Verbatim 4.6 · Web viewThe personal trauma of facing the TSA's airport screening process was...

West Coast Publishing Surveillance 2015 NOVEMBER

TSA/Airports AFF.........................................................................................................................................5

Airport Surveillance Aff – General...........................................................................................................6

Aff Laundry List + AT: Terror DA...........................................................................................................7

AT: Terror DA – Surveillance Fails........................................................................................................8

Body Scanners.........................................................................................................................................9

Aff Laundry Lists................................................................................................................................10

1st Amendment..................................................................................................................................12

4th Amendment..................................................................................................................................13

4th Amendment – AT: Border Search Exemption...............................................................................15

4th Amendment – AT: Consent Doctrine............................................................................................16

4th Amendment – AT: Older Case Law...............................................................................................17

4th Amendment – AT: Privacy Safeguards – Terror DA Double Bind..................................................18

4th Amendment – AT: Terry Stops......................................................................................................19

Health................................................................................................................................................20

Racism + AT: Safeguards....................................................................................................................21

AT: Terror DA – Link Turn..................................................................................................................22

AT: Terror DA – Scanners Fail............................................................................................................23

Racial Profiling.......................................................................................................................................26

Aff Laundry List..................................................................................................................................27

14th Amendment................................................................................................................................28

Racism...............................................................................................................................................29

Racism + AT: Crime/Terror DA – Link Turn........................................................................................30

Treaties..............................................................................................................................................31

AT: Terror DA – Link Turn..................................................................................................................32

AT: Terror DA – Profiling Fails............................................................................................................33

Politcs TPP Disad AFF.................................................................................................................................36

*A2: UNIQUENESS*..............................................................................................................................37

TPP Won’t Pass..................................................................................................................................38

TPP is Inevitable – Opposition is Irrelevant........................................................................................40

*A2: INTERNAL LINKS*..........................................................................................................................42

No Vote Anytime Soon......................................................................................................................43

*A2: IMPACTS (TPP IS BAD)*................................................................................................................44We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com

http://www.wcdebate.com/


TPP Bad - General..............................................................................................................................45

TPP Bad – Economy / General...........................................................................................................47

TPP Bad – Economy / Manufacturing................................................................................................48

TPP Bad – Economy / Manufacturing................................................................................................50

TPP Bad – Economy / Small Businesses.............................................................................................51

TPP Bad – Economy / No Free Trade.................................................................................................52

TPP Bad - Environment......................................................................................................................53

TPP Bad - Environment......................................................................................................................55

TPP Bad – Big Pharma........................................................................................................................56

TPP Bad – China/India Economies.....................................................................................................57

TPP Bad – Taiwan Conflict.................................................................................................................58

TPP Bad – U.S. Hegemony / Leadership.............................................................................................59

TPP Bad – A2: Boosts US-China Relations.........................................................................................60

TPP Bad – China Containment / War.................................................................................................61

TSA/Airports Case Neg..............................................................................................................................62

AT: Aff Advantages................................................................................................................................63

AT: 4th Amendment Adv – Airport Surveillance Doesn’t Violate........................................................64

AT: 4th Amendment – Body Scanners.................................................................................................68

AT: 4th Amendment Adv – Luggage Sniffers.......................................................................................69

AT: 14th Amendment Adv – Profiling Doesn’t Violate........................................................................70

AT: Econ Adv – Body Scanners...........................................................................................................71

AT: Health Adv – No MPX..................................................................................................................72

AT: Health Adv – Backscatter – No MPX............................................................................................73

AT: Health Adv – Millimeter Wave – No MPX....................................................................................75

AT: Privacy/Civil Liberties Adv – TSA Solves.......................................................................................76

AT: Privacy Adv – AT: Body Scanners.................................................................................................77

AT: Privacy Adv – AT: Pat-Downs.......................................................................................................79

AT: Profiling Bad Adv – General.........................................................................................................80

AT: Profiling Bad Adv – Alt Causes.....................................................................................................81

AT: Racism Adv – Body Scanners.......................................................................................................82

AT: Racism Adv – Profiling – AT: Black Policing Parallels....................................................................83

CPs.........................................................................................................................................................84

1NC Secondary Search CP – Body Scanners.......................................................................................85

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com



2NC Secondary Search CP – Solves Fourth Amendment....................................................................86

2NC Secondary Search CP – Solves Terror DA....................................................................................87

1NC Lasers CP – Body Scanners.........................................................................................................88

2NC Lasers CP – Solves......................................................................................................................89

2NC Lasers CP – Solves 4th Amendment...........................................................................................90

2NC Lasers CP – Solves Terror DA + Privacy.......................................................................................91

DA Links.................................................................................................................................................93

Terror DA Links – Body Scanners.......................................................................................................94

Terror DA Links – Body Scanners – AT: Magnetometers....................................................................96

Terror DA Links – Body Scanners – AT: Pat-Downs............................................................................98

Terror DA Links – Profiling.................................................................................................................99

Topicality.............................................................................................................................................101

T – Profiling =/= Surveillance...........................................................................................................102

Politcs TPP Disad NEG..............................................................................................................................103

* UNIQUENESS / INTERNAL LINKS*.....................................................................................................104

Obama Political Capital Key / Every Drop........................................................................................105

Obama Political Capital Key / Dems key..........................................................................................106

Obama Political Capital Key / GOP key............................................................................................107

Obama Political Capital Key / Bipart................................................................................................108

Obama Political Capital Key / Orrin Hatch.......................................................................................109

*IMPACTS*..........................................................................................................................................111

TPP Good – Economy / Growth.......................................................................................................112

TPP Good – Economy / Growth.......................................................................................................114

TPP Good – Small Businesses / Rural America.................................................................................115

TPP Good – Small Businesses / Rural America.................................................................................116

TPP Good – Alternative is Protectionism / Depression....................................................................117

TPP Good – Alternative is Protectionism / No Heg..........................................................................118

TPP Good – Boosts Free Trade.........................................................................................................119

TPP Good – Boosts Japanese Economy............................................................................................120

TPP Good – U.S. Leadership / Asia Pivot..........................................................................................121

TPP Good – Agriculture....................................................................................................................122

TPP Good – Environment.................................................................................................................123

TPP Good – A2: Big Pharma............................................................................................................124




*General Issues*..................................................................................................................................125

A2: “Anti-China”..............................................................................................................................126

A2: Chinese Hates...........................................................................................................................127

A2: Hurts Chinese Economy / Leadership.......................................................................................128

A2: TPP = Global Model..................................................................................................................129




TSA/Airports AFF




Airport Surveillance Aff – General




Aff Laundry List + AT: Terror DA

Airport surveillance exposes minority populations to racism and civil liberty violations, wastes millions of dollars and it’s counterproductive for preventing terror attacksYevgenia S. Kleiner, Articles Editor of the Boston College Third World Law Journal, 11-1-2010, “Racial Profiling in the Name of National Security: Protecting Minority Travlers' Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism,” http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=twlj

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 introduced a fear of terrorism into Americans’ daily lives and inspired in many a suspicion of immigrants of Muslims and Middle Eastern descent.24 Compounding the dangerous environment of racism these fears engender is what Jeffrey Goldberg, an acclaimed Israeli- American journalist, calls American “security theater.”25 Goldberg argues that airport security in America is a sham, entirely incapable of dealing with a myriad of security vulnerabilities, and accuses the security system of being able to catch only the most careless and “stupid” of terrorists.26 If Goldberg is right, his argument lends support to the idea that existing security programs can be only partially successful because they assume that terrorists will wage future attacks using the same methods they used in the past.27 If true, this theory would mean that the U.S. government is wasting millions of dollars on security equipment that is either obsolete or more likely to be put to use on an unsuspecting minority traveler than against a real terrorist.28 Some authorities on the subject go so far as to argue that the United States would be better served if airport security was returned to pre-September 11 levels and the remaining funds allocated for intelligence, investigations and emergency response.29 Until then, airlines continue to run the risk of conducting the most in-depth security checks on those who fit a certain ethnic or racial category—a method that succeeds primarily in embarrassing and delaying travelers of certain ‘inconvenient’ backgrounds while trampling on their civil rights .30




AT: Terror DA – Surveillance Fails

Deterrence-based security measures fail – multiple warrantsInternational Bulletin of Political Psychology (IBPP), 11-5-2003, “Motivation and Aviation as a Terrorism Target,” http://security.pr.erau.edu/read.php?kind=html&article_volume=15&article_issue=10&article_title=Motivation%20and%20Aviation%20as%20a%20Terrorism%20Target

Can terrorist motivation to target aviation be significantly minimized? For example, could there be a combination of aviation security programs that would deter or attenuate the probability of such attacks? If terrorists believe that security programs have a high enough degree of effectiveness, either in preventing an operation from beginning or in resolving it to the disadvantage of the terrorist operator once it begins, one might argue that some sort of normative reason, rationality, and logic would lead terrorists to stop terrorism altogether or at least to take their operations elsewhere. However, there are at least three problems with this analysis . The first is that normative reason, rationality, and logic may not characterize certain aspiring and actual terrorists. The second is that a subgroup of terrorists characterized by a psychological nexus that could be labeled as sensation seeking (cf. Aluja et al., 2003) might actually be more likely to engage in terrorism as the threat to the success of their operation increased. The third is that it is quite difficult to identify what specific social action and assumed consequence combined as an aviation security program may be perceived or serve as positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, punishment or omission training (the four main classes of conditioning paradigms) by terrorists considering terrorist action.

Numerous attack methods inevitably overwhelm surveillance tacticsInternational Bulletin of Political Psychology (IBPP), 11-5-2003, “Motivation and Aviation as a Terrorism Target,” http://security.pr.erau.edu/read.php?kind=html&article_volume=15&article_issue=10&article_title=Motivation%20and%20Aviation%20as%20a%20Terrorism%20Target

Another problem in attenuating terrorist motivation to attack aviation is the class of varied operations that can be chosen—from harming people on the ground or in the air, to destroying aircraft and other aviation materiel on the ground or in the air, to using aircraft and other aviation materiel as weapons. Such variety can quickly overwhelm intelligence resources and their integration into aviation security and force security authorities into flying blind through fielding security programs based on a risk analysis that really is a vulnerability analysis without adequate threat analysis.




Body Scanners




Aff Laundry Lists

Body scanners allow a host of privacy violations and racist treatment of airline passengersTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

While praised for their detection capabilities, 124 bodyscans present alarming privacy concerns for air travelers. 125 In its unprocessed form, the technology produces images described as "so sharp that the shape of a person's navel is visible, along with the shapes of other, more private parts."126 The American Civil Liberties Union (the "ACLU") likens the technology to a " virtual strip search " that is highly invasive and not narrowly tailored, absent probable cause, to meet the needs of airport security. 2 7 In response to the TSA pilot program in Phoenix, the ACLU's Timothy D. Sparapani appeared before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to condemn the TSA's authorization and funding of body-scan machines.12 His concerns included that use of the machines will lead to unnecessary secondary searches, 29 that passengers would be required to display personal details of their bodies, 130 and the possibility that the images could be reproduced or appear on the Internet.131 Concerns also exist over the potential for selective or improper use of the technology based on cultural or racial factors. 132




Body scanners violate privacy – the impact is personal trauma for survivors of abuse – they also increase cancer risksDaphyne Saunders Thomas et al, Professor in the College of Business Instruction at James Madison University, Hugh Hobson, Visiting Professor of Finance at the University of the District of Columbia, Joan C. Hubbard, Lecturer in Management at the University of North Texas, and Karen Forcht, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Computing Sciences at Elon University, 2013, “Technology in Practice: Airport Scanning Privacy Issues,” http://iacis.org/iis/2013/170_iis_2013_47-53.pdf

The personal trauma of facing the TSA's airport screening process was related to Congress in March 2011 in testimony by Alaska State Rep. Sharon Cissna, who had had a mastectomy due to breast cancer. Cissna was stopped at an airport when she refused to undergo a full-body scan, which would have disclosed her physical anomaly. "The TSA agent began to tell me what would soon happen regarding where she was going to touch me and the force-forgotten memory of the previous intensive physical search returned," Cissna said. When Cissna refused the additional screening, she was surrounded by police, TSA officials and airport employees, which she said could have been "very intimidating because of their positions of authority and the difference in height between me and those surrounding me." Cissna provided a passionate critique of the government's security system. "For nearly fifty years I’ve fought for the rights of abuse survivors and it is this population that is the most harmed by unwanted physical touch. My wonderful state of Alaska depends on air flight as a mandatory means of transportation, both intra and interstate of our vast land. We also sadly rank first in the nation for both men and women who have been abused. Logic suggests that the recent introduction of the full body scan (itself a potentially harmful source of radiation ) is the very last thing a molested person could deal with because it would result in yet more trauma from the groping of strangers. Most tragic of these policies are the silent masses that are traumatized and dishonored at the hands of their own government in the name of ‘safety’ policies." (Cissna, March 201).




1 st Amendment

Body scanners violate the religious freedom of Muslims and other minority religious groupsDaphyne Saunders Thomas et al, Professor in the College of Business Instruction at James Madison University, Hugh Hobson, Visiting Professor of Finance at the University of the District of Columbia, Joan C. Hubbard, Lecturer in Management at the University of North Texas, and Karen Forcht, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Computing Sciences at Elon University, 2013, “Technology in Practice: Airport Scanning Privacy Issues,” http://iacis.org/iis/2013/170_iis_2013_47-53.pdf

The public interest groups argue that the airport scanners also violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which bars the government from placing a substantial burden on a person's exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates a compelling interest. The groups' petition contends that the scanners violation the religious tenets of Muslims and other spiritual groups by allow the government to capture photos of passenger's naked bodies. The scanners have been banned in some Muslim countries




4 th Amendment

Body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment – degree of intrusionAndrew Welch, JD Candidate at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, 2010, “Full-Body Scanners: Full Protection from Terrorist Attacks or Full-On Violation of the Constitution?” http://www.davidrasnick.com/Liberty_files/Welch%202010%20Body-Scanners.pdf

The third and final prong 157 of the test- degree of intrusion -could spell doom for airport virtual strip searches. The Skipwith court recognized the intrusion of airport searches as "inconvenient and annoying, in some cases it may be embarrassing, and at times it can be incriminating."158 However, it spent very little time discussing the intrusive nature of the searches and instead addressed the factors that it claimed made airport searches less offensive than in other contexts.159 The court stated that the search of Skipwith was not intrusive to the degree of unreasonableness because of the "almost complete absence of any stigma" of being searched at the airport, a known and designated search point. 160 Distinguishing airport searches from those conducted on "dark and lonely streets at night/' the court was confident that the "circumstances under which the airport search is conducted make it much less likely that abuses will occur."161 The argument that there was no stigma attached to Skipwith's search would not have held water had Skipwith been searched by a full-body scanner . Abuses and indiscretion are sure to follow a virtual strip search. One need only ask Rolando Negrin, a TSA worker at the Miami International Airport, about the stigma associated with being searched by the full-body scanners.162 Mr. Negrin finally snapped after being subjected to jokes about the size of his genitalia on a daily basis. 163 The daily teasing started when Mr. Negrin stepped through a full-body scanner as part of a training exercise and his supervisor started to make fun of his genitalia, which was made visible by the machine.164 Because the search reveals intimate and private areas of one's body, the stigma is inherent .




