Changes for page Lynbrook Shah Aff

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:37

From version < 63.1 >
edited by Harrison Wang
on 2017/01/14 19:54
To version < 101.1 >
edited by Harrison Wang
on 2017/02/20 23:24
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[6]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,4 +1,0 @@
1 -If the negative reads an advantage CP, then they must disclose the CP text on the NDCA case wiki at least thirty minutes before the round if the aff is disclosed.
2 -
3 -1. Predictability -
4 -2. Depth -
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-10-15 22:47:45.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -David Dosch
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard-Westlake VC
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -8
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Lynbrook Shah Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1 - Advantage CP Disclosure
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -St Marks
Caselist.RoundClass[8]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -6
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-10-15 22:47:44.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -David Dosch
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard-Westlake VC
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -St Marks
Caselist.CitesClass[12]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Interpretation - If a debater inserts brackets in their evidence in order to change one or more words, they must right before or after reading the evidence, during the speech, indicate orally that the evidence is bracketed by saying “This evidence is bracketed” or something to that extent.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-15 21:42:43.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +David Dosch
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Beckman KM
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +14
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Lynbrook Shah Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1 - Brackets
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard-Westlake
Caselist.CitesClass[14]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,36 @@
1 +Our epistemology is militarized—sites of critical thinking and radical pedagogy on the university are key to resist these forms of arbitrary exclusion and oppression
2 +Giroux 08 Giroux, Henry A. "TruthOut Archive." Against the Militarized Academy. Truth Out, 20 Nov. 2008. Web. 25 Dec. 2015. NA
3 +While there is … sustain human life.
4 +Militarism has inflicted massive suffering and casualties – without immediate action, militarism will lead us into a death spiral that threatens the planet and humanity. That’s try or die CACC 11:
5 +Admin, “Rejecting Militarism”, FEBRUARY 15, 2011, Canadians for Emergency action on Climate Change, http://climatesoscanada.org/blog/2011/02/15/rejecting-militarism/ climate change, wars, displacement, resource scarcity, false solutions, wealth concentration
6 +Resources: 1 http://www.fcnl.org/budget/budget-proposal11.htm 2 Miriam Pemberton with Jonathan Glyn, Military vs. Climate Security: The 2011 Budgets Compared. Institute for Policy Studies. http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/military_vs_climate_security_the_2011_budgets_compared 3 Many resources can be found on the various market mechanisms and other false solutions, here: www.climatesos.org/resources 4 Anita Dancs, Mary Orisich, Suzanne Smith, The Military Costs of Securing Energy (National Priorities Project – October 2008) 5 http://www.iacenter.org/o/world/climatesummit_pentagon121809/ 6 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-sanders/the-green-zone-the-worst-_b_70173.html 7 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html 8 http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0327-21.htm 9 http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/2010/03/the-impact-of-militarism-on-climate-change-must-no-longer-be-ignored/ (and personal communication with the author) 10 http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-27/the-economic-crisis-and-the-hidden-cost-of-the-wars/full/ 11 http://www.kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article32304 12 http://www.peace-action.org/Peace20Action20Military20Spending20Primer.pdf 13 Will R. Turner, et al. (2010). Climate change: helping nature survive the human response. Conservation Letters, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123523083/abstract?CRETRY=1andSRETRY=0 http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/08/06/the.worst.impact.climate.change.may.be.how.humanity.reacts.it 14 http://www.foei.org/en/media/archive/2010/developed-countries-attempt-to-launder-aid-money-through-world-bank-and-call-it-climate-funds, http://www.foe.org/un-advisory-group-climate-finance-report-falls-flat, http://www.ituc-csi.org/climate-finance-closing-the.html?lang=en 15 2003 Pentagon report: http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf About the report authors: http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=doug_randall_1 16 http://www.indymedia.org/pt/2009/12/932387.shtml More resources: Top 25 Censored Stories: US Department of Defense is the Worst Polluter on the Planet http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-us-department-of-defense-is-the-worst-polluter-on-the-planet/ Al Jazeera Video: Empire – The new arms race (The world has entered a new arms race, but what justifies this global military addiction?) http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_contentandtask=viewandid=31andItemid=74andjumival=5796 Why large scale biofuels production worsens global warming, not reduce it: www.biofuelwatch.org.uk Cost of War Calculator http://www.stwr.org/special-features/cost-of-war-calculator.html
7 +Militarism, through wars …and climate change.
8 +We don’t claim the military is always bad—we claim the culture behind our use of the military is bad which is militarism
9 +The university shapes the state’s militaristic endeavors nationally and internationally through knowledge production–the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that bests challenges militarism in higher education—spills over to political action
10 +Chatterjee and Maira 14 Introduction of Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent. Minneapolis, US: Univ Of Minnesota Press, 2014. ProQuest ebrary. Web. Introduction by Piya Chatterjee and Sunaina Maira. Published by the University of Minnesota Press 2014. 2 December 2016. NA
11 +The chapters here … States and beyond.
12 +Outweighs: a) militarist epistemology arbitrarily excludes who is considered in moral calculus which undermines its applicability – challenging it is a normative prerequisite in any framework b) militarism creates identities—oppression based on the arbitrary division of them is inevitable in a militarist society c) militarism corrupts critical thinking and demands absolute conformity which kills revolutionary movements
13 +Policymaking is key to social change.
14 +Coverstone 5 MBA (Alan, Acting on Activism, http://home.montgomerybell.edu/~coversa/Acting20on20Activism20(Nov2017-2005).doc)
15 +An important concern … in America today.
16 +Plan Text: Public collegiate military schools should remove restrictions on all forms of constitutionally protected speech. To clarify, we defend students of military schools not limited to the national service academies.
17 +Feldman 16 - professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard University (Noah West Point Cadets Have Free-Speech Rights, Too Bloomberg 5/9/16 https://origin-www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-05-09/west-point-cadets-have-free-speech-rights-too DOA 1/24/17) CW
18 +What’s more, it’s … of public importance.
19 +Public military academies are uniquely key to challenging the suppression of minorities
20 +Noble 16 Doug Noble, Feb 22 2016, "A Military Academy for Rochester?," Deconstructed Globe, http://deconstructedglobe.com/wordpress/a-military-academy-for-rochester/ NA
21 +For those of …is human slaughter.”
22 +Military academies restrict counterspeech and political discussion– the aff allows productive discussion
23 +Phillipps 16 Dave Philipps, 5-6-2016, "Raised-Fist Photo by Black Women at West Point Spurs Inquiry," New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/raised-fist-photo-by-black-women-at-west-point-spurs-inquiry.html NA
24 +A group of …a student’s background.”
25 +The university is key—regulations on scholarship uniquely silence questioning government policy—student movements empirically worked in the past
26 +Rhoads 07 - Professor of Education in the Higher Education and Organizational Change Division @ UCLA (Robert The New Militarism, Global Terrorism, and the American University: Making Sense of the Assault on Democracy “Here, There, Somewhere” InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 3(1) 2007 eScholarship DOA 2/11/17) CW
27 +The decision by …silence dissenting voices.
