that its window of opportunity for military action is closing, which could prompt a preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Iran’s response to pre-emptive attacks could involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United States; (6) the lack of a communications framework to build trust and cooperation among framework participants. These systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all suggest that escalation by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of miscalculation or the pressures of wartime circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly easy to imagine scenarios under which a conflict could quickly escalate in which the regional antagonists would consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It would be a mistake to believe the nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from being used in the context of an unstable strategic framework. Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact suggest a certain increase in the probability of war – a war in which escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such a war starts, events would likely develop a momentum all their own and decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The international community must take this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to prevent such an outcome, which would be an unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-03 03:10:17.338

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+x

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harker

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+14

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake Paul Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+NovDec - DA - Precedent

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Alta