Body scanners violate the right to privacy and the Fourth Amendment – neg claims about alternatives and scanners’ effectiveness are wrongDaphyne Saunders Thomas et al, Professor in the College of Business Instruction at James Madison University, Hugh Hobson, Visiting Professor of Finance at the University of the District of Columbia, Joan C. Hubbard, Lecturer in Management at the University of North Texas, and Karen Forcht, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Computing Sciences at Elon University, 2013, “Technology in Practice: Airport Scanning Privacy Issues,” http://iacis.org/iis/2013/170_iis_2013_47-53.pdf

The government's assurances continue to be questioned by privacy, consumer rights, and civil rights organizations that contend that the full-body scanners produce detailed images that are the equivalent to a " digital strip-search ." Marc Rotenberg, executive director of Electronic Privacy Information Center, argues that "[w]ithout a warrant, the government doesn’t have a right to peer beneath your clothes without probable cause." (Rotenberg, 2010, p. 5.) According to passenger complaints filed with TSA and obtained by EPIC, airport personnel have been negligent about explaining alternative screening procedures and in some cases have mandated that passengers undergo whole-body screening. In its petition to DHS, the privacy group argued that "as a matter of pattern, practice and policy, the TSA does not offer air travelers a meaningful alternative to [fullbody scanner] searches in airports equipped with FBS devices." Legal experts disagree on the government's authority to use full-body scanners. The courts tend to give great deference to the government's concerns about national security, noted Jeffrey Rosen, law professor at George Washington University and author of "The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious Age." "But in this case, there's strong argument that the TSA's measures violate the Fourth Amendment," according to Rosen, "'non-routine' searches, such as strip-searches or body-cavity searches, require some individualized suspicion -- that is, some cause to suspect a particular traveler of wrongdoing. Neither virtual strip-searches nor intrusive pat-downs should be considered 'routine,' and therefore courts should rule that neither can be used for primary screening...They reveal a great deal of innocent but embarrassing information and are remarkably ineffective at revealing low- density contraband." (Rosen in the Washington Post, 2010, p. 6 of printout)




4 th Amendment – AT: Border Search Exemption

Air travel is mostly domestic – a broad border exemption doesn’t applyDaniel S. Harawa, JD, Georgetown University Law Center, 2013, “The Post-TSA Airport: A Constitution Free Zone?” http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2327&context=plr

The border search precedent, primarily relied on by the Fifth Circuit in Skipwith, does not fit precisely with airport screening given that most passengers screened in airports are traveling domestically or out of the United States. In creating the border exception caveat, the Supreme Court noted the “distinction between searches within this country, requiring probable cause, and border searches.”199 The border search exception was in large part justified by the Executive’s power to deal in foreign commerce and to secure the borders.200 The executive powers at play at the border are not implicated in domestic travel. Thus, given the ill fit of the analogy, this exception too can be dispatched when assessing the constitutionality of airport security screening.




4 th Amendment – AT: Consent Doctrine

The consent doctrine doesn’t apply – recent cases ruled against itTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

Second, even if relevant, the consent doctrine is largely inconsistent with more recent administrative search jurisprudence. "Consent" is given, as a matter of law, only where the individual submits to the search freely and without coercion."' Therefore, "consent," as recognized in more recent case law, is not invoked where an individual must elect between submitting to a government-operated search and abstaining from air travel.179 Rather, such a decision invokes coercion , rendering any consideration of the element of consent inappropriate . 80

The consent doctrine is nonsense – the government can’t force you to choose between privacy and your right to travelAndrew Welch, JD Candidate at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, 2010, “Full-Body Scanners: Full Protection from Terrorist Attacks or Full-On Violation of the Constitution?” http://www.davidrasnick.com/Liberty_files/Welch%202010%20Body-Scanners.pdf

The court rejected the government's argument that the suppressed evidence should have come in because the defendant had consented to the search by attempting to board the plane. 170 The Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court that this act alone did not constitute consent in any meaningful sense . . .. Compelling the defendant to choose between exercising Fourth Amendment rights and his right to travel constitutes coercion ; the government cannot be said to have established that the defendant freely and voluntarily consent[ ed] to the search when to do otherwise would have meant foregoing the constitutional right to travel. 171 Compelling travelers to submit to a virtual strip search before exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to travel (especially when the search's degree of intrusiveness is much greater than its efficacy) can hardly be called free and voluntary consent.




4 th Amendment – AT: Older Case Law

You should be skeptical of older cases – body scanners are much more invasive and publicly violate privacy rightsTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

Airport security systems have evolved over time.190 Today, walk-through magnetometers are seen as commonplace and routine, particularly in the setting of airport screening."191 Accordingly, magnetometer searches are widely upheld as a minimal invasion of privacy that "does not annoy, frighten or humiliate those who pass through it.' 192 Body-scan searches, however, are not constitutionally comparable. The privacy intrusions of backscatter and millimeter wave devices are significant. 193 Absent the use of privacy filtering software, the technology produces extremely detailed images that expose intimate parts of the body and invade basic privacy expectations.194 Not only do body-scans subject travelers to this "virtual strip search," 195 but the search is conducted in front of a captive audience of fellow travelers, all apparently aware of the fact that this person's naked body is being remotely viewed. 196 Therefore, as compared to minimally invasive magnetometer searches, body-scans present a much higher potential for humiliation .




4 th Amendment – AT: Privacy Safeguards – Terror DA Double Bind

If they win that privacy safeguards exist, those are insufficient to solve the aff, but they also make threat detection less effective – so they take out their own impactTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

Moreover, while the government has made steps to mitigate the invasive qualities of the technology, those very same efforts degrade the technology's detection capability to the point where it loses the ability to detect certain threatening objects.238 While the modified, "masking" form of the technology would likely still enhance detection capabilities over current technologies,239 potential terrorists would have a dangerous advantage : knowledge of what kinds of modern weapons can still evade detection.240 Therefore, in order for the technology to significantly enhance detection capability, the images would have to be graphic. However, the graphic, unmodified form of the technology, which exposes genitalia and fat folds among other private parts of the body, 241 is more analogous to a "full" search than it is to a "minimally invasive" magnetometer search. Therefore, despite the potential for substantial improvements in detection capability, the unmodified technology "peers beneath clothing" in a manner that per se violates the tailoring requirement of the administrative search doctrine.242 Meanwhile, the modified images, given their sacrificed detection capability, do not offer the kind of substantial improvement in detection capability to justify the still highly invasive nature of the technology.243




4 th Amendment – AT: Terry Stops

The Terry decision doesn’t apply – it’s too broad and would cause unjustified privacy violationsDaniel S. Harawa, JD, Georgetown University Law Center, 2013, “The Post-TSA Airport: A Constitution Free Zone?” http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2327&context=plr

Two weeks after Skipwith, the Ninth Circuit also rejected the notion that Terry justifies airport security measures in United States v. Davis.172 In that case, the defendant’s briefcase was opened and searched as part of a routine check, during the course of which a handgun was found.173 The defendant challenged the search as a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.174 After a lengthy recount of the then-recent phenomenon of skyjacking, the Ninth Circuit found that airport security screening is not per se unconstitutional.175 The court, however, rejected that Terry could justify general airport screening given that there was no particularized suspicion for all travelers subjected to the screening process and that the scope of airport screening extends beyond the measures necessary to assure a passenger does not have a weapon immediately available for use against the screening agents.176 The court reasoned that if Terry was extended “to authorize airport screening searches” the result would be “ intrusions upon privacy unwarranted by the need.”177 Thus, the Ninth Circuit had to look elsewhere to justify airport screening in the face of pressing national security interests.




Health

Body scanners increase cancer risks – industry figures are biasedDaphyne Saunders Thomas et al, Professor in the College of Business Instruction at James Madison University, Hugh Hobson, Visiting Professor of Finance at the University of the District of Columbia, Joan C. Hubbard, Lecturer in Management at the University of North Texas, and Karen Forcht, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Computing Sciences at Elon University, 2013, “Technology in Practice: Airport Scanning Privacy Issues,” http://iacis.org/iis/2013/170_iis_2013_47-53.pdf

Some medical experts warn that the whole-body scanners could present safety concerns for passengers that undergo screening and for airport personnel who work near the scanners. In an April letter to White House science advisor John Holdren, four University of California scientists warned that radiation from the scanners has been underestimated and could cause health impacts in children, older travelers, pregnant women, and individuals with a greater susceptibility to cancer . Calling for a thorough review of the potential health impacts, the scientists concluded that "it appears that real independent safety data do not exist ."

Scanners expose airport workers to harmful doses of radiationDaphyne Saunders Thomas et al, Professor in the College of Business Instruction at James Madison University, Hugh Hobson, Visiting Professor of Finance at the University of the District of Columbia, Joan C. Hubbard, Lecturer in Management at the University of North Texas, and Karen Forcht, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Computing Sciences at Elon University, 2013, “Technology in Practice: Airport Scanning Privacy Issues,” http://iacis.org/iis/2013/170_iis_2013_47-53.pdf

But as evidence emerged that government had saved body image scans, six Senators sent a letter to the U.S. Marshal Service asking for a full explanation of the privacy practices. In addition, Senators Susan Collins, R-Maine; Richard Burr, R-N.C.; and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., wrote to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano objecting to the government's plans to expand the airport body scanner program in light of potential health concerns. The lawmakers asked "why the Department continues to purchase this technology when legitimate concerns about its safety appear to remain unanswered." The Senators were particularly concerned that airport personnel could receive multiple doses of radiation every work day. They urged the agency to work with independent experts to study the technology's health effects on travelers and airport personnel.




Racism + AT: Safeguards

Images on body scanners allow for racial profiling at airports – placing officers remotely doesn’t resolve itTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

Third, body-scan searches introduce a subjective element into the primary screening process that does not exist with magnetometer searches. While magnetometers automatically detect metallic items, body-scans require the intervention of a human element whereby a screening officer must subjectively differentiate between threatening and non-threatening items displayed on a screen.202 This subjective feature implicates two potentially intrusive scenarios not seen with magnetometer searches. First, there is a fear that the screening officers may consider race , sex, weight, or other impermissible factors when determining whether the passenger poses a threat that requires further inquiry.203 While the officers are remotely located, the images are detailed in such a manner that a screening officer could potentially be made aware of these physical characteristics. 20 4 Again, magnetometers do not present similar concerns.




AT: Terror DA – Link Turn

Body scanners turn terrorism – divert security personnel by producing ‘false positives’Daphyne Saunders Thomas et al, Professor in the College of Business Instruction at James Madison University, Hugh Hobson, Visiting Professor of Finance at the University of the District of Columbia, Joan C. Hubbard, Lecturer in Management at the University of North Texas, and Karen Forcht, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Computing Sciences at Elon University, 2013, “Technology in Practice: Airport Scanning Privacy Issues,” http://iacis.org/iis/2013/170_iis_2013_47-53.pdf

Fred H. Cate, a law professor at Indiana University's Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research, states that the scanners detect so many false reports of anomalies that "the AITs are not merely failing in practice to protect the air transport infrastructure against threats, but are actually interfering with TSA agents' ability to do so by sending them on so many wild good chases." (Cate, March 2011, p.9--new report)




AT: Terror DA – Scanners Fail

Terrorists can outwit body scannersAndrew Welch, JD Candidate at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, 2010, “Full-Body Scanners: Full Protection from Terrorist Attacks or Full-On Violation of the Constitution?” http://www.davidrasnick.com/Liberty_files/Welch%202010%20Body-Scanners.pdf

An argument is being made that terrorists can hide explosives by molding them against their body, putting them in body cavities, or placing them in folds of skin. 143 This would make explosives and the like impossible to detect with a full-body scan. Rumors have even been reported that women suicide bombers, recruited by al-Qaida, are having explosives inserted into their breasts using techniques similar to breast augmentation surgery.144 As the screening technology adapts so do the terrorists. This is not to say that it is a winless battle, but it makes it that much more imperative to ensure that law-abiding Americans are not subjected to humiliating, intrusive, and most importantly, unreasonable searches that in the end are not as effective at stopping terrorists as one might think. We must be very careful when asking citizens to trade their privacy in the hope for safety.

TSA checkpoints have failed numerous governmental auditsTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

The TSA has remained secretive about the specific results of these audits.0 1 However, the Government Accountability Office was particularly forthcoming in a November 15, 2007 preliminary report detailing the result of a series of tests performed by the Office. 0 2 The report showed that investigators were successful in passing through security checkpoints with components for "several" IEDs and IIDs : 103 Our tests clearly demonstrate that a terrorist group, using publicly available information and few resources, could cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers by bringing prohibited IED and IID components through security checkpoints. Given our degree of success, we are confident that our investigators would have been able to evade transportation security officers at additional airports had we decided to test them.104




Terrorists will avoid body scanners because all locations are publishedAndrew Welch, JD Candidate at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, 2010, “Full-Body Scanners: Full Protection from Terrorist Attacks or Full-On Violation of the Constitution?” http://www.davidrasnick.com/Liberty_files/Welch%202010%20Body-Scanners.pdf

Another problem with the machines' efficacy could be the fact that their locations are published. TSA has published plans to deploy 450 fullbody imagers by the end of 2010,155 with maps easily accessible on the TSA website of where these machines currently are and where they will be located.156 Terrorists can easily avoid the airports that contain this technology simply by looking at TSA's website. Only time will tell if a successful argument can be made that giving legitimate air travelers who have been subjected to the electronic full-body search a false sense of security (when in fact the terrorists are avoiding airports that use full-body scanners) in and of itself makes the search unreasonable.

TSA officers are incompetent – tech doesn’t solveTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

Finally, in addition to technological shortcomings, the TSA audits uncovered numerous procedural deficiencies, including inattentive management and a general lack of effective TSO training .233 Therefore, technology should not be considered the single and exclusive remedial measure; the TSA must take appropriate action to ensure the vigilance of screening officers prior to resorting to invasive technologies such as body-scanners.




Scans can’t detect Trojan bombsAndrew Welch, JD Candidate at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, 2010, “Full-Body Scanners: Full Protection from Terrorist Attacks or Full-On Violation of the Constitution?” http://www.davidrasnick.com/Liberty_files/Welch%202010%20Body-Scanners.pdf

While the technology can see beneath clothing, the image produced by a full-body scanner does not reveal items beneath the surface of the skin.152 According to TSA's website, the full-body scanner "detects metallic and non-metallic threats, including weapons, explosives and other items that a passenger is carrying on his/her person, without physical contact 153 Some believe that the "carrying on" the person is not the same as "carrying in" the person, thereby making the new machines ineffective in detecting "Trojan" or "bosom" bombers ,154

Government watchdogs confirm that scanners can’t detect many ‘threat items’ – TSA assessments are overhyped and biasedDaphyne Saunders Thomas et al, Professor in the College of Business Instruction at James Madison University, Hugh Hobson, Visiting Professor of Finance at the University of the District of Columbia, Joan C. Hubbard, Lecturer in Management at the University of North Texas, and Karen Forcht, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Computing Sciences at Elon University, 2013, “Technology in Practice: Airport Scanning Privacy Issues,” http://iacis.org/iis/2013/170_iis_2013_47-53.pdf

The U.S. Government Accountability Office also raised questions about the value of the scanning technology. In an October 2009 report, the government agency said that the TSA was deploying the body scanning machines without fully assessing whether they could detect "threat items" concealed on the body. In a March 2010 follow-up report, GAO said it " remains unclear " whether the advanced scanners would have detected the explosives that police allege the Nigerian passenger tried to detonate on a jet bound for Detroit in 2009.




Racial Profiling




Aff Laundry List

Profiling violates citizens’ privacy rights, discriminate against minorities, and fail to catch terroristsTimothy M. Ravich, Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law, October 2007, “Is Airline Passenger Profiling Necessary?,” http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=umlr

But profiling airline passengers is controversial . Critics of airline passenger profiling systems voice four main concerns. First, privacy advocates and civil libertarians contend that profiling systems as security measures are too extreme. According to those critics, would-be terrorists with September 1 -like intentions constitute a discrete minority of the traveling population. Consequently, profiling systems are not the least intrusive security alternative because they intrude into the privacy of the overwhelming majority of airline passengers who pose no threat to aviation security.2 4 Second, profiling critics wonder about the source and ownership of

information in passenger dossiers. Arguably, profiling systems deprive travelers of control over their personal information. The federal government refuses to disclose precisely what information it will rely on to compile a passenger profile and threat assessment. The government alone knows the source of profiling data. Some profiling system critics argue that the source of the government's

profiling data is untrustworthy commercial databases that have nothing to do with airline travel. Third, profiling systems are operationally ineffective , producing "false positives" and "false negatives." Anecdotal evidence of existing profiling systems identifying law-abiding passengers for heightened screening or unnecessary interrogations or both is discouraging . For example, TSA, FBI, and the Secret Service have stopped an airline passenger from

Kentucky twenty-two different times because his name is similar to that of an apparent financier of al Qaeda.26 Meanwhile, existing screening systems failed to notice anything remarkable when the name of America's most-wanted fugitive, Osama Bin Ladin, was tested . 2 These infrequent but not unique experiences, aggravated by the evolving danger of identity theft, illustrate a serious defect of an aviation security regime dependent on machines to make threat assessments.28 Finally, while airline passengers may pose unequal security risks as a matter of fact,

profiling systems treat passengers unequally and discriminatorily as a matter of law . Critics of airline passenger

profiling specifically contend that computerized screening is internally biased against passengers with connections to areas of the world whose behavior or policies conflict with the interests of the United States-namely the Middle East. As such, critics believe that profiling would promote an unconstitutional categorization of travelers by ethnicity, race, religion, or a combination of all three . 29 And although the federal

govern-ment has rejected the notion that profiling operates on this basis, many critics of airline passenger profiling systems maintain that the government cannot be trusted to design egalitarian machinery that ignores the shared ethnic, geo-cultural, or religious backgrounds of the September 11 terrorists . Profiling system proponents counter this concern with an appeal to common sense: We should use what we know about past terrorists. While this may be true in a practical sense, profiling raises more nuanced legal issues. This section presents the major private and government profiling initiatives since September 11 and addresses the practical and legal benefits of both, as well as their drawbacks.