28 +Student activism opposes hegemonic narratives in higher education, translating theory into praxis
29 +Delgado and Ross 16 Sandra Delgado (doctoral student in curriculum studies at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada) and E. Wayne Ross (Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada), "Students in Revolt: The Pedagogical Potential of Student Collective Action in the Age of the Corporate University" 2016 (published on Academia.edu)
30 +As students’ collective … programs or pleas.
31 +Cadets in military academies – root of civilian-military divide and warrior culture that perpetuate militarism
32 +Astore 15 - retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology (William 70 Years of Military Mediocrity: The Shared Failings of America’s Military Academies and Senior Officers Alternet 8/20/15 http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/70-years-military-mediocrity-shared-failings-americas-military-academies-and DOA 1/26/17) CW
33 +Add up the …failing our democracy.
34 +Military academies perpetuate a mindset of unaccountability which allows atrocities to continue unchecked – only lower ranks solve because officers won’t take the risk
35 +Astore 15 - retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology (William 70 Years of Military Mediocrity: The Shared Failings of America’s Military Academies and Senior Officers Alternet 8/20/15 http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/70-years-military-mediocrity-shared-failings-americas-military-academies-and DOA 1/26/17) CW
36 +And here, perhaps, …and cable networks.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-12 00:38:48.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Jack Coyle
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Layton ZB
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +17
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +3
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Lynbrook Shah Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JANFEB - Militarism 1AC v2
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Stanford
Caselist.CitesClass[15]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,37 @@
1 +Trump renders American unilateralism useless – allies fear a lack of commitment and the rise of China and Russia destroys American hopes for unipolar hegemony. It is try-or-die for a shift towards a more accountable and reflexive American military. Bremmer 12/19
2 +Bremmer ’16 (Ian Bremmer is the president and founder of Eurasia Group, the leading global political risk research and consulting firm. Dec 19, 2016, “The Era of American Global Leadership Is Over. Here's What Comes Next,” http://time.com/4606071/american-global-leadership-is-over/ | SP)
3 +As in the … into uncharted waters.
4 +Militarism has inflicted massive suffering globally and is leading the planet towards an apocalyptic trajectory. CACC 11:
5 +Admin, “Rejecting Militarism”, FEBRUARY 15, 2011, Canadians for Emergency action on Climate Change, http://climatesoscanada.org/blog/2011/02/15/rejecting-militarism/ climate change, wars, displacement, resource scarcity, false solutions, wealth concentration
6 +Resources: 1 http://www.fcnl.org/budget/budget-proposal11.htm 2 Miriam Pemberton with Jonathan Glyn, Military vs. Climate Security: The 2011 Budgets Compared. Institute for Policy Studies. http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/military_vs_climate_security_the_2011_budgets_compared 3 Many resources can be found on the various market mechanisms and other false solutions, here: www.climatesos.org/resources 4 Anita Dancs, Mary Orisich, Suzanne Smith, The Military Costs of Securing Energy (National Priorities Project – October 2008) 5 http://www.iacenter.org/o/world/climatesummit_pentagon121809/ 6 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-sanders/the-green-zone-the-worst-_b_70173.html 7 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html 8 http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0327-21.htm 9 http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/2010/03/the-impact-of-militarism-on-climate-change-must-no-longer-be-ignored/ (and personal communication with the author) 10 http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-27/the-economic-crisis-and-the-hidden-cost-of-the-wars/full/ 11 http://www.kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article32304 12 http://www.peace-action.org/Peace20Action20Military20Spending20Primer.pdf 13 Will R. Turner, et al. (2010). Climate change: helping nature survive the human response. Conservation Letters, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123523083/abstract?CRETRY=1andSRETRY=0 http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/08/06/the.worst.impact.climate.change.may.be.how.humanity.reacts.it 14 http://www.foei.org/en/media/archive/2010/developed-countries-attempt-to-launder-aid-money-through-world-bank-and-call-it-climate-funds, http://www.foe.org/un-advisory-group-climate-finance-report-falls-flat, http://www.ituc-csi.org/climate-finance-closing-the.html?lang=en 15 2003 Pentagon report: http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf About the report authors: http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=doug_randall_1 16 http://www.indymedia.org/pt/2009/12/932387.shtml More resources: Top 25 Censored Stories: US Department of Defense is the Worst Polluter on the Planet http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-us-department-of-defense-is-the-worst-polluter-on-the-planet/ Al Jazeera Video: Empire – The new arms race (The world has entered a new arms race, but what justifies this global military addiction?) http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_contentandtask=viewandid=31andItemid=74andjumival=5796 Why large scale biofuels production worsens global warming, not reduce it: www.biofuelwatch.org.uk Cost of War Calculator http://www.stwr.org/special-features/cost-of-war-calculator.html
7 +Militarism, through wars … and climate change.
8 +Our epistemology is militarized—sites of critical thinking and radical pedagogy on the university are key to resist these forms of arbitrary exclusion and oppression
9 +Giroux 08 Giroux, Henry A. "TruthOut Archive." Against the Militarized Academy. Truth Out, 20 Nov. 2008. Web. 25 Dec. 2015. NA
10 +While there is … sustain human life.
11 +The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that bests challenges militarism in higher education – dialogue spills over to political action
12 +Chatterjee and Maira 14 Introduction of Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent. Minneapolis, US: Univ Of Minnesota Press, 2014. ProQuest ebrary. Web. Introduction by Piya Chatterjee and Sunaina Maira. Published by the University of Minnesota Press 2014. 2 December 2016. NA
13 +The chapters here …States and beyond.
14 +Plan Text: Public collegiate military schools ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. Feldman 16
15 +- professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard University (Noah West Point Cadets Have Free-Speech Rights, Too Bloomberg 5/9/16 https://origin-www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-05-09/west-point-cadets-have-free-speech-rights-too DOA 1/24/17) CW
16 +What’s more, it’s … of public importance.
17 +Public military academies engrain the white, heterosexual male as superior in their curricula which subjugates minorities
18 +Noble 16 Doug Noble, Feb 22 2016, "A Military Academy for Rochester?," Deconstructed Globe, http://deconstructedglobe.com/wordpress/a-military-academy-for-rochester/ NA
19 +For those of … is human slaughter.”
20 +Cadets in military academies are the root cause of the civilian-military divide – they are brainwashed to accept warrior culture that perpetuates militarism
21 +Astore 15 - retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology (William 70 Years of Military Mediocrity: The Shared Failings of America’s Military Academies and Senior Officers Alternet 8/20/15 http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/70-years-military-mediocrity-shared-failings-americas-military-academies-and DOA 1/26/17) CW
22 +Add up the … failing our democracy.