14 th Amendment

Racial profiling violates equal protectionYevgenia S. Kleiner, Articles Editor of the Boston College Third World Law Journal, 11-1-2010, “Racial Profiling in the Name of National Security: Protecting Minority Travlers' Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism,” http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=twlj

Finally, racial profiling is wrong as a matter of constitutional law because it treats travelers unequally and discriminates against those who are perceived, often wrongly, as posing the greatest security risk.58 Critics of airline passenger profiling have argued that computerized screening programs—such as CAPPS I, CAPPS II, Registered Traveler and the new Secure Flight program—are inherently “biased against passengers with connections to areas of the world whose behavior or policies conflict with the interests of the United States—namely the Middle East. As such, critics believe that profiling promotes an unconstitutional categorization of travelers by ethnicity, race, religion, or a combination of all three. ”59 Many such critics fear that TSA will be unable to design and implement egalitarian screening programs that “ignore the shared ethnic, geo-cultural, or religious backgrounds of the September 11 terrorists” and therefore urge the government to consider alternative solutions.60




Racism

Profiling causes racially disparate discrimination against minority populationsYevgenia S. Kleiner, Articles Editor of the Boston College Third World Law Journal, 11-1-2010, “Racial Profiling in the Name of National Security: Protecting Minority Travlers' Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism,” http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=twlj

Because behavioral profiling requires security officials to identify conduct that is perfectly natural in a variety of situations, those whose actions triggers scrutiny under this security method are prone to abuse by security officers based on “race-based preconceptions as to which racial groups are more likely to represent a ‘terrorist’ threat.”185 Critics warn that security officials engaged in behavioral profiling will disproportionately scrutinize racial and ethnic minorities and ‘observe’ suspicious behavior where none actually exists, causing racially disparate impacts similar to those caused by racial profiling .186 The brunt of this discrimination, critics warn, will be borne by those who are (or are perceived to be) Muslim, Arab and South Asian, wrongly reinforcing the idea that terrorist suspects can be successfully identified by their race, ethnicity or religion and reiterating prejudicial stereotypes in the mind of the public instead of devoting resources to “genuine threats to security.”187




Racism + AT: Crime/Terror DA – Link Turn

Race-based profiling affects millions of Americans and trades off with more effective counterterror strategiesYevgenia S. Kleiner, Articles Editor of the Boston College Third World Law Journal, 11-1-2010, “Racial Profiling in the Name of National Security: Protecting Minority Travlers' Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism,” http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=twlj

In his introduction to the 2004 Amnesty International (AIUSA) report, Threat and Humiliation: Racial Profiling, Domestic Security and Human Rights in the United States, the Honorable Timothy K. Lewis admonished the U.S. government that “focusing on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion as a proxy for criminal behavior has always failed as a means to protect society from criminal activity .”39 Instead, profiling has left society more susceptible to discriminatory abuse .40 The AIUSA report identified racial profiling as a threat to U.S. national security, finding that targeting millions of innocent Americans has “ undermined . . . law enforcement agencies’ ability to detect actual domestic security threats and apprehend serial killers, assassins, and other purveyors of terror.”41 Race-based profiling jeopardizes the effectiveness of antiterrorist security measures because it prevents law enforcement officials from focusing on the real target—dangerous behaviors and legitimate threats—and poses great risks to our society’s criminal justice system and constitutional protections.42 Despite the hidden risks racial profiling poses to national security, AIUSA’s report conservatively estimates that one in three people living in the United States, or approximately eighty-seven million individuals out of a population of approximately 281 million, are at risk of being subjected to some form of racial profiling.43




Treaties

Ending racial profiling would help bring the US into treaty compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial DiscriminationYevgenia S. Kleiner, Articles Editor of the Boston College Third World Law Journal, 11-1-2010, “Racial Profiling in the Name of National Security: Protecting Minority Travlers' Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism,” http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=twlj

Besides its accountability for constitutional protections against racial profiling, the United States is also responsible for honoring the race-related provisions of international treaties that it has ratified.78 The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“the Convention”) is a United Nations treaty that was adopted in order to eliminate racial discrimination and promote understanding among all races.79 Along with dozens of other nations, the United States expressed reservations regarding specific portions of the Convention but nevertheless ratified the Convention in 1994.80 Echoing the recommendations of the Convention, former President George W. Bush promised in 2001 to end racial profiling in the United States.81 It took the government two years to follow through on President Bush’s promise, as it was not until June 17, 2003, that the Department of Justice issued its Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies (“the Guidance”).82 Although the Guidance contains a definition of racial profiling modeled after a definition endorsed by AIUSA and other human and civil rights organizations, it “fails to address religious and ethnic profiling, provides no enforcement mechanisms for victims of profiling, does little to ensure accountability, and provides a blanket exception for cases in which national security is threatened.”83 Furthermore, the Guidance is merely advisory and therefore lacks the authority of a legally binding statute.84



http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=twlj


AT: Terror DA – Link Turn

Racial profiling empirically fails and backfires – numerous examplesYevgenia S. Kleiner, Articles Editor of the Boston College Third World Law Journal, 11-1-2010, “Racial Profiling in the Name of National Security: Protecting Minority Travlers' Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism,” http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=twlj

Although racial profiling implies the identification and singling-out of suspects of color, the reality is that anybody can be a terrorist, regardless of background, age, sex, ethnicity, education and economic status.44 The recent cases of alleged “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh and British “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, for example, revealed that Al Qaeda has the ability to recruit sympathizers of diverse backgrounds.45 Lindh, a white U.S. citizen, and Reid, a British citizen, would not have necessarily been identified by existing programs like the National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS) and US-VISIT, which target Arab, Muslim and South Asian men and boys.46 Like Lindh and Reid, Oklahoma City Bomber Timothy McVeigh eluded arrest in 1995 while law enforcement searched for Arab suspects and detained a Jordanian.47




AT: Terror DA – Profiling Fails

Profiling fails – terrorist recruits are too diverseTimothy M. Ravich, Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law, October 2007, “Is Airline Passenger Profiling Necessary?,” http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=umlr

As a threshold matter, whether profiling systems can reliably predict who is or is likely to become a terrorist is questionable. Terrorists come from every background, and age, sex, ethnicity, education, and economic status are becoming irrelevant considerations for profiling purposes.6 For example, three of the suspects arrested in the August 2006 liquid-bomb plot were religious converts from London's affluent suburbs, including one man who was the son of an English Conservative Party activist and who loved the movie Team America.7 Practically, then, identifying terrorists through profiling may be impossible , not merely counterintuitive.




Screening officers are too incompetent to profile correctlyYevgenia S. Kleiner, Articles Editor of the Boston College Third World Law Journal, 11-1-2010, “Racial Profiling in the Name of National Security: Protecting Minority Travlers' Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism,” http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=twlj

As discussed above, critics have accused TSA’s weeklong Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) Program, an existing system for training security officials to identify suspicious behavior, of being a grossly inadequate preparatory tool .171 The program is designed to teach security personnel to employ objective criteria to identify individuals who are trying to disguise their emotions.172 Under it, TSA officers compare the suspicious behavior indicators they observe in passengers against a list of approximately thirty behaviors that are assigned numerical scores.173 When a passenger’s score exceeds a certain predetermined sum, that passenger is questioned by an officer.174 If the conversation arouses further suspicion, as happens in approximately twenty percent of cases, the passenger is considered for a secondary search.175 The SPOT training program entails a mere four days of classroom training on observation and questioning techniques and three days of “field practice” and prepares officers to look for suspicious behavioral indicators, such as “vocal timbre, gestures, and facial movements.”176 TSA’s officials are required only to have a high school diploma and to pass a criminal background check.177 However, longer training programs alone do not seem to be the answer, because human beings, not error-proof machines, are ultimately responsible for the profiling.178 Even if the danger of racially-based motivations could be eliminated from behavioral profiling, “discriminatory determinations” may still lead security officials to identify “quirky” passengers as potential terrorist threats.179 As some critics have warned, “[for terrorists ],[l]earning to defeat poorly-trained screeners is a lot easier than learning to fly a jumbo jet.”180 If the security measures that have thwarted all hijacking attempts at Ben-Gurion airport near Tel Aviv, Israel, are to be implemented in the United States, the type of individuals chosen as security officers will need to change.181 In Israel, most security officers are recruited from the military and are subjected to stringent tests to eliminate “all but those with above–average intelligence and particularly strong personality types.”182 Israeli airport security personnel are given nine weeks of behavior recognition training, but all departing passengers are interviewed, all passengers are subjected to one-on–one searches, and the behavioral profiling program is supplemented by other security measures, including an extensive sky marshall program.183 Not surprisingly, a primary goal of this system is to eliminate potentially discriminatory judgment calls while ensuring universal safety.184




No proof that profiling is scientifically reliableTimothy M. Ravich, Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law, October 2007, “Is Airline Passenger Profiling Necessary?,” http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=umlr

Finally, apart from questions about the underlying psychophysiological aspects of profiling is the overriding question whether profiling systems are scientifically reliable as a matter of law. 169 Profiling systems may be like polygraph machines in that their usefulness to law enforcement, if any, frequently ends at the courthouse steps as an inadmissible technique. Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., whether a technique is scientific knowledge is based on several considerations: whether the technique can be and has been tested, whether the technique has been subject to peer review, the known or potential rate of error, and whether the technique used has been generally accepted.1 70 As has been noted, the criteria constituting an airline passenger profile are not known publicly and therefore cannot be tested transparently. In fact, the government's testing of profiling systems in collaboration with the airline industry led to litigation.171 It is not clear what peers the closed intelligence community has for purposes of evaluating profiling as a technique. Moreover, profiling is neither a generally accepted technique nor a process whose error rate is known or satisfactory. 172 Therefore, even presuming that profiling is necessary to safeguard commercial aviation, no definite set of characteristics constituting an airline passenger profile exists to identify the enemy. As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in the seminal decision R. v. Mohan, personal opinion about the behavior characteristics of an individual is not as valuable as a behavioral profile that is "in common use as a reliable indicator of membership in a distinctive group. Put another way: Has the scientific community developed a standard profile for the offender who commits this type of crime?"' 173 To date, neither the scientific nor the intelligence community has created such a reliable indicator of terrorists, and as detailed, it may not be possible to do so.




Politcs TPP Disad AFF

Note: See the Sept File for Link Answers.




*A2: UNIQUENESS*




TPP Won’t Pass TPP won’t pass. It’s too controversial so uniqueness outstrips the linkKevin Zeese, JD is an organizer of Popular Resistance and co-directs Its Our Economy and Margaret Flowers, MD co-director of Its Our Economy, is a Maryland pediatrician, October 22, 2015, “Spread The Word: TPP Is Toxic Political Poison That Politicians Should Avoid,” Mint Press News, http://www.mintpressnews.com/spread-the-word-tpp-is-toxic-political-poison-that-politicians-should-avoid/210557/, ACC. 10-28-2015

The TPP will not have an easy time in Congress . Leading presidential candidates and congressional leaders have expressed opposition or serious reservations. And, some major corporate interests are opposed. An election year is not the time for controversial legislation, and the toxic TPP will be controversial. The key will be the House of Representatives. Mega-transnational corporations and Obama are making passage a top priority. House Speaker John Boehner did too, and he was forced to resign because of his bullying tactics. He aggressively pressured Republicans to give Obama fast-track authority, pushing about 30 Republicans who opposed fast track to vote for it. After the vote, he punished those who opposed him, removed them from subcommittee chairmanships and from the Republican leadership. The Caucus revolted, and some of Boehner’s decisions had to be reversed. Members of the Caucus called for his replacement, and rather than fight that battle, Boehner resigned.

Lobbyists on both sides hate the TPPYves Smith, Staff Writer, October 22, 2015, “TPP Teeters in US Congress,” Naked Capitalism, http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/tpp-teeters-in-us-congress.html, ACC. 10-28-2015

It seems most sides are dissatisfied with the TPP. The powerful US pharmaceutical lobby is livid that the TPP did not secure better monopoly protections, whereas Big Tobacco and its representatives in Congress are furious that the industry has been carved-out of the investor-state dispute settlement provision, thus limiting its ability to take legal action against member states that regulate against the tobacco industry. Whereas on the left, opponents to the TPP include organised labor and most environmental groups who are concerned about the TPP’s impacts on American jobs and the environment.

McConnell is key. TPP won’t pass because he’s in the pockets of Big Pharma and Big TobaccoKevin Zeese, JD is an organizer of Popular Resistance and co-directs Its Our Economy and Margaret Flowers, MD co-director of Its Our Economy, is a Maryland pediatrician, October 22, 2015, “Spread The Word: TPP Is Toxic Political Poison That Politicians Should Avoid,” Mint Press News, http://www.mintpressnews.com/spread-the-word-tpp-is-toxic-political-poison-that-politicians-should-avoid/210557/, ACC. 10-28-2015

This week, Big Pharma expressed its anger at the TPP requiring “only” an eight year patent monopoly for biologic drugs, when 12 years are the law in the United States. The U.S. will have to harmonize its laws with the TPP. Obama held a meeting with the pharmaceutical executives at the White House to assuage them, but he failed. The Hill Reports Big Pharma is “searching for a playbook in its effort to keep Congress from ratifying the deal next year.” Senator Hatch says that support for the TPP is shrinking in



http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/lobbying/257386-pharma-flap-imperils-presidents-trade-deal

http://www.mintpressnews.com/spread-the-word-tpp-is-toxic-political-poison-that-politicians-should-avoid/210557/

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/tpp-teeters-in-us-congress.html


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/author/yves-smith

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/29/the_unexpected_upshot_of_john_boehners_ouster_the_trans_pacific_partnership_is_in_danger/

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/The-TPP-Priority-1-of-US-Multinational-Corporations-20151019-0024.html


https://www.popularresistance.org/tpp-talks-struggle-protests-increase-more-protests-planned/


the Senate and “I’ve heard some very trying things that may very well make it impossible to pass.” The largest recipient of pharmaceutical funding is Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He is also funded by the tobacco lobby, which is trying to top the TPP .



http://thehill.com/policy/finance/256311-tobacco-carve-out-sparks-bid-to-sink-tpp


TPP is Inevitable – Opposition is Irrelevant Geopolitical significance means Congress will pass TPP regardless of current oppositionKen Moriyasu, Staff Writer, October 30, 2015, “TPP a 'defining moment' for America-led world,” Nikkei Asian Review, http://asia.nikkei.com/Features/Trans-Pacific-Partnership/TPP-a-defining-moment-for-America-led-world, ACC. 10-30-2015

For that to happen, the U.S. Congress would first have to ratify the agreement. Politicians from President Barack Obama's own party, including leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, have said they oppose TPP. Yet, Shapiro said he is "absolutely confident that Congress will approve the TPP in 2016." "Access to these fast growing markets in Asia, where the middle class consumers of the present and the future are, benefits every sector of the U.S. economy," he said. "People in Congress understand the geopolitical significance of it. If it is not approved, nothing we do or say will have credibility in the Asia Pacific and probably globally."




*A2: INTERNAL LINKS*




No Vote Anytime Soon No TPP vote until late 2016Yves Smith, Staff Writer, October 22, 2015, “TPP Teeters in US Congress,” Naked Capitalism, http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/tpp-teeters-in-us-congress.html, ACC. 10-28-2015

Given the mounting opposition to the TPP, rumors have emerged that the Obama Administration will wait until the lame duck session after next year’s Presidential Election to give Congress the chance to take its first vote on the deal, effectively delaying ratification to late-2016 at the earliest. For now, political opposition in the US and elsewhere remains the best chance of the TPP being scuttled, or at least delayed.





http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/author/yves-smith


*A2: IMPACTS (TPP IS BAD)*




TPP Bad - General TPP will tank the economy globally, undermine democracy and degrade the environmentKevin Zeese, JD is an organizer of Popular Resistance and co-directs Its Our Economy and Margaret Flowers, MD co-director of Its Our Economy, is a Maryland pediatrician, October 22, 2015, “Spread The Word: TPP Is Toxic Political Poison That Politicians Should Avoid,” Mint Press News, http://www.mintpressnews.com/spread-the-word-tpp-is-toxic-political-poison-that-politicians-should-avoid/210557/, ACC. 10-28-2015

The TPP is a bad deal. Just like every other similar agreement, it is going to outsource jobs, lower wages globally, increase the wealth divide, increase the U.S. trade deficit, undermine democracy, weaken the federal court system, degrade the environment and undermine sovereignty at every level of government. The more people who learn about this deal, the worse it will look, and if we resist it, the likelihood of passage in Congress will shrink.

TPP is for mega-corporations that undermine democracy and degrade the environmentChris Perley, Staff Writer, October 30, 2015, “TPP a disgrace for democracy,” Hawkins Bay Today, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503459&objectid=11537588, ACC. 10-30-2015

So-called "trade" deals that profit mega-corporations will not change that extractive thinking. It will only reinforce it. If this Government was supportive of small-c it would encourage high-value enterprise and ban GMO trade to protect our environment and economy. It would not allow mega-corporates to sue our democracy. It would protect the principles of democracy where any enterprise operates within the laws as decided by the people, not the reverse. That is not democracy; that is oligarchy. And it would make open those TPP clauses to which unethical commercial entities have access. The fact that it failed to do any of these things is a disgrace. Mr Foss, your claims of environmental gain are empty spin.

TPP trades people for corporate profitsMark Moreno Pascual, Communications Officer for IBON International – a southern International NGO working for peoples rights and democracy, October 16, 2015, “Inside the TPP: Trading People for Profit,” Counterpunch, http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/16/inside-the-tpp-trading-people-for-profit/, ACC. 10-31-2015

Often dubbed as ‘NAFTA on steroids,’ the TPP includes a scandalous clause on investment that would give enormous powers to corporations. Albeit negotiated in secret, leaked sections of the agreement indicate the TPP’s full endorsement of the notorious NAFTA corporate tribunals otherwise known as the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). The ISDS is a dispute settlement modality that allows corporations and foreign investors to sue governments over actions perceived as detrimental to expected future profits. In other words, the TPP would grant corporations the right to file legal complaints against governments for policies inimical to profit-making such as raising the minimum wage or increasing the quality of basic social services as both actions would cost corporations more capital outlay and therefore less profit. Under TPP rules, signatory countries would be obliged to conform their



http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/16/inside-the-tpp-trading-people-for-profit/

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/16/inside-the-tpp-trading-people-for-profit/



domestic policies, laws and regulations in accordance with the agreement. Any constitutional protection afforded by national laws would be wiped out to give way to greater corporate control.




TPP Bad – Economy / General TPP tanks U.S. economic independence and feeds corporate interestsR. Rex Hussmann, Staff Writer, October 26, 2015, “Trans-Pacific Partnership Pact: Trick or Treat?,” Northwest Georgian News, http://www.northwestgeorgianews.com/rome/opinion/columns/guest-column-trans-pacific-partnership-pact-trick-or-treat/article_ae553c8c-7bcb-11e5-b710-af3bc459c740.html, ACC. 10-28-2015

Military readiness is not the only form of national security; economic independence is the first line of defense. Future conflicts of interest between foreign companies and the United States should be settled in United States’ courts, not in secret meetings of corporate executives. By ratifying this agreement, Congress will cede the sovereignty of the United States to multinational corporations and a private court. The TPP is a bad idea whose time has not come.

TPP is NAFTA revisited, costing hundreds of thousands of jobsKane Farabaugh, Staff Writer, October 30, 2015, “Will the TPP Agreement Cost US Jobs?,” Voice of America News, http://www.voanews.com/content/will-the-tpp-agreement-cost-us-jobs/3029372.html, ACC. 10-30-2015

Broughton doubts the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, of which many details are still unknown, will be any different. “Obama promises that the TPP will be different from NAFTA, that it will improve workers' standards by having enforceable mechanisms in those countries like Vietnam and Malaysia, but that has yet to be seen and I am skeptical frankly that those provisions will be in there,” he said. The AFL-CIO Labor Union blames NAFTA with the loss of as many as 700,000 U.S. jobs since it went into effect in 1994.




TPP Bad – Economy / Manufacturing Manufacturing is resurging now and jobs are coming home. TPP makes it cheaper to keep jobs offshoreAlana Semuels, Staff Writer, October 8, 2015, “How the Trans-Pacific Partnership Threatens America's Recent Manufacturing Resurgence,” The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-manufacturing/409591/, ACC. 10-31-2015

Now that the U.S. and 11 Pacific Rim nations have agreed on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, those who follow manufacturing are looking with new scrutiny at the deal, which will now come before Congress. There’s been a resurgence of manufacturing in the U.S. after all, a movement called “onshoring” in which companies move jobs from overseas back to the U.S. Wages in China are rising, and companies are finding that they have better control over quality with U.S. manufacturing operations. Walmart in 2013 announced that it would spend $50 billion buying U.S.-made goods. Whirlpool has shifted some production back to the U.S. from Mexico, and Otis Elevator moved some operations from Mexico to South Carolina. Since 2010, the nation has added nearly one million manufacturing jobs. “The trend in manufacturing in the United States is to source domestically,” Harry Moser, the founder of the Reshoring Initiative, told Knowledge@Wharton. “With 3 to 4 million manufacturing jobs still off shore, we see huge potential for even more growth.” Decades after NAFTA, economists are asking—will this new, giant trade deal endanger the manufacturing gains of recent years? “That trickle of jobs moving back that I think is going to grow into a bigger trickle: This is a speed bump for it,” said Wally Hopp, a professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, said about the TPP. “At least certain products are going to suffer from it—with the tariff situation, all of a sudden, it’s easier to stay offshore.”

TPP will collapse the U.S. manufacturing baseArthur Stamoulis, executive director of Citizens Trade Campaign (CTC), October 19, 2015, “The TPP Can Still Be Stopped,” Foreign Policy in Focus, http://fpif.org/the-tpp-can-still-be-stopped/, ACC. 10-30-2015

Ever since the massive labor dislocations unleashed by NAFTA, the first anxieties over any trade agreement inevitably concern the possibility of lost jobs — particularly among the blue-collar workforce. And in terms of jobs and wages, United Steelworkers president Leo Gerard has warned, the “TPP may be the final blow to manufacturing in America.” The TPP reportedly includes rules of origin for at least some critical products, such as automobiles, that are even weaker than the standards set by NAFTA, which itself was no prize for U.S. manufacturing. These rules would enable products assembled primarily from parts made in “third party” countries that are not subject to any TPP obligations, such as China, to enter the U.S. duty-free. (So much for the TPP being a bulwark against Chinese economic expansion.)

TPP will sway firms to go offshoreAlana Semuels, Staff Writer, October 8, 2015, “How the Trans-Pacific Partnership Threatens America's Recent Manufacturing Resurgence,” The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-manufacturing/409591/, ACC. 10-31-2015



http://www.usw.org/news/media-center/releases/2015/usw-pres-gerard-statement-on-tpp-coming-to-closure

http://fpif.org/nafta-20-state-north-american-worker/

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/offshoring-gets-a-rethink/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304518704579519432946574424

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304773104579268560299331976

http://corporate.walmart.com/global-responsibility/us-manufacturing


Perhaps what is most worrying, though, is the potential that TPP, or any trade agreement, could slow the reshoring of American jobs, especially in some fields such as auto-parts manufacturing, which states in the South such as Tennessee and South Carolina are competing to attract. “We had this period in time where there was this rush to China and Asia, well that’s kind of ended,” Hopp said. “The pendulum is just sitting in the middle now. Small effects can knock individual firms one way or another.” It may not be a “giant sucking sound” but the TPP could lead to another sound entirely — that of silence in the manufacturing plants of the U.S.




TPP Bad – Economy / Manufacturing U.S. manufacturing will suffer under TPPAlana Semuels, Staff Writer, October 8, 2015, “How the Trans-Pacific Partnership Threatens America's Recent Manufacturing Resurgence,” The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-manufacturing/409591/, ACC. 10-31-2015

But trade agreements, at their heart, create winners and losers, and the TPP will likely create some U.S. manufacturing losers at a time when economists worry that the country is becoming too service-oriented. Fine wines and beef products made in the U.S. that currently have high tariffs in foreign countries might do well under the TPP, but agriculture doesn’t create many good jobs in the U.S. Automakers, on the other hand, could suffer. The TPP could take tariffs off of foreign-made small trucks, which are currently the big profit makers for the domestic automakers, said Art Schwartz, a former GM negotiator who is now president of Labor and Economics Associates. The deal may also make it more difficult for unions—especially the United Auto Workers—who are negotiating contracts with the Big Three: If automakers can say they have to outsource to compete, unions will have less leverage.



http://www.pressdemocrat.com/business/4576825-181/california-wine-industry-expected-to


TPP Bad – Economy / Small Businesses Greater Asian competition means small businesses will lose global markets under TPPAna Campoy, Staff Writer, October 27, 2015, “The TPP could help tiny companies become global exporters,” Quartz, http://qz.com/528698/the-tpp-could-help-tiny-companies-become-global-exporters/, ACC. 10-28-2015

Others are more skeptical about the TPP’s benefits. While it would open world markets for small US e-tailers, it also would expose them to increased competition from their Asian counterparts, which have the upper hand when it comes to shipping, says Ina Steiner, editor at EcommerceBytes. She tells Quartz that it’s generally cheaper and faster to send products from Asian countries to the US, which has a more streamlined and efficient customs system, than the other way around. So American vendors might end up losing global market share instead of gaining it, at least initially, she suggests.

TPP will kill off small businessesSyed Jaymal Zahiid, Staff Writer, October 31, 2015, “TPP can result in unfair trade, Vietnamese scholar says,” MalayMailOnline, http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/tpp-can-result-in-unfair-trade-vietnamese-scholar-says, ACC. 10-31-2015

According to international reports, the TPP involving the US, Malaysia and other Pacific countries would phase out thousands of import tariffs as well as other barriers to international trade, establish uniform rules on corporations’ intellectual property, and open up the Internet. The agreement comes amid strong opposition from rights groups and segments of the business community who said the pact would kill off small businesses, drive wages down and shoot prices of medicines up.



http://www.ecommercebytes.com/


TPP Bad – Economy / No Free Trade TPP will not substantially advance free tradeDean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, October 12, 2015, “There’s no reason to celebrate the TPP,” Al Jazeera America, http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/10/theres-no-reason-to-celebrate-the-tpp.html, ACC. 10-31-2015

First, the idea that the TPP is a massive advance for free trade is nonsense on its face. The Post asserted that the 12 countries in the TPP account for 40 percent of world GDP. While that sounds like a big deal, the United States already has trade deals with most of the countries in the TPP, including Canada, Mexico and Australia. For these countries, there are few, if any, formal trade barriers to eliminate. These countries account for 82 percent of the GDP of touted by the Post. Most of the rest of the GDP is from Japan. The formal trade barriers between Japan and the United States are already low in most areas, and where substantial barriers exist, they are not likely to be removed quickly as a result of the TPP. For example, the U.S. is supposed to phase out its tariffs on trucks imported from Japan by 2045 — three decades from now.

TPP is a power grab by major corporations under the mask of tradeEdie Cotton, Editorial, October 31, 2015, “Letter: Power grab is motive behind TPP,” The Columbian, http://www.columbian.com/news/2015/oct/31/letter-power-grab-is-motive-behind-tpp/, ACC. 10-31-2015

“Disgusted, but not surprised,” is my response to The Columbian editorial board’s opinion of Oct. 19, “An appetizing outcome?,” which sings praises for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Has the paper’s board been having a drinkfest with the likes of Councilor David Madore, Port of Vancouver commissioners, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the World Bank? Those of us who have been around the block are not fooled by this major piece of corruption that uses dishonest “scales” while hypocritically retaining the outward facade of patriotism. By “scales” I mean that the TPP has been drafted in secret largely because it has little to do with trade and everything to do with enhancing corporate sovereignty over public governments. Its “Investor-State Dispute Settlements” clause is fraudulently manipulative (via legal-language hocus-pocus) in elevating mere corporations to the status of “corporate states,” putting them on a par with nation states; taxpayers will be forced to compensate should corporate investors see any restriction on “expected future profits.” Thus, this is a power grab, pure and simple, with “trade” only being used as a mask.



http://www.columbian.com/news/2015/oct/19/in-our-view-an-appetizing-outcome/

http://www.columbian.com/news/2015/oct/31/letter-power-grab-is-motive-behind-tpp/

http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/that-massive-tpp


TPP Bad - Environment TPP allows corporations to bypass all environmental regulations and undermine safetyArthur Stamoulis, executive director of Citizens Trade Campaign (CTC), October 19, 2015, “The TPP Can Still Be Stopped,” Foreign Policy in Focus, http://fpif.org/the-tpp-can-still-be-stopped/, ACC. 10-30-2015

Beyond incentivizing offshoring, the TPP’s investor-state provisions would enable transnational corporations to challenge environmental laws, regulations, and court decisions in international tribunals that circumvent the U.S. judicial system — and any other country’s judicial system. That gives foreign corporations a powerful new tool to attack public safety regulations they claim impact their bottom line.

The TPP is toxic for the environmentMichael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, October 6, 2015, “Congress Should Oppose TPP on Environmental Grounds,” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/06/the-future-of-trans-pacific-trade/congress-should-oppose-tpp-on-environmental-grounds, ACC. 10-31-2015

There’s little reason to believe that the rules in the environment chapter that deal with challenges such as illegal timber and wildlife trade would lead to meaningful changes on the ground. The U.S. is not known for holding other countries accountable in failing to live up to environmental commitments made in trade pacts. The U.S. has a pact with Peru, for instance, aimed at stopping illegal timber trade between the two countries. Yet illegal logging and associated trade are still rampant, and no one has been held accountable for violating the deal. That’s not the model of trade we want to replicate. The TPP would harm our environment, jeopardize the health of our families and set us back instead of tackling the climate crisis head on. Congress should oppose this toxic deal.

TPP gives corporations the right to kill, holding governments and the environment hostage to regulatory suitsJoseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize-winning economist and Columbia University professor, October 27, 2015, “Under TPP, Polluters Could Sue U.S. for Setting Carbon Emissions Limits,” Democracy Now!, http://www.democracynow.org/2015/10/27/joseph_stiglitz_under_tpp_polluters_could, ACC. 10-28-2015

Exactly. It’s a little bit more graphic, because they had the picture of what it did to your lungs. It worked. People started—you know, stopped smoking. Not everybody, but smoking was reduced. Under the provisions of this, TPP-like provision, Philip Morris can sue Uruguay for the loss of their expected profits as result of the regulation. In other words, the view is, they have the right to kill people, and if you want to take away that right, you have to pay them not to kill. Now, we carved—that provision was carved out, but all the other areas were left in. So they were talking about climate change regulation. We know we’re going to need regulations to restrict the emissions of carbon. But under these provisions, corporations can sue the government, including the American government, by the way, so it’s all the governments in the TPP can be sued for the loss of profits as a result of the regulations that restrict their ability to emit carbon emissions that lead to global warming. If this provision had been in place when we had discovered that asbestos was bad for your health—you know, under the current provisions,



http://www.democracynow.org/2015/10/27/joseph_stiglitz_under_tpp_polluters_could

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2015/08/peru-rotten-wood-150812105020949.html

http://www.sierraclub.org/about/executive-team


asbestos manufacturers have to pay for the damage that they’re doing. They pay billions and billions of dollars. If the TPP had been in place, we would have to pay the asbestos manufacturers for not killing us. It’s outrageous.