23 +This results in military unaccountability which allows the military’s atrocities to continue unchecked
24 +Astore 15 - retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology (William 70 Years of Military Mediocrity: The Shared Failings of America’s Military Academies and Senior Officers Alternet 8/20/15 http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/70-years-military-mediocrity-shared-failings-americas-military-academies-and DOA 1/26/17) CW
25 +And here, perhaps, … and cable networks.
26 +Military academies restrict the necessary speech that would resolve these issues
27 +Phillipps 16 Dave Philipps, 5-6-2016, "Raised-Fist Photo by Black Women at West Point Spurs Inquiry," New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/raised-fist-photo-by-black-women-at-west-point-spurs-inquiry.html NA
28 +A group of … a student’s background.”
29 +The university is key—regulations on scholarship uniquely silence questioning government policy—student movements empirically worked in the past
30 +Rhoads 07 - Professor of Education in the Higher Education and Organizational Change Division @ UCLA (Robert The New Militarism, Global Terrorism, and the American University: Making Sense of the Assault on Democracy “Here, There, Somewhere” InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 3(1) 2007 eScholarship DOA 2/11/17) CW
31 +The decision by … silence dissenting voices.
32 +Student activism opposes hegemonic narratives in higher education, translating theory into praxis
33 +Delgado and Ross 16 Sandra Delgado (doctoral student in curriculum studies at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada) and E. Wayne Ross (Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada), "Students in Revolt: The Pedagogical Potential of Student Collective Action in the Age of the Corporate University" 2016 (published on Academia.edu)
34 +As students’ collective …programs or pleas.
35 +Dissent represents a threat to American militarism – the fear of dissent is rooted in a militaristic ideological framework that defines anyone who questions American values as a traitor and a threat- this is an independent reason to vote aff
36 +Chatterjee and Maira | Introduction of Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent. Minneapolis, US: Univ Of Minnesota Press, 2014. ProQuest ebrary. Web. Introduction by Piya Chatterjee and Sunaina Maira. Published by the University of Minnesota Press 2014. 2 December 2016.
37 +Academic Containment: State … risk for academics.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-20 23:24:46.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Robey Holland
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard-Westlake JC
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +18
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Lynbrook Shah Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JANFEB - Militarism 1AC v3
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Cal
Caselist.CitesClass[16]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,25 @@
1 +Trump renders American unilateralism useless, there is no more chance for a unipolar hegemony– it is try-or-die for a shift towards a more accountable and reflexive American military. Bremmer 12/19
2 +Bremmer ’16 (Ian Bremmer is the president and founder of Eurasia Group, the leading global political risk research and consulting firm. Dec 19, 2016, “The Era of American Global Leadership Is Over. Here's What Comes Next,” http://time.com/4606071/american-global-leadership-is-over/ | NS)
3 +As in the past, the day will be cold. Melania will hold the Bible. The kids will stand by proudly. The new President will recite his lines carefully, smile broadly and change history. And American international leadership, a constant since 1945, will end with the presidential inauguration of Donald J. Trump on Jan. 20, 2017. That's not because Trump is bound to fail where his predecessors have succeeded. Given the rise of other countries with enough power to shrug off U.S. pressure~-~-and other factors, like the ability of smaller powers to punch above their weight in cyberspace~-~-this moment was inevitable. America will remain the sole superpower for the foreseeable future~-~-only the U.S. can project military muscle, economic clout and cultural influence into every region of the world. But Trump's election marks an irreversible break with the past, one with global implications. For at least the next four years, America's interactions with other nations will be guided not by the conviction that U.S. leadership is good for America and the world but by Trump's transactional approach. This will force friends and foes alike to question every assumption they've made about what Washington will and will not do. Add a more assertive China and Russia to the greater willingness of traditional U.S. allies to hedge their bets on American plans and it's clear that we've reached a turning point. Trump is not an isolationist, but he's certainly a unilateralist, and a proudly selfish one. Even if he wanted to engage the G-7 or G-8 or G-20 to get things done~-~-and he doesn't~-~-it has become unavoidably obvious that the transition toward a leaderless world is now complete. The G-zero era I first predicted nearly six years ago is now fully upon us. No matter how long Trump remains in the White House, a crucial line has been crossed. The fallout will outlive his presidency, because Trump has proved that tens of millions of Americans like this idea. Trump's "America first" approach fundamentally changes the U.S. role in the world. Trump agrees with leaders of both political parties that the U.S. is an exceptional nation, but he insists that the country can't remain exceptional if it keeps stumbling down the path that former Presidents, including Republicans and Democrats, have followed since the end of World War II. Washington's ambition to play the role of indispensable power allows both allies and rivals to treat U.S. taxpayers like chumps, he argues. Better to build a "What's in it for us?" approach to the rest of the world. This is a complete break with a foreign policy establishment that Trump has worked hard to delegitimize~-~-and which he continues to ostracize by waving off charges of Russian interference in the election and by refusing the daily intelligence briefings offered to all Presidents-elect. American power, once a trump card, is now a wild card. Instead of a superpower that wants to impose stability and values on a fractious and valueless global order, the U.S. has become the single biggest source of international uncertainty. And don't expect lawmakers to provide the traditional set of checks and balances. It's not just that the Constitution gives the President great power to conduct foreign policy. It's also that Trump has succeeded politically where his party's establishment has continually failed, and as long as he remains popular with the party's voters, many junior Republican lawmakers will answer to their President rather than to their leaders on Capitol Hill.
4 +Ironically, in the face of self-imposed decline, Trump is still an unabashed unipolarist – it is time for action from policymakers to pursue managed retrenchment—continued interventionism forces overstretch which makes inevitable decline more violent—only the aff can prevent lashout that can escalate. Quinn 11
5 +Adam Quinn 11, Lecturer in International Studies at the University of Birmingham, July 2011, “The Art of Declining Politely: Obama’s Prudent Presidency and the Waning of American Power,” International Affairs, Vol. 87, No. 4, p. 803-824
6 +As noted in the opening passages of this article, the narratives of America’s decline and Obama’s restraint are distinct but also crucially connected. Facing this incipient period of decline, America’s leaders may walk one of two paths. Either the nation can come to terms with the reality of the process that is under way and seek to finesse it in the smoothest way possible. Or it can ‘rage against the dying of the light’, refusing to accept the waning of its primacy. President Obama’s approach, defined by restraint and awareness of limits, makes him ideologically and temperamentally well suited to the former course in a way that, to cite one example, his predecessor was not. He is, in short, a good president to inaugurate an era of managed decline. Those who vocally demand that the President act more boldly are not merely criticizing him; in suggesting that he is ‘weak’ and that a ‘tougher’ policy is needed, they implicitly suppose that the resources will be available to support such a course. In doing so they set their faces against the reality of the coming American decline. 97 If the United States can embrace the spirit of managed decline, then this will clear the way for a judicious retrenchment, trimming ambitions in line with the fact that the nation can no longer act on the global stage with the wide latitude once afforded by its superior power. As part of such a project, it can, as those who seek to qualify the decline thesis have suggested, use the significant resources still at its disposal to smooth the edges of its loss of relative power, preserving influence to the maximum extent possible through whatever legacy of norms and institutions is bequeathed by its primacy. The alternative course involves the initiation or escalation of conflictual scenarios for which the United States increasingly lacks the resources to cater: provocation of a military conclusion to the impasse with Iran; deliberate escalation of strategic rivalry with China in East Asia; commitment to continuing the campaign in Afghanistan for another decade; a costly effort to consistently apply principles of military interventionism, regime change and democracy promotion in response to events in North Africa. President Obama does not by any means represent a radical break with the traditions of American foreign policy in the modern era. Examination of his major foreign policy pronouncements reveals that he remains within the mainstream of the American discourse on foreign policy. In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in December 2009 he made it clear, not for the first time, that he is no pacifist, spelling out his view that ‘the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace’, and that ‘the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms’. 98 In his Cairo speech in June the same year, even as he sought distance from his predecessor with the proclamation that ‘no system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other’, he also endorsed with only slight qualification the liberal universalist view of civil liberties as transcendent human rights. ‘I … have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things,’ he declared. ‘The ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas.’ 99 His Westminster speech repeated these sentiments. Evidently this is not a president who wishes to break signally with the mainstream, either by advocating a radical shrinking of America’s military strength as a good in itself or by disavowing liberal universalist global visions, as some genuine dissidents from the prevailing foreign policy discourse would wish. 100 No doubt sensibly, given the likely political reaction at home, it is inconceivable that he would explicitly declare his strategy to be one of managed American decline. Nevertheless, this is a president who, within the confines of the mainstream, embraces caution and restraint to the greatest extent that one could hope for without an epochal paradigm shift in the intellectual framework of American foreign policy-making. 101 In contemplating the diminished and diminishing weight of the United States upon the scales of global power, it is important not to conflate the question of what will be with that of what we might prefer. It may well be, as critics of the decline thesis sometimes observe, that the prospect of increased global power for a state such as China should not, on reflection, fill any westerner with glee, whatever reservations one may have held regarding US primacy. It is also important not to be unduly deterministic in projecting the consequences of American decline. It may be a process that unfolds gradually and peacefully, resulting in a new order that functions with peace and stability even in the absence of American primacy. Alternatively, it may result in fatal conflict, if the United States clashes with rising powers.
7 +Interventionist militarism independently cumulates in endless global warfare – there’s always vacuous “threats” that the Trump train can overrun, the question is whether or not the military itself can check back. Engelhardt 13
8 +Engelhardt 13 (Tom, Fellow at the Nation Institute, “Overwrought empire: The discrediting of US military power,” http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/20121010104331399712.html)
9 +And here's the odd thing: in a sense, little has changed since then and yet everything seems different. Think of it as the American imperial paradox: everywhere there are now "threats" against our well-being which seem to demand action and yet nowhere are there commensurate enemies to go with them. Everywhere the US military still reigns supreme by almost any measure you might care to apply; and yet - in case the paradox has escaped you - nowhere can it achieve its goals, however modest. At one level, the American situation should simply take your breath away. Never before in modern history had there been an arms race of only one or a great power confrontation of only one. And at least in military terms, just as the neoconservatives imagined in those early years of the 21st century, the US remains the "sole superpower" or even "hyperpower" of planet Earth. The planet's top gun And yet the more dominant the US military becomes in its ability to destroy and the more its forces are spread across the globe, the more the defeats and semi-defeats pile up, the more the missteps and mistakes grow, the more the strains show, the more the suicides rise, the more the nation's treasure disappears down a black hole - and in response to all of this, the more moves the Pentagon makes. A great power without a significant enemy? You might have to go back to the Roman Empire at its height or some Chinese dynasty in full flower to find anything like it. And yet Osama bin Laden is dead. Al-Qaeda is reportedly a shadow of its former self. The great regional threats of the moment, North Korea and Iran, are regimes held together by baling wire and the suffering of their populaces. The only incipient great power rival on the planet, China, has just launched its first aircraft carrier, a refurbished Ukrainian throwaway from the 1990s on whose deck the country has no planes capable of landing. The US has 1,000 or more bases around the world; other countries, a handful. The US spends as much on its military as the next 14 powers (mostly allies) combined. In fact, it's investing an estimated $1.45 trillion to produce and operate a single future aircraft, the F-35 - more than any country, the US included, now spends on its national defence annually. The US military is singular in other ways, too. It alone has divided the globe - the complete world - into six "commands". With (lest anything be left out) an added command, Stratcom, for the heavens and another, recently established, for the only space not previously occupied, cyberspace, where we're already unofficially "at war". No other country on the planet thinks of itself in faintly comparable military terms. When its high command plans for its future "needs," thanks to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, they repair (don't say "retreat") to a military base south of the capital where they argue out their future and war-game various possible crises while striding across a map of the world larger than a basketball court. What other military would come up with such a method? The president now has at his command not one, but two private armies. The first is the CIA, which in recent years has been heavily militarised, is overseen by a former four-star general (who calls the job "living the dream"), and is running its own private assassination campaigns and drone air wars throughout the Greater Middle East. The second is an expanding elite, the Joint Special Operations Command, cocooned inside the US military, members of whom are now deployed to hot spots around the globe. The US Navy, with its 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carrier task forces, is dominant on the global waves in a way that only the British Navy might once have been; and the US Air Force controls the global skies in much of the world in a totally uncontested fashion. (Despite numerous wars and conflicts, the last American plane possibly downed in aerial combat was in the first Gulf War in 1991.) Across much of the global south, there is no sovereign space Washington's drones can't penetrate to kill those judged by the White House to