There are too many red flags. TPP is an environmental disasterMichael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, October 6, 2015, “Congress Should Oppose TPP on Environmental Grounds,” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/06/the-future-of-trans-pacific-trade/congress-should-oppose-tpp-on-environmental-grounds, ACC. 10-31-2015

The Trans-Pacific Partnership would be an environmental disaster. The pact’s environment chapter outlining conservation rules, praised by the U.S. Trade Representative, cannot make up for the deal’s threats to our air, water and climate. That's why dozens of environmental organizations, like the Sierra Club, continue to wave red flags.



http://www.sierraclub.org/about/executive-team


TPP Bad - Environment Free market trade liquidates the environmentChris Perley, Staff Writer, October 30, 2015, “TPP a disgrace for democracy,” Hawkins Bay Today, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503459&objectid=11537588, ACC. 10-30-2015

Once, a neo-liberal economist spoke with conviction that said "the free market provides the best environmental solution". It is amazing that they teach economists that rubbish. If you are of a big-c mind, without connection or ethical concern for your local place, or your local community, then the "rational" thing to do is to pillage and move one. Those educated in forest and soil management know this. Finance will trump ethics and our children's future if you let it. If short-term profit is your creed, take ownership of the public common for your own ends, privatise gains to be made and socialise costs, to make deals with short-term commissions. And liquidate natural systems that cycle slowly - destroy the forest, driftnet the ocean, and hoodwink the Solomon Islands chief out of his valuable forest for hollow promises.




TPP Bad – Big Pharma TPP causes massive suffering by increasing medical costsBrian Krans, Staff Writer, October 27, 2015, “Massive Trade Pact Could Inflate Global Drug Prices, Restrict Access,” Healthline, http://www.healthline.com/health-news/massive-trade-pact-could-inflate-global-drug-prices-restrict-access-102715, ACC. 10-28-2015

Global health depends on more than access to healthcare. It also requires that treatments are affordable to those who need them. One of the largest trade agreements in history — the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, or TPP — governs trade between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations. It has been widely criticized for having been negotiated in secret, and leaked specifics have raised concerns that the deal will drastically inflate the cost of pharmaceutical drugs around the world. Those familiar with the agreement say it will create or extend pharmaceutical monopolies. That, they say, will lead to increased drug costs and undue suffering. Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen's global access to medicines program, said that corporations influence these types of trade agreements to further their own interests, not those of consumers and patients. “It’s clear the TPP will be harmful to people by eliminating people’s access to medicine,” he told Healthline.

Millions of people will lose access to vital medical careJack Ramus, Staff Writer, October 22, 2015, “The TPP: Priority #1 of US Multinational Corporations,” Counterpunch,

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/22/the-tpp-priority-1-of-us-multinational-corporations/, ACC. 10-30-2015

One of the most onerous of the TPP provisions leaked involves big pharmaceutical companies. In the U.S. they have been given 12 years of monopoly rights over the sale of certain life-saving drugs. Lower cost generics are banned for that period. That ban on competition has already resulted in runaway price gouging of U.S. consumers desperately in need of life-saving drugs. The accelerating cost of the drugs in the U.S. is also making insurance premiums unaffordable. This multi-year protection from lower cost generic drugs for “Big Pharma” is now embedded into the TPP as well. Those ill and in need of life-saving drugs throughout the other 11 countries – mostly the poor and much of the working classes – will now be denied lower cost alternatives for life saving drugs, as in the U.S. The minimum years of price protection from generics under the TPP is being reported as between 5 to 8 years. But the 5 to 8 years can be extended up to 11 years. So millions of people throughout the 11 countries, who might have been able to get the generic drug versions, and save their lives, will now go without for more than a decade to come.



http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/22/the-tpp-priority-1-of-us-multinational-corporations/

http://www.citizen.org/more-about-access-to-medicine


TPP Bad – China/India Economies TPP steals billions from the Chinese and Indian economiesFahmida Khatun, Research Director at the Centre for Policy Dialogue, currently a Visiting Scholar at the Centre for Study of Science, Technology & Policy, India, October 26, 2015, “Mitigating the implications of TPP,” The Daily Star, http://dev.thedailystar.net/op-ed/mitigating-the-implications-tpp-162283, ACC. 10-28-2015

The political economy of the TPP is deeper than mere trade liberalisation. The underlying objective also includes isolating China and creating more competition between the USA and China. As China created the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the urge of some bigger powers to unite against China became stronger. Because, through AIIB, China has exhibited its ability to influence the rules of investment finance in Asia. For those outside the TPP, apprehensions have surfaced in a number of areas. Existing estimates are only preliminary in the absence of the details of the agreement. Still, it is huge. The Chinese economy will suffer a loss to the tune of $47 billion to $89 billion. India will lose out $2.7 billion in exports annually. Indian exports will face a diversion of about 1 percent.



http://dev.thedailystar.net/author/dr-fahmida-khatun


TPP Bad – Taiwan Conflict Straining cross-straits relations is inevitable under TPPShihoko Goto, the senior associate for Northeast Asia with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars’ Asia Program, October 22, 2015, “Could the TPP Actually Divide Asia?,” The Diplomat, http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/could-the-tpp-actually-divide-asia/, ACC. 10-30-2015

The Taiwanese government has made clear that it hopes to be one of the first entrants to the TPP, not only to further its position as a global exporter but also to encourage domestic reform that is critical if Taiwan is to remain competitive. Given its experience in joining the World Trade Organization, whereby it had to wait until China was ready for accession in 2001 so that it could join at the same time, there is growing concern that Taipei would have to wait again for Beijing to be ready. The frustration of being unable to join a group that is seen as key to Taiwan's growth will undoubtedly strain cross-Strait relations.



http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/could-the-tpp-actually-divide-asia/


TPP Bad – U.S. Hegemony / Leadership TPP “free trade” causes resentment and undermines U.S. leadershipRichard Katz, editor of The Oriental Economist Report, October 18, 2015, “Will US Republicans torpedo the TPP?,” The Australian Financial Review Magazine, AFR Weekend, http://www.afr.com/opinion/will-us-republicans-torpedo-the-tpp-20151016-gkbbnu, ACC. 10-31-2015

What is most disconcerting is the one-way street attitude of too many of those who call themselves "free traders". Some in business and Congress — in both parties — contend that the United States is already so open that there is little left to do. This naturally causes resentment among the other TPP countries, who point to a host of issues, some of which the United States did not even allow to be discussed in the main TPP talks. These include: "Buy America" provisions of many state procurement laws (a US$1.4 trillion market); the protectionist "yarn forward" rule in textiles; the refusal to significantly bring down high import barriers on sugar and dairy; and tariffs on Japanese trucks (25 per cent), cars (2.5 per cent) and parts (mostly 6–10 per cent) that will not be lifted under the TPP for 30, 25 and up to 15 years, respectively. US leadership rests on others’ perception of it as a benign hegemon. By undermining such perceptions, one-way street notions of free trade pose a far greater threat to national security than any rival free trade agreement that China could create.



http://www.afr.com/afr-magazine

http://www.orientaleconomist.com/


TPP Bad – A2: Boosts US-China Relations TPP won’t improve U.S.-China relationsArthur R. Kroeber, managing director of GaveKal Dragonomics and editor of China Economic Quarterly, October 5, 2015, “What Will the TPP Mean for China?,” Foreign Policy, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/china-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-obama-us-trade-xi/, ACC. 10-31-2015

For the moment, China and the United States still mostly conduct their relations on a basis of economic pragmatism rather than strategic rivalry. But the ground is rapidly shifting. The completion of the TPP sharpens the question of how the United States and China will share power in the Asia-Pacific, but provides no answer.

TPP is overtly confrontational with ChinaJean-Pierre Lehman, Staff Writer, October 13, 2015, “TPP: The Path To Global Fragmentation,” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jplehmann/2015/10/13/tpp-the-path-to-global-fragmentation/, ACC. 10-31-2015

The TPP is positioned and perceived as a rival to the AIIB. It is no surprise that the TPP, which Washington positions as a critical part of its “pivot” to Asia, should be viewed as a potential US-Japan anti-China bloc, given the significant geopolitical tension in the Asia-Pacific region, especially in the highly fraught China-Japan relationship, and as the Shinzo Abe government reinterprets the Japanese Constitution to enhance Japan’s regional military role. I would go even further and say that the TPP is blatantly geopolitical and overtly, indeed triumphantly, confrontational towards China.



http://www.forbes.com/profile/shinzo-abe/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/china-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-obama-us-trade-xi/

http://www.chinafile.com/contributors/arthur-r-kroeber


TPP Bad – China Containment / War Despite rhetoric, TPP is meant to contain China and risks warArthur R. Kroeber, managing director of GaveKal Dragonomics and editor of China Economic Quarterly, October 5, 2015, “What Will the TPP Mean for China?,” Foreign Policy, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/china-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-obama-us-trade-xi/, ACC. 10-31-2015

The TPP illustrates a dilemma for U.S. policy in the Asia-Pacific. On one side, Washington seeks to counterbalance China’s rising power by strengthening its military relationships with its regional allies, tilting in favor of southeast Asian countries in their maritime disputes with China, discouraging its friends from participating in Chinese initiatives such as the AIIB, and pursuing a massive trade agreement that leaves out the region’s and the world’s biggest trading nation. On the other side, American leaders reiterate that they have no desire to contain China (rightly seeing such a strategy would fail), and argue that deeper engagement, rather than confrontation, is the right way forward in U.S.-China relations. This stance is borderline incoherent, and it’s understandable why many Chinese see it as duplicitous. Washington’s words are all about constructive engagement, but its deeds mostly smack of containment. At the root is a deep ambivalence about whether or not the United States should accept China as an equal. If it does, then it must also accept that China will build a sphere of influence and regional arrangements that exclude the United States. If it does not, then it must accept that in fact if not in name it is pursuing a strategy of containment. Such a strategy heightens the risk of armed conflict.

China hates the TPP. It shifts the economic balance in Asia against them, which drags down their economyBarry Naughton, the So Kwanlok Chair of Chinese International Affairs at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego, October 5, 2015, “What Will the TPP Mean for China?,” Foreign Policy, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/china-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-obama-us-trade-xi/, ACC. 10-31-2015

First, the TPP shows the United States and Japan exercising leadership, stepping out ahead of the global community in their willingness to negotiate a new set of rules and obligations. This dynamism presents challenges to China. It creates the possibility that the future rules for the global economy will be written under predominant U.S. influence, in the same way that the current rules have been. That makes China extremely uncomfortable, and it also pressures China to come up with alternatives that will be attractive to its neighbors while also serving its own interests. Second, the TPP shifts economic balances and alliances within Asia. The TPP greatly increases the likelihood that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will carry through on Japanese economic reforms, therefore making economic revival there more likely. The TPP will pull Vietnam (especially) and other signatories economically closer to the United States, and thus reduce Chinese economic preponderance. Given that South Korea is likely to quickly join in any completed TPP agreement, these shifts can have a long-run economic impact on China.




http://www.chinafile.com/conversation/what-went-wrong-us-strategy-chinas-new-bank-and-what-should-washington-do-now




TSA/Airports Case Neg




AT: Aff Advantages




AT: 4 th Amendment Adv – Airport Surveillance Doesn’t Violate

Airport surveillance is a general regulation which upholds the Fourth Amendment while protecting public safetyTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

The Fourth Amendment secures "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures."4 The reasonableness of a search is determined "by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which [the search] intrudes upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of a legitimate government interest."145 A balance between these competing interests is most commonly met where the government produces a warrant establishing probable cause. 146 In the context of airport searches, however, probable cause, or even a minimal level of individualized suspicion, does not set the constitutional floor for protection. 147 Warrantless airport searches, including mandatory magnetometer searches, are frequently justified based on their use as part of a general regulatory scheme "aimed at a group or class of people rather than a particular person."148 The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of these so-called "administrative searches" "where the risk of public safety is substantial and real."149 Although mandatory airport searches are routinely upheld in this manner , the predicate justifications vary between "general reasonableness," "consent," and the "stop and frisk" rationale of Terry v. Ohio.150




Airport searches pass the reasonableness testJenny Parker Smith, JD Candidate at the Texas Tech University School of Law, 2011, “Threatsense Technology: Sniffing Technology and the Threat to your Fourth Amendment Rights,” http://texastechlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/Smith.pdf

"Administrative searches are not carried out to gather evidence as part of a criminal investigation."' 35 Instead, administrative searches are a part of a general regulatory scheme, meaning that each person attempting to board a plane is subject to the same treatment.'3 6 Although these searches are not subject to the warrant requirement, they must be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to be valid.'3 ' The Ninth Circuit articulated the reasonableness test for airport administrative searches as follows: To be reasonable, a passenger "screening search must be as limited in its intrusiveness as is consistent with satisfaction of the administrative need that justifies it.," 38 In assessing reasonableness, several considerations must be made.139 First, the government must respect a passenger's right to either consent to the search or walk away and not board a plane.14 0 A second consideration is the danger involved as the reason for conducting the search in the first instance.141 The Fifth Circuit has held that "some situations present a level of danger such that the reasonableness test is per se satisfied."l 42 Where "the risk is the jeopardy to hundreds of human lives and millions of dollars of property inherent in the pirating or blowing up of a large airplane, the danger alone meets the test of reasonableness." 43 Essentially, airport searches are justified on the grounds that they are both administrative searches and generally applicable, and further, are reasonable in light of the risks presented.

Airport searches are constitutional because they protect the public – Terry doctrineTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

The Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio held that a warrantless search by a law enforcement official is constitutional, provided that it is "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation." 5' Therefore, a search for weapons by an officer who is fearful of immediate harm must be "limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons . . . and may realistically be characterized as something less than a 'full' search."" 2 The Fourth Circuit applied the Terry search rationale to justify airport magnetometer searches in United States v. Epperson.153 The court concluded that the Terry exception, meant to protect "others . . . in danger," 154 extends to protection of the general public in the context of airport searches. Accordingly, the court applied the Terry balancing approach, holding that an airport search must be "justified at its inception," and "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." 5' Noting that magnetometer searches are minimally invasive, the court held that a slight invasion of privacy is warranted in light of the strong governmental interest in public safety." 6




Traveling in airports implies consent to searchesTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

Under the consent doctrine, all individuals who present themselves for entry on an airplane, regardless of suspicion, are subject to a reasonable search.' 59 Therefore, consent alone, while considered as an element in favor of justifying a given search, does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirement. Instead, consent-based searches require a balancing of public necessity, effectiveness, and degree of intrusion. 1 60 There is a general consensus that present-day primary search procedures, namely magnetometer searches, satisfy the consent-based balancing inquiry.' First, airport searches invoke significant public safety concerns; courts often describe the threat of airline terrorism as "unquestionably grave and urgent."'62 Second, magnetometers, at least prior to the emergence of body-scans, "have every indicia of being the most efficacious that could be used."163 Finally, courts applying the consent doctrine hold that magnetometer searches are justifiably invasive, given both the minimally invasive nature of the technology and the reduced expectation of privacy inherent in the so-called "voluntary" search.'