be threats. In sum, the US is now the sole planetary Top Gun in a way that empire-builders once undoubtedly fantasised about, but that none from Genghis Khan on have ever achieved: alone and essentially uncontested on the planet. In fact, by every measure (except success), the likes of it has never been seen. Blindsided by predictably unintended consequences By all the usual measuring sticks, the US should be supreme in a historically unprecedented way. And yet it couldn't be more obvious that it's not, that despite all the bases, elite forces, private armies, drones, aircraft carriers, wars, conflicts, strikes, interventions, and clandestine b, despite a labyrinthine intelligence bureaucracy that never seems to stop growing and into which we pour a minimum of $80bn a year, nothing seems to work out in an imperially satisfying way. It couldn't be more obvious that this is not a glorious dream, but some kind of ever-expanding imperial nightmare. This should, of course, have been self-evident since at least early 2004, less than a year after the Bush administration invaded and occupied Iraq, when the roadside bombs started to explode and the suicide bombings to mount, while the comparisons of the US to Rome and of a prospective Pax Americana in the Greater Middle East to the Pax Romana vanished like a morning mist on a blazing day. Still, the wars against relatively small, ill-armed sets of insurgents dragged toward their dismally predictable ends. (It says the world that, after almost 11 years of war, the 2,000th US military death in Afghanistan occurred at the hands of an Afghan "ally" in an "insider attack".) In those years, Washington continued to be regularly blindsided by the unintended consequences of its military moves. Surprises - none pleasant - became the order of the day and victories proved vanishingly rare. One thing seems obvious: a superpower military with unparalleled capabilities for one-way destruction no longer has the more basic ability to impose its will anywhere on the planet. Quite the opposite, US military power has been remarkably discredited globally by the most pitiful of forces. From Pakistan to Honduras, just about anywhere it goes in the old colonial or neocolonial world, in those regions known in the contested Cold War era as the Third World, resistance of one unexpected sort or another arises and failure ensues in some often long-drawn-out and spectacular fashion. Given the lack of enemies - a few thousand jihadis, a small set of minority insurgencies, a couple of feeble regional powers - why this is so, what exactly the force is that prevents Washington's success, remains mysterious. Certainly, it's in some way related to the more than half-century of decolonisation movements, rebellions and insurgencies that were a feature of the previous century. It also has something to do with the way economic heft has spread beyond the US, Europe and Japan - with the rise of the "tigers" in Asia, the explosion of the Chinese and Indian economies, the advances of Brazil and Turkey, and the movement of the planet toward some kind of genuine economic multi-polarity. It may also have something to do with the end of the Cold War, which put an end as well to several centuries of imperial or great power competition and left the sole "victor", it now seems clear, heading toward the exits wreathed in self-congratulation. Explain it as you will, it's as if the planet itself, or humanity, had somehow been inoculated against the imposition of imperial power, as if it now rejected it whenever and wherever applied. In the previous century, it took a half-nation, North Korea, backed by Russian supplies and Chinese troops to fight the US to a draw, or a popular insurgent movement backed by a local power, North Vietnam, backed in turn by the Soviet Union and China to defeat American power. Now, small-scale minority insurgencies, largely using roadside bombs and suicide bombers, are fighting American power to a draw (or worse) with no great power behind them at all. Think of the growing force that resists such military might as the equivalent of the "dark matter" in the universe. The evidence is in. We now know (or should know) that it's there, even if we can't see it. Washington's wars on autopilot After the last decade of military failures, stand-offs and frustrations, you might think that this would be apparent in Washington. After all, the US is now visibly an overextended empire, its sway waning from the Greater Middle East to Latin America, the limits of its power increasingly evident. And yet, here's the curious thing: two administrations in Washington have drawn none of the obvious conclusions and no matter how the presidential election turns out, it's already clear that, in this regard, nothing will change. Even as military power has proven itself a bust again and again, our policymakers have come to rely ever more completely on a military-first response to global problems. In other words, we are not just a classically overextended empire, but also an overwrought one operating on some kind of militarised autopilot. Lacking is a learning curve. By all evidence, it's not just that there isn't one, but that there can't be one. Washington, it seems, now has only one mode of thought and action, no matter who is at the helm or what the problem may be, and it always involves, directly or indirectly, openly or clandestinely, the application of militarised force. Nor does it matter that each further application only destabilises some region yet more or undermines further what once were known as "American interests". Take Libya, as an example. It briefly seemed to count as a rare American military success story: a decisive intervention in support of a rebellion against a brutal dictator - so brutal, in fact, that the CIA previously shipped "terrorist suspects", Islamic rebels fighting against the Gaddafi regime, there for torture. No US casualties resulted, while American and NATO air strikes were decisive in bringing a set of ill-armed, ill-organised rebels to power. In the world of unintended consequences, however, the fall of Gaddafi sent Tuareg mercenaries from his militias, armed with high-end weaponry, across the border into Mali. There, when the dust settled, the whole northern part of the country had come unhinged and fallen under the sway of Islamic extremists and al-Qaeda wannabes as other parts of North Africa threatened to destabilise. At the same time, of course, the first American casualties of the intervention occurred when Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died in an attack on the Benghazi consulate and a local "safe house". With matters worsening regionally, the response couldn't have been more predictable. As Greg Miller and Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post recently reported, in ongoing secret meetings, the White House is planning for military operations against al-Qaeda-in-the-Magreb (North Africa), now armed with weaponry pillaged from Gaddafi's stockpiles. These plans evidently include the approach used in Yemen (US special forces on the ground and CIA drone strikes), or a Somalia "formula" (drone strikes, special forces operations, CIA operations and the support of African proxy armies), or even at some point "the possibility of direct US intervention". In addition, Eric Schmitt and David Kilpatrick of the New York Times reportthat the Obama administration is "preparing retaliation" against those it believes killed the US ambassador, possibly including "drone strikes, special operations raids like the one that killed Osama bin Laden and joint missions with Libyan authorities". The near certainty that, like the previous intervention, this next set of military actions will only further destabilise the region with yet more unpleasant surprises and unintended consequences hardly seems to matter. Nor does the fact that, in crude form, the results of such acts are known to us ahead of time have an effect on the unstoppable urge to plan and order them. Such situations are increasingly legion across the Greater Middle East and elsewhere. Take one other tiny example: Iraq, from which, after almost a decade-long military disaster, the "last" US units essentially fled in the middle of the night as 2011 ended. Even in those last moments, the Obama administration and the Pentagon were still trying to keep significant numbers of US troops there (and, in fact, did manage to leave behind possibly several hundred as trainers of elite Iraqi units). Meanwhile, Iraq has been supportive of the embattled Syrian regime and drawn ever closer to Iran, even as its own sectarian strife has ratcheted upward. Having watched this unsettling fallout from its last round in the country, according to the New York Times, the US is now negotiating an agreement "that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence". Don't you just want to speak to those negotiators the way you might to a child: No, don't do that! The urge to return to the scene of their previous disaster, however, seems unstaunchable. You could offer various explanations for why our policymakers, military and civilian, continue in such a repetitive - and even from an imperial point of view - self-destructive vein in situations where unpleasant surprises are essentially guaranteed and lack of success a given. Yes, there is the military-industrial complex to be fed. Yes, we are interested in the control of crucial resources, especially energy, and so on. But it's probably more reasonable to say that a deeply militarised mindset and the global maneuvers that go with it are by now just part of the way of life of a Washington eternally "at war". They are the tics of a great power with the equivalent of Tourette's Syndrome. They happen because they can't help but happen, because they are engraved in the policy DNA of our national security complex, and can evidently no longer be altered. In other words, they can't help themselves.
10 +Militarism permeates even the spaces we occupy and has killed democracy. Challenging its ideological stronghold and breaking down militarized epistemology on the academy is key to creating viable alternatives for change. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater whose advocacy best challenges militarism in higher education. Giroux 08
11 +Giroux 08 Giroux, Henry A. "TruthOut Archive." Against the Militarized Academy. Truth Out, 20 Nov. 2008. Web. 25 Dec. 2015. NA
12 +While there is an ongoing discussion about what shape the military-industrial complex will take under an Obama presidency, what is often left out of this analysis is the intrusion of the military into higher education. One example of the increasingly intensified and expansive symbiosis between the military-industrial complex and academia was on full display when Robert Gates, the secretary of defense, announced the creation of what he calls a new "Minerva Consortium," ironically named after the goddess of wisdom, whose purpose is to fund various universities to "carry out social-sciences research relevant to national security."(1) Gates's desire to turn universities into militarized knowledge factories producing knowledge, research and personnel in the interest of the Homeland (In)Security State should be of special concern for intellectuals, artists, academics and others who believe that the university should oppose such interests and alignments. At the very least, the emergence of the Minerva Consortium raises a larger set of concerns about the ongoing militarization of higher education in the United States. In a post-9/11 world, with its all-embracing war on terror and a culture of fear, the increasing spread of the discourse and values of militarization throughout the social order is intensifying the shift from the promise of a liberal democracy to the reality of a militarized society. Militarization suggests more than simply a militaristic ideal - with its celebration of war as the truest measure of the health of the nation and the soldier-warrior as the most noble expression of the merging of masculinity and unquestioning patriotism - but an intensification and expansion of the underlying values, practices, ideologies, social relations and cultural representations associated with military culture. What appears new about the amplified militarization of the post-9/11 world is that it has become normalized, serving as a powerful educational force that shapes our lives, memories and daily experiences. As an educational force, military power produces identities, goods, institutions, knowledge, modes of communication and affective investments - in short, it now bears down on all aspects of social life and the social order. As Michael Geyer points out, what is distinctive about the militarization of the social order is that civil society not only "organizes itself for the production of violence,"(2) but increasingly spurs a gradual erosion of civil liberties. Military power and policies are expanded to address not only matters of defense and security, but also problems associated with the entire health and social life of the nation, which are now measured by military spending, discipline and loyalty, as well as hierarchical modes of authority. As citizens increasingly assume the roles of informer, soldier and consumer willing to enlist in or be conscripted by the totalizing war on terror, we see the very idea of the university as a site of critical thinking, public service and socially responsible research being usurped by a manic jingoism and a market-driven fundamentalism that enshrine the entrepreneurial spirit and military aggression as means to dominate and control society. This should not surprise us, since, as William G. Martin, a professor of sociology at Binghamton University, indicates, "universities, colleges and schools have been targeted precisely because they are charged with both socializing youth and producing knowledge of peoples and cultures beyond the borders of Anglo-America."(3) But rather than be lulled into complacency by the insidious spread of corporate and military power, we need to be prepared to reclaim institutions such as the university that have historically served as vital democratic spheres protecting and serving the interests of social justice and equality. What I want to suggest is that such a struggle is not only political, but also pedagogical in nature. Over 17 million students pass through the hallowed halls of academe, and it is crucial that they be educated in ways that enable them to recognize creeping militarization and its effects throughout American society, particularly in terms of how these effects threaten "democratic government at home just as they menace the independence and sovereignty of other countries."(4) But students must also recognize how such anti-democratic forces work in attempting to dismantle the university itself as a place to learn how to think critically and participate in public debate and civic engagement.(5) In part, this means giving them the tools to fight for the demilitarization of knowledge on college campuses - to resist complicity with the production of knowledge, information and technologies in classrooms and research labs that contribute to militarized goals and violence.
13 +Nowhere is this grip upon society stronger than in military academies, where soldiers are told their obligation to the military is greater than their obligations to civilians, this creates a self-serving cycle of militarism at the highest levels of office. Astore 15
14 +Astore ’15 (William J. Astore, retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), has taught at the Air Force Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School. He currently teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. He is regular contributor to TomDispatch and also the author of Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism (Potomac, 2005).  AUGUST 18, 2015, “ How America’s Broken Service Academies Create a Broken Military” https://www.thenation.com/article/how-americas-broken-service-academies-create-a-broken-military/ | NS)
15 + As one former cadet put it: busywork and demanding rituals that sometime cross the line and become hazing are embraced in military education as a “rite of passage.” The idea “that we cadets suffered through something and prevailed is an immensely powerful psychological ‘badge’ which leads to pride (or arrogance) and confidence (or hubris).” Add up the indoctrination and the training, the busywork in classrooms and the desire to excel in big-time collegiate sports, and what you tend to graduate is a certain number of hyper-motivated true believers and a mass of go-along cynics—young men and women who have learned to subsume their doubts and misgivings, even as they trim their sails in the direction of the prevailing winds. While the cadets are encouraged to over-identify with their particular academy and service branch, they’re also encouraged to self-identify as “warriors,” as, that is, an elite apart from and superior to the civilians they’re supposed to serve. That this country was founded on civilian control of the military may be given lip service, but in the age of the ascendant national security state, the deeper sentiments embedded in an academy education are ever more distant from a populace that plays next to no part in America’s wars. That the classic civilian-military nexus, which was supposed to serve and promote democracy, has turned out to have a few glitches in our time should surprise no one. After all, President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about what was coming back in 1961. As Ike noticed, the way it was working—the way it still works today—is that senior officers in the military too often become tools of the armaments industry (his “military-industrial complex”) even as they identify far too closely with the parochial interests of their particular service branch. Add to this the distinctly twenty-first-century emphasis on being warriors, not citizen-soldiers, and you have the definition of a system of self-perpetuating and self-serving militarism rather than military service. To the extent that the military academies not only fail to curb this behavior but essentially encourage it, they are failing our democracy.
16 +Thus the plan: Public collegiate military schools in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.