AT: 4 th Amendment – Body Scanners

Body scanners are constitutional – reasonableness test, compelling security interest trumps privacy violations – prefer the most recent court rulingsAndrea M. Simbro, JD Candidate at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 2014, “The Sky’s The Limit: A Modern Approach to Airport Security,” http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/56-2/56arizlrev559.pdf

The D.C. Circuit held that AIT screening is a reasonable administrative search and does not violate the Fourth Amendment, because the government interest outweighs the scanners’ intrusiveness.153 The court explained that body scanners advance the acute need to ensure public safety154 because they can “detect a nonmetallic object, such as a liquid or powder—which a magnetometer cannot detect—without touching the passengers coming through the checkpoint.”155 The court emphasized that the body scanners can detect and deter nonmetallic threats.156 The court justified its decision on the grounds that passengers are not required to submit to a body scan and may opt instead for a pat-down.157 In a public statement, the TSA stated that “[p]at-downs are one important tool to help TSA detect hidden and dangerous items such as explosives.”158 The D.C. Circuit reasoned that offering pat-downs as an alternative allows passengers to decide “which of the two options for detecting a concealed, nonmetallic weapon or explosive is least invasive.”159 Given this choice, more than 99% of passengers choose to be screened by AIT technology over alternative screening procedures.160 Although there is no underlying data supporting the reasoning for this decision, passengers probably choose the body scan because it is faster161 and less aggressive than pat-downs.162




AT: 4 th Amendment Adv – Luggage Sniffers

Luggage sniffers don’t conduct a search – don’t violate the Fourth AmendmentJenny Parker Smith, JD Candidate at the Texas Tech University School of Law, 2011, “Threatsense Technology: Sniffing Technology and the Threat to your Fourth Amendment Rights,” http://texastechlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/Smith.pdf

The technology, as currently used, does not violate the Fourth Amendment insofar as it is consistent with United States v. Place and the use of canines to sniff the air around a person's luggage in a public place.2 6 The sniffing of airspace around the luggage is not a search and therefore, does not violate the Fourth Amendment. 2 6 5 There is no need to consider the reasonableness test because there is no search.26 6




AT: 14 th Amendment Adv – Profiling Doesn’t Violate

Profiling is constitutional – it’s narrowly tailored and serves a compelling interestTimothy M. Ravich, Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law, October 2007, “Is Airline Passenger Profiling Necessary?,” http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=umlr

Americans resisted profiling before September 11, but later welcomed it.' 89 Following the thwarted liquid-bomb plot of August 10, 2006 the Wall Street Journal appealed to common sense and criticized TSA's refusal to use religious or ethnic factors as even minor factors in screening: Nobody is suggesting using ethnicity or religion as the only-or even the primary-factors in profiling terrorists. But it also makes no sense to take zero account of the fact that every suicide attack against U.S. aviation to date has been perpetrated by men of Muslim origin. While al Qaeda is no doubt seeking recruits who don't obviously display such characteristics, that doesn't mean we should ignore the likeliest candidates. The law on this is settled, and in the other direction. On multiple occasions the federal courts have upheld programs that treat groups differently when a "compelling" public interest can be identified: affirmative action, minority set-asides, composition of Congressional districts, and the all-male draft have all met that legal test. Yet the same people who would allocate jobs, federal contracts and college admissions by race or ethnicity object to using them merely as one factor in deciding whom to inconvenience for a few minutes at an airline checkpoint. Surely aviation security is a far more compelling public interest than the allocation of federal set-asides.' 9 ° Stated another way: [T]he mathematical probability that a randomly chosen Arab passenger might attempt a mass-murder-suicide hijacking-while tiny-is considerably higher than the probability that a randomly chosen white, black, Hispanic, or Asian passenger might do the same. In constitutional-law parlance, while racial profiling may be presumptively unconstitutional, that presumption is overcome in the case of airline passengers, because the government has a compelling interest in preventing mass-murder-suicide hijackings, and because close scrutiny of Arablooking [sic] people is narrowly tailored to protect that interest . 191




AT: Econ Adv – Body Scanners

Costs of attacks without body scanners outweigh economic benefits from implementing and maintaining themJessica Hoff, Managing Editor of the Michigan State Law Review and JD Candidate at the Michigan State University College of Law, 2014, “Enhancing Security While Protecting Privacy: The Rights Implicated by Supposedly Heightened Airport Security,” http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=lr

As per its mandate to conduct a cost–benefit analysis, comparing the cost of the new technology to the number of lives saved,178 the TSA calculated the costs of implementing AIT from 2008 to 2011 at $841.2 million and the costs of maintaining AIT in use from 2012 to 2015 at $1.5 billion.179 While the TSA did not provide a calculation of the estimated lives saved or their value, in adopting AIT the TSA is indicating that it believes that the value of increased security outweighs the monetary cost of AIT.180 Similarly, implementing AIT and full-body pat-downs also means that the TSA believes it has satisfied the balancing test for an administrative search, which requires the invasiveness of these measures to be outweighed by the corresponding increase in security.181 Additionally, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security agreed with the TSA that the balancing test supports the need for AIT, which the court considered more effective than WTMDs.182




AT: Health Adv – No MPX

Body scanners pose no health risksAssociated Press (AP), 1-7-2010, “EU Divided on Use of Airport Body Scanners,” http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34747772/ns/travel-news/t/eu-divided-use-airport-body-scanners/#.VXzSO_lVhBc

The American College of Radiology has said a passenger flying cross-country actually is exposed to more radiation from the flight at high altitude than from either of the two types of scanners the U.S. Transportation Security Administration is using — the same systems used in Europe. Neither technology poses concern for any health risks "since they don't penetrate into the body," said James Hevezi, head of the radiology group's medical physics commission and physics chief at Cyberknife Center of Miami, a cancer treatment center.




AT: Health Adv – Backscatter – No MPX

No health impacts – safety guidelines solve and tons of alt causes to radiation – multiple independent studies confirmOffice of Health Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, no date, “Fact Sheet: Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) Health & Safety,” http://www.tsa.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf/ait_fact_sheet.pdf

Some news reports have raised questions about backscatter x-ray safety. The x-ray dose produced by backscatter systems is extremely low (less than 0.10 microsievert (10 microrem)). An airline passenger that has been screened receives an equivalent dose of radiation from less than two minutes of flight at altitude. Furthermore, naturally occurring ionizing radiation is all around us. We are continuously exposed to this background radiation. In 17 minutes of ordinary living, a person receives more radiation from naturally occurring sources than from one scan. Backscatter safety standards Backscatter systems must conform to ANSI/HPS N43.17, a consensus radiation safety standard that applies to the manufacture and operation of security screening systems intended to expose people to ionizing radiation. This standard provides radiation safety guidelines for the design and operation of these systems and limits the annual effective dose to individuals that are screened. The annual limit is based on recommendations for dose limits for the general public published by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP).2 The dose limits were set with the understanding that the general public includes individuals who may be more susceptible to radiation-induced health effects, such as pregnant women, children, and persons receiving radiation treatment for medical conditions. Backscatter systems have been independently evaluated by the following: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH); National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) on behalf of TSA; and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). All results consistently confirm that radiation doses are well below the limits specified by the standard established by the American National Standards Institute and through the Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) – ANSI/HPS N43.17-2009 Radiation Safety for Personnel Security Screening Systems Using X-ray or Gamma Radiation.

You would have to get scanned forty times a day to be harmedGregory S. McNeal, Associate Professor of Law and Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Pepperdine University School of Law, 1-1-2013, “Security Scanners in Comparative Perspective,” http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Security+scanners+in+comparative+perspective.-a0342319927

3) The X-ray backscatter system (80) uses ionizing radiation and as such, is subject to the dose limits established by Euratom. (81) Although security scanners will expose passengers to ionizing radiation, the dose is low. The EC concluded that it would take approximately forty screenings per day for a passenger to reach the dose limit provided by Euratom. (82)




Radiation doses are too low to be harmfulNew York Times (NYT), 2-23-2007, “New Airport X-Rays Scan Bodies, Not Just Bags,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/24/us/24scan.html

While security agency officials say the machines, known as SmartCheck, pose no health hazards, some experts disagree. The machine, manufactured by American Science and Engineering Inc. of Billerica, Mass., generates about as much radiation as a passenger would get flying for about two minutes at about 30,000 feet, or in technical terms, fewer than 10 microRem per scan, according to security agency and company officials. The machine is already being used in some prisons, by United States customs and at Heathrow Airport in London. Dr. Albert J. Fornace Jr., an expert in molecular oncology at Georgetown University Medical Center, said such a low dose was inconsequential , even for pregnant women. “Obviously, no radiation is even better than even a very low level,” Dr. Fornace said. “But this is trivial .”

Backscatter machines are safeBootie Cosgrove-Mather, writer at the Associated Press, 6-26-2003, “Feds Want See-Through Security,” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-want-see-through-security/

The technology is called "backscatter" because it scatters X-rays. Doses of rays deflected off dense materials such as metal or plastic produce a darker image than those deflected off skin. The radiation dosage is about the same as sunshine , Hallowell said.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-want-see-through-security/


AT: Health Adv – Millimeter Wave – No MPX

Millimeter wave machines are safe – true for both passive and active systemsGregory S. McNeal, Associate Professor of Law and Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Pepperdine University School of Law, 1-1-2013, “Security Scanners in Comparative Perspective,” http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Security+scanners+in+comparative+perspective.-a0342319927

(1) The passive millimeter-wave imaging system does not emit any radiation . (76) It measures thermal radiation emitted by the body and the environment. Since this system does not emit any radiation dose, studies have concluded that it does not raise health concerns . (77) (2) The active millimeter-wave imaging system uses non-ionizing radiation, which is generally considered less harmful than ionizing radiation (used in X-ray systems). (78) While there is some radiation exposure, studies have suggested that the levels are equal to or less than "exposure levels arising from natural and everyday activities (e.g., mobile phones and microwaves)." (79)

No radiation risks from millimeter wave machinesOffice of Health Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, no date, “Fact Sheet: Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) Health & Safety,” http://www.tsa.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf/ait_fact_sheet.pdf

Millimeter wave AIT uses non-ionizing radio frequency energy in the millimeter wave spectrum to generate a three-dimensional image of the body based on the energy reflected from the body. The image, which resembles a fuzzy photo negative with facial features blurred for privacy, is displayed on a remote monitor for analysis to determine whether potential threats are present. The energy projected by millimeter wave technology is thousands of times less than a cell phone transmission.




AT: Privacy/Civil Liberties Adv – TSA Solves

TSA has robust protections for civil libertiesYevgenia S. Kleiner, Articles Editor of the Boston College Third World Law Journal, 11-1-2010, “Racial Profiling in the Name of National Security: Protecting Minority Travlers' Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism,” http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=twlj

No doubt in part to assuage fears that such “flexible, mobile and unpredictable” measures risk jeopardizing travelers’ civil liberties, the TSA formed an Office of Civil Rights and Liberties and charged the External Compliance Division (“the Division”) with ensuring that “the civil rights and liberties of the traveling public are respected throughout screening processes, without compromising security.”102 Among its several responsibilities, the Division provides “civil rights guidance and services to TSA program offices, including security offices, technology offices, and communications offices.”103 The Division is also responsible for reviewing TSA policies and procedures “to ensure that the civil rights and liberties of the traveling public are taken into account.”104 Additionally, the TSA issued a civil rights policy statement asserting the organization’s vision of excellence in transportation security.105 In the civil rights policy statement, the TSA pledges that “[w]ith this vision, comes a commitment that all TSA employees and the public we serve are to be treated in a fair, lawful, and nondiscriminatory manner.”106




AT: Privacy Adv – AT: Body Scanners

TSA safeguards solve privacy concerns and other procedures are more invasiveWill Saletan, writes on politics, science, and technology at Slate, 4-8-2009, “Deeper Digital Penetration,” http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2009/04/deeper_digital_penetration.single.html

When the scanners first appeared, I endorsed them. When they were upgraded to millimeter-wave technology, I endorsed them again. I gave two reasons. One reason was that a scan was less invasive than a pat-down. The other reason was that TSA promised to blur your face and keep your scan private, so that nobody would ever connect your name to your revealed body. That, I argued, was a sufficient kind of privacy in the age of terrorism.

Body scanners are net better for privacy – they replace strip searches, which are worseWill Saletan, writes on politics, science, and technology at Slate, 3-3-2007, “Digital Penetration,” http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2007/03/digital_penetration.single.html

The main stumbling block has been privacy. The ACLU and the Electronic Privacy Information Center have fought backscatters at every turn, calling them a "virtual strip search." It's a curious phrase. The purpose of a strip-search is the search. Stripping is just a means. Virtual inspections achieve the same end by other means. They don't extend the practice of strip-searching. They abolish it. When the manufacturer of the backscatter machines, American Science & Engineering, introduced the technology in prisons nine years ago, the whole point was to replace strip searches. "The scan requires no physical contact between the operator and the subject, thus vastly reducing the threat of assault against law enforcement personnel and the spread of communicable diseases," the company argued. The rationale, like the machine, conveyed not an ounce of human warmth, which is why the inmates preferred it. Better to be seen than touched. Better to be depersonalized than degraded.




TSA safeguards solve privacy concernsTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

The TSA has taken steps to remedy some of these concerns. First, manufacturers now integrate software systems into the machines that distort the images they produce. 133 The result is an image of the human form that blurs many intimate details of the body, including the face, but that retains some ability to display concealed items. 34 Described as a "chalk outline of a person," the image generated by the masking software sacrifices a degree of detection capability, as the blurred images "start to lose the ability to [detect] ... C4" explosives.13 Second, the TSA has guaranteed that the officer viewing station will be remotely located. 136 The officer attending the passenger will not view the images and the remotely located officer will not be able to associate the image with the person being screened. 137 The remote screening officer will also be the same sex as the passenger.' 38 Third, the manufacturer contends that it is not possible for the screening officer to save, transmit, print, or otherwise store the images. 39 All images are immediately and automatically deleted from the system after viewing. 140 The TSA has stood confidently behind these measures as adequate remedies to the privacy concerns posed by bodyscanning devices.' In fact, the TSA stated that the machines could replace walk-through magnetometers and become a primary search mechanism in the near future. 142 However, privacy groups remain skeptical and continue to warn of the possibility of "widespread use-and abuse" of the technology.

Public consensus goes our way – body scans are less invasiveTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

Finally, the fact that body-scans do not require human contact appears to significantly mitigate the public's concern regarding the invasiveness of the search. While operating the pilot program in Phoenix, the TSA reports that ninety percent of individuals subject to a secondary search opted in favor of a body-scan over a pat-down.256 Assuming that the passengers' consent is informed (in that they know what a body-scan entails), the overwhelming passenger preference for bodyscans is an indication that physical pat-down searches are more invasive than remotely located imaging.



http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview


AT: Privacy Adv – AT: Pat-Downs

The TSA is moving to replace pat-down searches in response to privacy complaintsTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

While in recent years the TSA has slightly scaled back pat-down searches,69 many travelers continue to describe the searches as invasive and humiliating. ° In response to hundreds of reported complaints from passengers, the TSA is currently developing potentially less-intrusive technologies and procedures to replace pat-downs.71




AT: Profiling Bad Adv – General

Safeguards check the worst impactsPeter H. Schuck, Simeon E. Baldwin Professor at Yale Law School, 1-27-2002, “A Case for Profiling,” http://www.law.yale.edu/news/3341.htm

A sensible profiling policy will also recognize that safeguards become more essential as the enforcement process progresses. Stereotypes that are reasonable at the stage of deciding whom to screen for questioning may be unacceptable at the later stages of arrest and prosecution, when official decisions should be based on more individualized information and when lawyers and other procedural safeguards can be made available. Screening officials can be taught about the many exceptions to even serviceable stereotypes, to recognize them when they appear, and to behave in ways that encourage those being screened not to take it personally.




AT: Profiling Bad Adv – Alt Causes

Tons of alt causes to profilingTimothy M. Ravich, Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law, October 2007, “Is Airline Passenger Profiling Necessary?,” http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=umlr

Inarguably, profiling requires discrimination. Both "profiling" and "discrimination" have acquired strong negative connotations. 175 Yet, profiling and discrimination are common, lawful features of economic life in America today because of the commoditization of personal information. 176 Banks and supermarkets have long used profiling as marketing and strategic planning tools.177 Businesses today segment their customers on the basis of buying habits and patterns, where repeat customers earn benefits such as gift cards or giveaways. Airlines certainly profile and categorize their customers through computer reservation and yield management systems, along with frequent flyer reward programs. 78 In state and federal courts across the nation, lawyers profile potential jurors during voir dire and doing so is an important part of the judicial process. Of course, lawyers may only profile potential jurors on the condition they do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status.17 9 In the marketplace and in the courtroom, then, profiling can be rational conduct, and discrimination can entail nothing more than differentiating individuals on permissible grounds for appropriate ends.




AT: Racism Adv – Body Scanners

Body scanners solve racial profiling – x-ray images cannot be used to identify racial characteristicsWill Saletan, writes on politics, science, and technology at Slate, 3-3-2007, “Digital Penetration,” http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2007/03/digital_penetration.single.html

The impersonality of machines can also filter out racism. Five years ago, the ACLU objected to body scans because they were administered selectively, "based on profiles that are racially discriminatory." But the best way to remove selection bias is to scan everyone. In Phoenix, TSA has put the backscatter monitors in a sealed room 50 feet from the security checkpoint, so the officers who staff them can't see you. All they can see are X-ray images, which capture density, not pigment. To them, everyone is the same color.




AT: Racism Adv – Profiling – AT: Black Policing Parallels

Profiling in airports is distinct from bad policing practicesStuart Taylor Jr., JD from Harvard Law School and writer at numerous publications focusing on legal and policy issues, 3-1-2002, “The Skies Won’t Be Safe Until We Use Commonsense Profiling,” http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2002/03/the-skies-wont-be-safe-until-we-use-commonsense-profiling/378065/

While the politically correct approach to profiling still seems to be an article of faith in many quarters, some liberals (along with many conservatives) are talking sense. One is Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., perhaps the smartest civil libertarian in Congress. During a March 6 debate at Georgetown University Law Center, Frank forthrightly asserted that airline security profiles should take account of national origin. He cautioned that a well-designed profile would also include "a bunch of factors" that may warrant suspicion; that "if only ... young men from the Middle East were being profiled, it would be a problem"; and that the ideal system would be to search all passengers and their luggage thoroughly for bombs and other weapons. But Frank also stressed: "I do think that at this point, [national] origin would be part of it.... In certain countries, people are angrier at us than elsewhere." Frank distinguished such airport profiling from the discredited police practice of "pulling over some black kid because he's driving," to search for drugs, which he called "a terrible intrusion." In airport screening, Frank said, the stakes are much higher—with many lives at risk if a bomb or weapon slips through—and the "incremental" intrusion on those profiled is minimal. "If no harm is being done, and you're not being in any way disadvantaged, I am reluctant to think that there's any great problem," he said.




CPs




1NC Secondary Search CP – Body Scanners

** Sample CP text: The United States federal government should substantially curtail the use of body scanners in airports by restricting their use to secondary searches.

Restricting body scanners to secondary searches solves Fourth Amendment and privacy issues – allowing body scans also maintains airport securityTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

PROPOSAL: IMPLEMENT BODY-SCANS AS A SECONDARY SEARCH MECHANISM Although body-scan machines are a promising security tool,265 use of the technology in an overly invasive manner is not justified merely because it adds a degree of safety.266 Given the particularly intrusive nature of this technology,267 the constitutionally appropriate "checkpoint of the future" is one where the modified form of the technology is utilized not in place of magnetometers, but instead, as a secondary search in place of pat-downs. Use of body-scans after there is "reason to conduct" a secondary search strikes the appropriate balance between the imperative goals of securing our nation's airports and acknowledging basic privacy interests.268 As previously set forth, this proposal relies on two theories: that body-scans are unreasonable when used as primary searches, and that body-scans offer a more effective yet less intrusive alternative to pat-down searches.2 6 9 Given this framework, body-scan searches are most appropriate when deployed in the secondary security layer.




2NC Secondary Search CP – Solves Fourth Amendment

Secondary searches with body scanners are constitutional – enhanced privacy violations are acceptable after a reason is provided to justify a secondary searchTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

After a screening officer establishes a "reason to conduct" a secondary search,273 an enhanced privacy invasion is justified if it is appropriately tailored in scope to protection of the aircraft, its passengers, and the general public.274 As discussed previously, body-scans are advantageous over present-day secondary searches because they offer a less intrusive alternative that is more effective at detecting dangerous weapons and explosives.2 75 Therefore, given that reasonable pat-down searches are held to be constitutional, 276 and that body-scans are more appropriately tailored secondary searches,277 it is logical to conclude that secondary body-scans are constitutionally permissible.

Body scans would comply with the Fourth Amendment if less intrusive searches are used firstM. Madison Taylor, JD Candidate at the University of Mississippi School of Law, 2010, “Bending Broken Rules: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Full-Body Scanners in Preflight Screening,” http://jolt.richmond.edu/v17i1/article4.pdf

Additionally, to comply with the Fourth Amendment, courts should require TSOs to exhaust less intrusive screening methods before resorting to a full-body scan.211 While no clear judicial mandate exists requiring that TSOs exhaust less intrusive means, courts consistently include the non-intrusiveness of magnetometers as a factor in determining the reasonable use of such devices for preflight searches.212 Reciprocally, the highly intrusive nature of full-body scans should render them unreasonable when conducted without individualized suspicion or before exhausting less intrusive measures.




2NC Secondary Search CP – Solves Terror DA

Secondary body scans solve privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns and allow the TSA to retain effective counterterrorism measuresM. Madison Taylor, JD Candidate at the University of Mississippi School of Law, 2010, “Bending Broken Rules: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Full-Body Scanners in Preflight Screening,” http://jolt.richmond.edu/v17i1/article4.pdf

The looming possibility that full-body scans will become mandatory for all or some passengers demands an assessment of the amount of privacy the Fourth Amendment guarantees in airports. The use of full-body scanners to conduct suspicionless searches in airports is repugnant to the fundamental values protected under the Fourth Amendment. For airline ticketholders to have any meaningful Fourth Amendment protection, use of full-body scanners should be prohibited unless there is probable cause to believe a particular passenger possesses contraband that poses a threat to airline security. A probable cause requirement would not upset the TSA’s current screening system or unduly burden the TSA’s counterterrorism efforts. Additionally, it would not overrule preflight screening precedent regarding substantially less invasive magnetometer searches. Finally, requiring probable cause for full-body scans remains in accord with Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which correlates the permissible degree of intrusion with the level of suspicion aroused by the individual being searched.220




1NC Lasers CP – Body Scanners

** Sample CP text: The United States federal government should replace all Advanced Imaging Technology scanners in airports with laser-based molecular scanners and program scanners to only detect contraband items.

Laser scanners solve the privacy and Fourth Amendment arguments and are more effective than current body scannersAndrea M. Simbro, JD Candidate at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 2014, “The Sky’s The Limit: A Modern Approach to Airport Security,” http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/56-2/56arizlrev559.pdf

In today’s society, technology is always changing. In a matter of years—or maybe even months—once-prized computers and cell phones are tossed aside for the latest and greatest model. As a matter of national security, airport screening technology should also follow this trend. Although the Transportation Security Administration has made significant strides into the modern era through the use of advanced imaging technology, more remains to be done. This Note discusses the constitutional and privacy implications of modern airport screening technology and introduces laser-based molecular scanners as a solution that will strengthen national security while protecting individual privacy rights .




2NC Lasers CP – Solves

Laser scanners best maintain the balance of security and privacy protectionsAndrea M. Simbro, JD Candidate at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 2014, “The Sky’s The Limit: A Modern Approach to Airport Security,” http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/56-2/56arizlrev559.pdf

Airport security is a critical, and often the most dreaded, part of traveling. Passengers are asked to sacrifice their individual privacy rights, and sometimes their dignity, in exchange for flying from point A to point B safely.263 Although the world is not as safe as it used to be, the general public should not have to suffer for the misdeeds of a few. The government has substantial resources at its disposal, including laser-based molecular scanners, to prevent threats from escalating into catastrophes .264 Because of their convenience, effectiveness, minimal invasion of privacy, and ease of judicial administration, laser-based molecular scanners are an optimal solution to airport security if they are used appropriately.265 The government should continue to take advantage of technological innovation to stop terrorists in their tracks, while simultaneously protecting the privacy interests of the law-abiding majority.




2NC Lasers CP – Solves 4th Amendment

The contraband restriction makes laser scans consistent with the Fourth AmendmentAndrea M. Simbro, JD Candidate at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 2014, “The Sky’s The Limit: A Modern Approach to Airport Security,” http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/56-2/56arizlrev559.pdf

Laser-based molecular scanners can be designed to function as nonsearches . For example, if the government “programs out” unnecessary information, such as adrenaline levels and food consumed, the government can use the scanners solely to detect weapons and explosives. If the scanners are programmed to only detect contraband items , their function would resemble dog sniffs and would be upheld as a nonsearch.213 If a search has not taken place, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated .214




2NC Lasers CP – Solves Terror DA + Privacy

Lasers solve privacy concerns better than imaging and pat-downs – solves bombings and chemical and bioterror attacksAndrea M. Simbro, JD Candidate at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 2014, “The Sky’s The Limit: A Modern Approach to Airport Security,” http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/56-2/56arizlrev559.pdf

Airport screening procedures have steadily become more invasive as threats have escalated.243 While a magnetometer screening is minimally intrusive,244 the public has condemned the use of advanced imaging technology as an overly intrusive “virtual strip search” that is not narrowly tailored to meet airport security needs.245 In a blog, a former TSA screener detailed the disturbing activities that took place in the image operator room before the TSA agreed to remove its x-ray backscatter machines.246 He witnessed “light sexual play among officers . . . and a whole lot of officers laughing and clowning in regard to some of [the passengers’] nude images.”247 Although automatic target recognition software will prevent TSA officers from viewing passengers’ naked images from a back room,248 the pat-down opt-out option249 creates even more privacy concerns. Passengers expressed outrage at being subjected to these aggressive patdowns.250 Victims of such pat-downs include a four-year-old girl who feared the TSA agents because of “stranger danger,”251 a cancer survivor who had to endure a flight covered in his own urine after a TSA agent popped his urostomy bag during a pat-down,252 and John Tynerthe famous “don’t touch my junk” disgruntled passenger.253 Although the pat-down option contributed to the constitutionality of advanced imaging technology,254 laser-based molecular scanners would be a more desirable option. Unlike a probing pat-down, laser-based molecular scanners can detect threats without even touching passengers.255 With the goal of “quickly identify[ing] explosives, dangerous chemicals, or bioweapons at a distance ,”256 the scanners permit passengers to speed through security without the fear of being groped by strangers. Passengers would not have to check their privacy interests at the gate when they chose to fly.




Lasers solve terror attacks – more effective than current systems and avoid privacy concernsAndrea M. Simbro, JD Candidate at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 2014, “The Sky’s The Limit: A Modern Approach to Airport Security,” http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/56-2/56arizlrev559.pdf

Current screening technology has proven ineffective at detecting and deterring threats. In fact, the TSA has employed a reactive approach to terrorism.229 As new threats have emerged, the TSA has rushed to develop solutions,230 but none have permanently solved the problem. Because of emerging nonmetallic threats,231 it appears that magnetometers will soon become obsolete. The Fifth Circuit identified this shift to nonmetallic threats in the 1970s, explaining that “modern technology has made it possible to miniaturize to such a degree that enough plastic explosives to blow up an airplane can be concealed in a toothpaste tube. A detonator planted in a fountain pen is all that is required to set it off.”232 As the thwarted British liquid explosives plot233 and the attempted underwear and shoe bombing incidents reveal,234 magnetometers are ineffective at detecting such threats. Although advanced imaging technology can better detect nonmetallic threats, it is not perfect. A 27-year-old engineer named Jonathan Corbett recently exposed a flaw in the technology.235 A viral video documented Corbett’s successful attempt to outsmart both types of AIT scanners.236 He sewed a pocket to the side of a shirt, placed a metal carrying case inside it, and walked through the scanners undetected.237 Although such a case could “easily alarm any of the old metal detectors,” the supposedly more advanced body scanners did not detect it.238 Federal investigators conceded these vulnerabilities.239 Laser-based molecular scanners can fill these loopholes by disclosing metallic and nonmetallic threats that are overlooked by current technology.240 In fact, the scanners have the capability to precisely detect traces of substances.241 To ensure that the scanners’ effectiveness is not reduced by a false positive problem, however, they should be programmed to alert to substances greater than a specified amount. Such a limitation would avoid the “Big Brother” scenarios depicted in the Introduction of this Note.242




DA Links




Terror DA Links – Body Scanners

Body scanners are key to prevent terror attacks – best method to detect non-metallic explosives and weaponsJessica Hoff, Managing Editor of the Michigan State Law Review and JD Candidate at the Michigan State University College of Law, 2014, “Enhancing Security While Protecting Privacy: The Rights Implicated by Supposedly Heightened Airport Security,” http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=lr

While there may be valid reasons for protecting privacy rights of Americans, the TSA has strong arguments in support of its use of more invasive methods like AIT and full-body pat-downs. Under the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA’s mission is “to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States and to reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism.”174 As such, the TSA believes that AIT, a more invasive security method than the previously used magnetometers,175 is essential in carrying out its mission.176 Supporting this proposition, the TSA argued in its NPRM that current threats to airport security involve non-metallic explosives and weapons, which AIT provides the best method of discovering without physically touching passengers.177

Body scanners stop terror attacks – all other measures failWill Saletan, writes on politics, science, and technology at Slate, 3-3-2007, “Digital Penetration,” http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2007/03/digital_penetration.single.html

This is no joke. The government needs to look under your clothes. Ceramic knives, plastic guns, and liquid explosives have made metal detectors obsolete . Carry-on bags are X-rayed, so the safest place to hide a weapon is on your body. Puffer machines can detect explosives on you, but only if you're sloppy. Backscatters are different. They can scan your whole surface, locating and identifying anything of unusual density—not just metals, which have high atomic numbers, but drugs and explosives, which have low ones.



http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2007/03/digital_penetration.single.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2007/03/digital_penetration.single.html


Body scanners are key to airport security – other detectors are too outdatedTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

The Transportation Security Administration is currently testing a new form of airport screening technology that renders a virtual naked image of the human body.' This socalled "body-scan" technology is earmarked to become the centerpiece of the "checkpoint of the future," replacing walkthrough metal detectors as the primary means of detecting personally concealed weapons and contraband.2 The technology is emerging as a result of widespread deficiencies in present-day search capabilities.' Since the events of September 11, 2001, government accountability auditors have successfully bypassed security checkpoints with weapons and explosives at an alarming rate .4 While weaknesses exist across all areas of airport security, outdated technology has been identified as a primary culprit , with traditional walk-through metal detectors (magnetometers) leading the way.




Terror DA Links – Body Scanners – AT: Magnetometers

Body scanners are key – otherwise, we can’t detect modern non-metal explosivesTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

The TSA’s investment in threat detection technologies has increased significantly with the emergence of liquid and other modem explosive devices such as those uncovered in the British terrorist plot of 2006.06 The non-metallic properties of these emerging threats have rendered magnetometers obsolete and left the TSA scrambling for answers. 107 The technologies at the forefront of this effort are two kinds of "whole-body" scanning machines that utilize "backscatter" x-ray and "millimeter wave" technologies, respectively, to detect items concealed under layers of clothing.' ° While utilizing different technologies, both machines penetrate clothing but not skin, allowing the screening officer to view an image of the human form along with hidden items of "unusual density."10 9




Magnetometers fail – backscatter tech is key Bootie Cosgrove-Mather, writer at the Associated Press, 6-26-2003, “Feds Want See-Through Security,” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-want-see-through-security/

The government is considering using the technology at airport security checkpoints because the magnetometers now in use cannot detect plastic weapons or substances used in explosives. Hallowell is sacrificing her modesty to make a point: Air travelers are not going to like being technologically undressed by security screeners. "It does basically make you look fat and naked - but you see all this stuff," Hallowell said Wednesday during a demonstration of the technology. The technology is called "backscatter" because it scatters X-rays. Doses of rays deflected off dense materials such as metal or plastic produce a darker image than those deflected off skin. The radiation dosage is about the same as sunshine, Hallowell said. Backscatter machines have been available on the market for years. They are priced at between $100,000 and $200,000 and used in all sorts of security situations, from screening families of convicts visiting prisons to South African diamond miners going home for the day. The agency is trying to find a way to modify the machines with an electronic fig leaf - programming that fuzzes out sensitive body parts or distorts the body so it is unrecognizable. Another option might mean stationing the screener in a booth so only he sees the image, said Randal Null, the agency's chief technology officer. Null hopes to conduct pilot programs with backscatter machines at several airports this year. A pilot project at Orlando International Airport in Florida using volunteers met with mixed results, he said. Some volunteers were uncomfortable with it. For others, "It was a whole lot nicer than having someone pat me down," he said. David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, thinks most people will object to the backscatter technology. "The public is willing to accept a certain amount of scrutiny at the airport, but there are clearly limits to the degree of invasion that is acceptable," Sobel said. "It's hard to understand why something this invasive is necessary." But Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on aviation, thinks it is essential because of the strong likelihood that a terrorist will try to bomb a plane. "I predict it will happen," said Mica, R-Fla. "The chances of someone bringing an explosive on an aircraft by walking through a metal detector or in hand-carried luggage are very real." Mica pointed out that Richard Reid, convicted of trying to blow up a trans-Atlantic jetliner with explosives in his shoes, walked through metal detectors at Orly Airport in Paris several times before boarding the plane. Federal transportation security officials say a backscatter scanner could have foiled Reid.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-want-see-through-security/


Terror DA Links – Body Scanners – AT: Pat-Downs

Body scanners correct many flaws present in pat-downsTobias W. Mock, Technical Editor of the Santa Clara Law Review and JD Candidate at the Santa Clara University School of Law, 1-1-2009, “The TSA’s New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Body-Scan Searches at Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints,” http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=lawreview

Finally, body-scan searches, even in their modified form, are a more effective security tool than pat-downs.25 ' Though the TSA has been somewhat secretive surrounding body-scan test results, the technology is presumptively more accurate for two primary reasons. First, while body-scans render an image of the entire body, the effectiveness of a pat-down search is limited to its permissible parameters. 28 Although pat-downs are invasive, 259 searching officers are not permitted to search every part of the body,260 such as inside religious headwear,261 or in or around sensitive parts of the body.262 Furthermore, when searching more sensitive, yet permissible areas, the officers are required to use the back of their hand, further limiting their ability to detect hidden items.263 Therefore, not only does this limit the effectiveness of the search, but it gives those wishing to surpass the security system the knowledge of where to hide a dangerous item, i.e. in-between breasts, genitalia, or in a prosthetic.2" Body-scans, having the ability to detect items located in these areas, are not similarly limited. Second, the potential for human error in pat-down searches is more prevalent. While a body-scan searching officer must recognize an object projected onto a screen, a patdown officer must be able to detect a hidden item by touch alone. Therefore, the officer conducting the pat-down must be able to differentiate between threatening and harmless objects below one or more layers of clothing, and further, the officer must be trusted to execute a comprehensive search without passing over any areas of the body. While similar shortcomings exist in body-scan searches, they are not as prevalent; the officer is not given as much discretion as to the extent of the search, nor does it take any further effort on his or her behalf to reach its permissible scope. It stands to reason, therefore, that image-based detection technology, even in its modified form, is more effective than a restricted pat-down search.