17 +Free speech is repeatedly violated by military codes, foreclosing any checking of institutional abuse of power. Aldrich 86
18 +Aldrich ’86 (RICHARD W. ALDRICH, active duty Captain in the United States Air Force and also a student at the USLA School of Law. UCLA Law Review. APRIL, 1986, “ARTICLE 88 OF THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE: A MILITARY MUZZLE OR JUST A RESTRAINT ON MILITARY MUSCLE?” http://puffin.harker.org:2061/us/lnlib/api/version1/getDocCui?lni=3S41-5N50-00CV-61F3andcsi=7359andhl=tandhv=tandhnsd=fandhns=tandhgn=tandoc=00240andperma=true | NS)
19 +It is ironic that the men and women who defend the constitutional rights enjoyed by Americans are themselves deprived of some of those rights. n1 Included among those rights abrogated or curtailed are the right to trial by a jury of peers, n2 the right to indictment by a grand jury in criminal cases, n3 the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, n4 the right to peaceably assemble, n5 the right to counsel, n6 *1190 the right to petition, n7 and the right to freedom of speech. n8 Extensive as this list may seem, military personnel enjoyed even fewer rights in the past. Under the "original practice" n9 theory, "the soldier was afforded no protection under the Bill of Rights. . . ." n10 Curtailment of basic constitutional rights appears unjustified in today's armed forces. Indeed, protections which restore some measure of those rights abrogated have gradually been introduced to the military system. n11 But with respect to one of the above rights ~-~- the right to freedom of speech ~-~- serious limitations still remain. Despite extensive coverage of other facets of first amendment law, commentators have not accorded comprehensive treatment to the limited free speech rights granted military personnel. n12 This *1191 Comment will not attempt to be the first to do so. Rather, this Comment focuses narrowly on how Congress has justified abridging freedom of speech in the military under Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). n13 Article 88 of the UCMJ presently reads: Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, he Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. n14 The fact that Article 88 remains intact even after the recent major overhaul of the UCMJ n15 ~-~- the first in fifteen years ~-~- indicates that Congress still supports the doctrine set forth in Article 88. This Comment questions that support. II. ARTICLE 88 AND THE FUNCTIONS OF FREE SPEECH In analyzing a statute under the first amendment, it is appropriate to begin by asking whether the prohibited speech is the type of speech intended to be protected by the first amendment. Despite the reach of the actual words in the Amendment, that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech," n16 an absolutist approach has never enjoyed the support of the Supreme Court or legal commenators. n17 Laws dealing with perjury, n18 libel, n19 slander, n20 fraud, n21 and copyright, n22 among others, necessarily *1192 restrict free speech but have long been recognized as legitimate restraints in spite of the first amendment. n23 Thus, according to the Supreme Court, the first amendment was not intended to protect all speech but only speech which satisfies certain special societal functions. A. The Functions of Free Speech Generally, the courts and commenators have recognized three primary functions of free speech: (1) enlightenment, (2) self-fulfillment, and (3) the safety valve function. n24 Speech which does not satisfy these functions may be deemed outside the scope of first amendment protection. The Supreme Court seems to have taken this view with regard to obscenity and "fighting words." n25 This view may also help to explain judicial condonation of encroachments upon free speech in such areas as perjury, defamation, fraud, and copyright. It does not, however, explain the restrictions embodied in Article 88, which seem to prohibit speech satisfying all of these functions. 1. Enlightenment The enlightenment function of free speech can be further divided into specific subfunctions, including the quest for truth, the guiding of a self-governing society, and the checking value. a. The quest for truth. Searching for truth is, by nature, an elusive ideal, yet even "if freedom of speech does not produce absolute 'truth,' it is nevertheless a necessary condition to enlightenment which will direct us toward as close an *1193 approximation of truth as nonomniscient humanity can reach." n26 The importance of 'truth' in our society is largely undisputed, and certainly it is no less important in the military. "In military life there is a higher code termed honor, which holds its society to stricter accountability. . . ." n27 Our nation's military academies are known for their strictly enforced honor codes. The word of an officer holds special meaning in our society, and the UCMJ has several criminal sanctions amied specifically at untruthfulness. n28 Yet the enlightenment function and the quest for truth are undermined because Article 88 prohibits military officers from criticizing certain public officials when such criticism is deemed contemptuous, even if the speech is true. n29 Further, even if the statements regarding the officials are false, Article 88 precludes the audience from knowing how the officer perceives the situation ~-~- an enlightening insight to itself. The Supreme Court in Garrison v. Louisiana n30 recognized this when it stated: Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly belived contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth. n31 By making it criminal for an officer to function in a way that provides the public with an enlightened view of a public official, Article 88 contravenes the societal goal of seeking truth and enlightenment. b. The guiding of a self-governing society. "Speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government." n32 Indeed, it is widely accepted that the protection of political speech lies at the core of the first amendment: n33 *1194 Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affirs. This of course includes discussions of candidates, structures and forms of government, the manner in which government it operated or should be operated, and all such matters relating to political processes. n34 Criticism and discussion of government and public figures enables our government to be responsive and flexible; this is the function of self-government. Yet Article 88, which is specifically aimed at punishing those who speak out against political leaders, strikes directly at this core function. The Supreme Court has recognized that "expression on public issues 'has always rested on the highest rung of the hierarchary of First Amendment values.'" n35 How is it that this highest rung provides no support for military officers who violate the strictures of Article 88? The famous words of Justice Jackson make unequivocal the Court's stand on this issue: "If there be any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." n36 Despite the force of this statement, Article 88's prescription of orthodoxy in "matters of opinion" regarding public officials flies in the face of such a contention. The vague language and extreme breadth of Article 88, discussed below, significantly restricts the military officer's input into this self-governing process. This restriction is curious in light of the fairly sizable percentage of our national budget spent on defense n37 and the very important ramifications of our military presence in such volatile and divergent *1195 areas of the world as Central America, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. It seems that a self-governing society is notably hampered if it muzzles the sector of society that is most intimate with the details of such important national concerns. Certainly Article 88 does not preclude society from every insight offered by its officer corps, but its broad reach encompasses speech directed at scores of public officials, whether in their private or official capacity and whether the statements are true or false. "The framers of the first amendment indicated a value when they said that speech in some sense was special and when they wrote a Constitution providing for representative democracy, a form of government that is meaningless without open and vigorous debate about officials and their politics." n38 Because Article 88 specifically precludes military officers from engaging in open and vigorous debate about officials and their policies, our representative democracy is seemingly undermined. Our nation was established by people who were dissatisfied with the monarchical system of England and its laws that prohibited criticism of its rulers. They were determined to set up a new form of government, free of such prohibitions: Accordingly the people might find fault with government leaders as they saw fit, as well as discuss freely questions of governmental policy. As Madison explained in the Third Congress, "If we advert to the nature of Republican Government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people." n39 Yet, in Article 88 the government is exercising censorial power over the people. Admittedly this censorial power is exercised directly only against military officers, but even this limited censorship deprives the whole society by denying the free flow of information on such important matters as government policy and government leadership. c. The checking value. The self-governing function also closely aligns with the checking value function of free speech, which is founded on the belief that a major goal of the first amendment lies in its checking the abuse of power *1196 by public officials. n40 Professor Blasi writes: Since, under the checking value, the dissemination of information about the behavior of government officials is the paradigm First Amendment activity, policies and practices that reduce the amount and quality of information disseminated to the public should not be upheld simply because they serve the convenience, or embody traditional prerogatives, of the government. n41 Article 88, while never directly reviewed by the Supreme Court, has been upheld in the United States Court of Military Appeals n42 on the basis of "military necessity." This Comment later contends that the "military necessity" rationale fails to go beyond serving the convenience or traditional prerogatives of the government. n43 2. Self-Fulfillment Allowing people to express themselves freely merely for the self-fulfilling benefits of such expression is another underlying function of the first amendment. As the United States Supreme Court has stated: "In a time of apparently growing anonymity of the individual in our society, it is imperative that we take special care to preserve the vital First Amendment interest in assuring 'self-fulfillment of expression *1197 for each individual.'" n44 Article 88 undercuts the self-fulfillment function by prohibiting the self-fulfilling speech of military officers that may also be considered contemptuous of public officials. It is ironic that this prohibition restricts officers of the military, a society whose strict regulations covering uniform wear, hair length, and other aspects of an officer's life, both on-duty and off-duty, only exacerbate the proclivity toward anonymity of the individual, the very concern embodied in this function of the first amendment.
20 +We access a massive spillover – the culture created by UCMJ speech restrictions lead to a chilling effect on and constitutionally protected speech and conditions future officers to lose the ability to question unethical orders. The constant hierarchical conformism psychologically reinforces a culture of unaccountability for the higher echelons. Don't let them read generic reformism fails arguments. Bajskey 14
21 +Bajesky ’14 (Robert Bejesky, M.A. Political Science (Michigan), M.A. Applied Economics (Michigan), LL.M. International Law (Georgetown). The author has taught international law courses for Cooley Law School and the Department of Political Science at the University of Michigan, American Government and Constitutional Law courses for Alma College, and business law courses at Central Michigan University and the University of Miami. The author expresses his gratitude to the editorial team at the Albany Law Review for providing an exceptional, professional, and efficient publication process for this article. 2014 / 2015, “ SUPPORT THE TROOPS: RENEWING ANGST OVER MASSACHUSETTS V. LAIRD AND ENDOWING SERVICE MEMBERS WITH EFFECTUAL FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS” http://puffin.harker.org:2061/us/lnlib/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=trueandrisb=21_T25508682307andformat=GNBFIandsort=BOOLEANandstartDocNo=1andresultsUrlKey=29_T25508682311andcisb=22_T25508682310andtreeMax=trueandtreeWidth=0andcsi=143869anddocNo=7 | NS)
22 +Even though American military enlistees do not relinquish constitutional rights when entering the military, n358 the Supreme Court has underscored that the U.S. Constitution is not applicable to military society in the same manner that it governs civilian life. n359 Restrictions found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Manual for Courts-Martial, and military directives could be unconstitutional in civilian life, but elevated constraints on personal liberty are permissible in the military due to the need to ensure uniform compliance within the chain of command. n360 The *508 Supreme Court affirmed that chain of command orders must be observed because "the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society" with a "primary business" of fighting or preparing to engage in conflict if the need arises. n361 The UCMJ restricts speech and action rights of members of the military. Justice Rehnquist addressed the reasoning: "The armed forces depend on a command structure that ... ultimately involves the security of the Nation itself. Speech that is protected in the civil population may ... undermine the effectiveness of response to command." n362 The UCMJ proscribes engaging in conduct and speech that is not reasonable for military personnel or places the service in disrepute, n363 participating in "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman," n364 and expressing "contempt toward officials," n365 which has been broadly construed as prohibiting on and off-duty speech that criticizes the president and other political officials n366 and attendance of protest movements that oppose the incumbent administration. n367 Military directives prohibit soldiers from dissenting over, discussing political issues, and participating in political causes. n368 Precedent from the Vietnam War affirmed that speech of service members in opposition to the war could be criminalized, n369 and the Secretary of Defense reaffirmed this *509 mandate of adherence to military duties and the mission the year after the invasion of Iraq, n370 even as it became known that the conditions underlying the use of the force were false. n371 Military regulations are dogmatic because they dictate member compliance without contention throughout the hierarchical chain of command under threat of criminal and nonjudicial forms of punishment. n372 Restrictions fortify the mandates of top officials that subordinates must execute. n373 The military justice system also insulates the higher echelon in the military chain of command to ensure obedience at lower levels. n374 This general control and disciplinary structure is presumed to be a legitimate means of maintaining order and discipline and is free from military and federal court challenges. n375 Subordinates must execute combat and *510 noncombat directives, n376 which are assumed to be legal (even if they are in fact illegal). n377 Failure to execute orders can lead to courts-martial proceedings for dereliction of duty. n378 Other obligations further promote hierarchical conformity. Disorderly conduct restrictions are ostensibly indefinite, n379 there are prohibitions on fraternizing with those of a lower rank, n380 and there is control of off-duty conduct that is justified on paramount obligations to the military mission. n381 As verified by studies in *511 psychology, hierarchies, and particularly military hierarchies, n382 are a breeding ground for conformity. n383 Respect for the organization and conformity may make otherwise questionable orders obligatory n384 and officer associations may protect superiors at the expense of subordinates. n385 Rules and culture ensure conformity and obedience to command, n386 making military members hesitant to express differences in opinion and chilling speech.
23 +Disobedience is inevitable; the question is whether it will be violent or productive. Aldrich 86
24 +Aldrich ’86 (RICHARD W. ALDRICH, active duty Captain in the United States Air Force and also a student at the USLA School of Law. UCLA Law Review. APRIL, 1986, “ARTICLE 88 OF THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE: A MILITARY MUZZLE OR JUST A RESTRAINT ON MILITARY MUSCLE?” http://puffin.harker.org:2061/us/lnlib/api/version1/getDocCui?lni=3S41-5N50-00CV-61F3andcsi=7359andhl=tandhv=tandhnsd=fandhns=tandhgn=tandoc=00240andperma=true | NS)
25 +3. The Safety Valve Function The first amendment also serves a safety valve function, allowing speech to be used as a nonviolent means of venting anger and frustration. As such, the safety value function is especially important in the armed forces context. One court underscored this function's value when it said: There is no greater safety valve for discontent and cynicism about the affairs of Government than freedom of expression in any form. This has been the genius of our institutions throughout our history. It is one of the marked traits of our national life that distinguish sic us from other nations under different forms of government. n45 The court in Eisner v. Stamford Board of Education n46 noted that the safety valve function "tends to decrease the resort to violence by frustrated citizens." n47 Some believe that the aim of Article 88 is to ensure civilian control of the military to maintain a stable government. Justice Brandeis' concurrence in Whitney v. California n48 seriously questions this view:Order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for *1198 evil counsels is good ones. n49If Article 88 exists to ensure civilian control of the military then the Article is counterproductive under the Brandeis view. Fear of punishment under the Article will discourage certain thoughts and repress speech, thus resulting in a threat to stable government.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-20 23:24:46.796
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Robey Holland
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard-Westlake JC
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +18
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Lynbrook Shah Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JANFEB - Militarism v4
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Cal
Caselist.RoundClass[14]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +12
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-15 21:42:42.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +David Dosch
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Beckman KM
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard-Westlake
Caselist.RoundClass[15]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +13
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-15 21:43:06.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +David Dosch
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard-Westlake VC
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +St Marks
Caselist.RoundClass[16]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +14
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-16 19:09:25.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Paras Kumar, Karen Qi, Arjun Tambe
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Brentwood EB
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Doubles
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard-Westlake
Caselist.RoundClass[17]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +14
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-12 00:38:46.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Jack Coyle
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Layton ZB
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +3
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Stanford
Caselist.RoundClass[18]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-20 23:24:44.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Robey Holland
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard-Westlake JC
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Cal

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)