Terror DA Links – Profiling

Profiling is key – we need to screen people, not just objectsTimothy M. Ravich, Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law, October 2007, “Is Airline Passenger Profiling Necessary?,” http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=umlr

These scares were caused by people with bad intentions or bad judgment, not merely by objects like bombs and knives. That a ten year-old boy could cause an evacuation of an airplane of a hundred or more passengers aptly illustrates the challenge confronting aviation security officials. Aesop's fable of a boy who falsely cried wolf so often that he lost credibility within his community has little application to the commercial aviation industry. 138 Authorities responsible for aviation security must assume the worst and entertain both credible and incredible threats at any time, every time. 139 Terrorism is asymmetrical in this respect, and the fact terrorists need to be successful only once to achieve disaster has become a central tenet of the doctrine of preemption that dominates U.S. foreign policy under President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney." Profiling airline passengers may help to right this acute imbalance. As detailed below, however, whether certain civil liberties should be negotiated or trumped in the name of national security and airline safety is debatable, particularly as government surveillance, domestic wiretapping, and eavesdropping programs are a source of contemporary public concern.

We control empirics – Israeli profiling has successfully prevented numerous attacksTimothy M. Ravich, Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law, October 2007, “Is Airline Passenger Profiling Necessary?,” http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=umlr

For years Israeli aviation security officials have focused on airline passengers themselves. They screen passengers individually and personally in a process taking hours per person.147 The United States has not had to cope with the pervasive terrorism that threatens Israel, and intentionally time-consuming airline passenger profiling is neither a standard nor a welcomed feature in the United States. But it appears to be effective . 48 In 1986, for example, a pregnant woman on a Londonto-Tel Aviv flight was pulled aside by El Al for further screening. Security officials were suspicious of a pregnant woman traveling alone. In fact, unbeknownst to the passenger, her Jordanian boyfriend had planted a bomb in her carry-on luggage that would have killed the 375 people on her flight. 14 9 As a result of security processes like these, no successful hijackings have ever occurred out of an Israeli airport . 151




Profiling would have prevented the 9-11 hijackingsStuart Taylor Jr., JD from Harvard Law School and writer at numerous publications focusing on legal and policy issues, 3-1-2002, “The Skies Won’t Be Safe Until We Use Commonsense Profiling,” http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2002/03/the-skies-wont-be-safe-until-we-use-commonsense-profiling/378065/

To be sure, a profile that takes account of apparent national origin (as well as one that does not) might miss a John Walker Lindh or a Timothy McVeigh. No profile is foolproof. But that doesn't justify being foolish. A well-designed profiling system would have singled out all 19 of the September 11 hijackers for special attention. And even though box cutters were not then prohibited on planes, security screeners might have wondered why groups of four and five Middle Eastern men were all carrying such potential weapons onto airliners the same morning.

Profiling is key to preempt terror attacksTimothy M. Ravich, Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law, October 2007, “Is Airline Passenger Profiling Necessary?,” http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=umlr

Whatever the novelty or precedence of the tactics of September 11, the terrorist threat confronting today's airlines is conceptually different from national security concerns that previously confronted aviation security policy makers. Whereas the Soviet Union created "things" during the Cold War that could be observed and countered, terrorism is an indefinite threat, as "the terrorists create only transactions that can be sifted from the noise of everyday activity only with great difficulty. '22 In this new context, airline profiling systems may offer aviation security officials a preemptive and forward- looking mechanism to identify terrorists . 23




Topicality




T – Profiling =/= Surveillance

Interpretation and violation – surveillance is only gathering information about activities – profiling is distinct and much broader than surveillanceMalcolm Thorburn, Faculty Member of the University of Toronto School of Law, 1-25-2012, “Identification, Surveillance, and Profiling: On the Use and Abuse of Citizen Data,” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1991747

This volume is dedicated to the topics of ‘seeking security’ and ‘pre-empting harm’ – the hallmarks of the culture of control. Although this approach includes a wide array of practices, I concern myself in this chapter with only one small part of that story. I consider some of the ways in which Western governments now collect and use data about ordinary citizens as part of their larger effort to pre-empt the causing of criminal harms. In recent years, this topic (usually under the title ‘surveillance studies’) has been the object of more detailed discussions than almost any other in the criminological and broader sociological literature.3 In much of that literature, however, the collection of citizen data is treated as a single, monolithic phenomenon.4 However in this chapter, I argue that we ought to draw a fairly clear analytical distinction between three quite different ways in which governments collect and use citizen data as part of the crime control efforts: what I call (somewhat idiosyncratically)5 identification, surveillance and profiling. Identification is a core state function, and involves regulating and guaranteeing the identity of individuals; surveillance is concerned with capturing specific information about our activities ; and profiling is an attempt to give specific content to what particular persons or classes of persons are like – their preferences , their practices , their personal histories , etc – in order to anticipate future behaviour. Governments often try to elide the important distinctions between these three practices and to introduce elements of surveillance and profiling under the cover of an identification scheme. The recent effort to introduce national identification cards in the UK is one example of this phenomenon.6 Although there is often substantial overlap between these three methods in practice, we can achieve significant analytical clarity in our discussions if we keep in mind that they are at least in principle distinct – so our acceptance or rejection of one need not necessarily require us to accept or reject the others.




Politcs TPP Disad NEG

Note: See the Sept File for Links.




* UNIQUENESS / INTERNAL LINKS*




Obama Political Capital Key / Every Drop PC is key. Obama will need every drop of capitalGary Hufbauer, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, October 16, 2015, “Will Congress Unravel the Trans-Pacific Partnership?,” Latin America Advisor, http://www.thedialogue.org/resources/will-congress-unravel-the-trans-pacific-partnership/, ACC. 10-28-2015

While Hillary Clinton may have reversed her prior enthusiastic support of the TPP, if elected president, she can rediscover the geopolitical virtues that led her to embrace the TPP project when she served as secretary of state. And Clinton can toss in a couple of ‘side agreements’—reminiscent of NAFTA—to nudge the TPP closer to her concept of a gold standard. But between now and 2017, the TPP must survive a perilous journey through Congress. The timelines specified under Trade Promotion Authority mean that the soonest President Obama could sign the TPP text will be late January 2016. Meanwhile, Obama will need to agree with his Congressional counterparts— Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and probable House Speaker Paul Ryan—on the text of the TPP implementing legislation, including any ‘sweeteners’ inserted to attract the votes of wavering congressmen. Then, in the midst of the presidential election campaign, the House and Senate must vote the implementing legislation up or down, without amendments. If he sees no clear shot at reaching ‘yes’, President Obama can elect to not submit implementing legislation to Congress, and instead leave the task of securing ratification to his successor. On balance, it appears that President Obama will use every ounce of his dwindling political capital stock to secure Congressional approval of the TPP in 2016 and, at the same time, secure his own historic legacy. But if the critical vote is postponed until 2017—when ratification seems all but certain, provided that Sanders and Trump remain far from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue—the TPP will still enjoy a fine launch into the annals of path-breaking trade agreements.

New political enemies tank TPPSimon Lester, analyst at the CATO Institute, October 30, 2015, “The Politics of the TPP,” The CATO Institute, http://www.cato.org/blog/politics-tpp, ACC. 10-30-2015

But if we can’t talk much about substance yet, what we can talk about is the politics of the TPP: What are its chances in Congress? The Obama administration has taken a somewhat creative approach to assembling a coalition from across the political spectrum in support of the TPP. They have tried to appeal to free market conservatives by talking about how the TPP would involve “18,000 tax cuts,” in the form of lower tariffs on U.S. exports. They have tried to bring in liberal support by calling it the “most progressive trade agreement in history.” And some people have portrayed the TPP as having a security component, in order to bring security hawks on board. But here’s a key question related to the first two: Can they bring in supporters without creating new opponents? For example, with regard to the TPP’s “progressive” nature, the administration says the TPP would do the following on labor protections: “Require laws on acceptable conditions of work related to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.” Focusing on the first one, what exactly would the TPP require with a minimum wage? If it requires that all TPP countries have a minimum wage – either set at a particular level, or just having one at all – some Republicans in Congress might object.



http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/23/dont-forget-the-national-security-case-for-tpp-trade-deal/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/03/04/see-what-most-progressive-trade-agreement-history-looks

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Guide-to-18000-Tax-Cuts.pdf


Obama Political Capital Key / Dems key Obama needs strong political capital to convince DemocratsGabrielle Levy, Staff Writer, October 21, 2015, “Obama Does Damage Control After Hillary Defects on TPP,” US News & World Report, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/21/obama-does-damage-control-after-hillary-defects-on-tpp, ACC. 10-28-2015

President Barack Obama was scheduled to meet with congressional Democrats at the White House on Wednesday evening in an effort to convince them to rescue his landmark Pacific Rim trade pact as it faces increasingly long odds. Obama is expected to send formal notification to Congress as soon as this week that he intends to sign the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal eight years in the making that would establish trade rules among countries that comprise 40 percent of the global economy. The announcement of its completion on Oct. 5 sets off a months long process of technical and political considerations before the agreement can go into effect. When preliminary legislation vital to the trade deal came before Congress this summer, large numbers of Democrats opposed granting the president so-called "fast-track" authority to negotiate the multilateral agreement, with only a handful joining Republicans to advance it by the narrowest of margins. But now, with the GOP in the midst of an extended and painful leadership struggle and an approaching election year rendering them more reluctant to hand the president any victory, Obama is banking on convincing more Democrats to vote in favor of the deal when it ultimately comes to a vote.



http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/21/obama-does-damage-control-after-hillary-defects-on-tpp

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/21/obama-does-damage-control-after-hillary-defects-on-tpp


Obama Political Capital Key / GOP key Republican support is crucial to TPPRichard Katz, editor of The Oriental Economist Report, October 18, 2015, “Will US Republicans torpedo the TPP?,” The Australian Financial Review Magazine, AFR Weekend, http://www.afr.com/opinion/will-us-republicans-torpedo-the-tpp-20151016-gkbbnu, ACC. 10-31-2015

In a surprising development, US congressional Republicans and a few of their business allies now pose the biggest threat to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). When an agreement was finally announced on October 5, neither a single Republican leader in Congress, nor any broad business federation in the United States could be found to support it. Republican support for the TPP is indispensable since most congressional Democrats oppose it and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has come out against it.



http://www.afr.com/afr-magazine

http://www.orientaleconomist.com/


Obama Political Capital Key / Bipart Obama needs support from both sides to overcome opposition in CongressDan Steinbock, Difference Group analyst, October 30, 2015, “TPP – The Iron Curtain scenario And The Inclusive free trade scenario,” ValueWalk, http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/10/tpp-the-iron-curtain-scenario-and-the-inclusive-free-trade-scenario/?all=1, ACC. 10-30-2015

In the U.S. alone, the TPP faces a tough battle with a divided U.S. Congress, where only some Democrats support Obama’s trade policy and the Republican support is a lot more unpredictable amid contentious presidential campaigns, as evidenced by the stated opposition against the TPP by the leading Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.



http://www.differencegroup.net/


Obama Political Capital Key / Orrin Hatch Obama is spending political capital on TPP, but Orrin Hatch is key. Ticking off Hatch tanks the dealDoug Palmer, Staff Writer, October 19, 2015, “Orrin Hatch holds cards on trade deal,” Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/orrin-hatch-tpp-pacific-trade-deal-decision-214893, ACC. 10-28-2015

No one fought harder to give President Barack Obama trade promotion authority to complete a landmark 12-nation deal than Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch. Now, no lawmaker may be more disappointed with the result — or better positioned to torpedo the deal if he chooses to oppose it. Days after the Obama administration announced a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement after nearly six years of negotiations, Hatch offered a stinging review and warned that the administration may have ignored congressional marching orders in a number of areas, including securing strong intellectual property protections for a new, cutting-edge class of drugs called biologics. "The negotiating objectives we included in our TPA law aren’t just pro forma," Hatch said on the Senate floor. "They aren’t suggestions or mere statements of members’ preferences. They represent the view of the bipartisan majority in Congress.” Just how far Hatch might go to register his disapproval is unclear. The Utah lawmaker said he’s still waiting to read the full text of the agreement before he decides how to proceed. But his harsh early remarks, coming from one of Congress’ strongest trade advocates, raises a red flag for the trade deal that represents a top priority for the Obama administration. Hatch was a driving force behind trade promotion authority to streamline congressional approval of the deal — it requires only a straight up or down vote with no amendments or filibusters to pass. In fact, Hatch fought to make it more difficult to unwind that process. Despite fast-track rules, though, congressional approval of the deal is far from certain — even if the White House and Republican leaders decide to hold it until the lame-duck session after the 2016 election. By securing language sought by Democrats — settling for far less than 12 years of monopoly protection for biologics, for instance, and barring tobacco companies from being able to sue countries for financial losses related to antismoking laws — the administration managed to tick off Republicans, among them Hatch, who accounted for the bulk of support for fast track authority. The administration is launching a full-court press, confident it can persuade a majority of lawmakers that the economic and geopolitical benefits of the agreement are bigger than any concern about individual provisions.

“Once we get folks to assess the agreement and make their judgments, I’m confident that we’ll have strong support for it because the TPP gives American businesses of all sizes … unprecedented access to vital markets in the Asia-Pacific,” said U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, who visited Delaware this month to build support. “We’re going to be sitting down with members on both sides of the aisle to make the case that the TPP will benefit the economies of their states and communities.” Still, one former Senate aide said that if Hatch decides to oppose the deal, he would easily get backing from other Republicans, who "won't take much convincing to believe that President Obama negotiated a bad deal, no matter the substance."




TPP will go through unless Hatch decides to oppose itDoug Palmer, Staff Writer, October 19, 2015, “Orrin Hatch holds cards on trade deal,” Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/orrin-hatch-tpp-pacific-trade-deal-decision-214893, ACC. 10-28-2015

In the case of TPP, if Hatch decides to oppose it, the White House would probably think twice about submitting it for a vote. But if the administration went forward anyway, Hatch could pursue two options to force it back to the negotiating table by stripping “fast-track” protections from the deal. Both options are built into the TPA law. One allows both chambers to adopt a "procedural disapproval resolution" within 60 days of each other, asserting the White House did not adequately notify or consult Congress, or that the Asia-Pacific trade deal “fails to make progress in achieving the purposes, policies, priorities, and objectives” of the trade promotion law. The second option would allow either the House or the Senate to strip "fast track" procedures in that chamber only. To begin that process, the Senate Finance Committee or the House Ways and Means Committee would have to send the pact to the floor with a "negative recommendation," urging it be rejected, which would be subject to normal rules. Short of those nuclear options, the trade promotion law stacks the deck in the White House's favor. Once Obama sends the TPP deal to Congress, lawmakers have 90 legislative days to approve or reject the agreement without making any changes.




*IMPACTS*




TPP Good – Economy / Growth Passing TPP bolsters U.S. agriculture and manufacturing. Failure tanks U.S. competitivenessTom Vilsack, secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, October 29, 2015, “Vilsack: TPP deal is a good deal for rural America,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, http://www.richmond.com/opinion/their-opinion/guest-columnists/article_eaa80e9e-aa0f-5dc3-aca3-ec750666ccf5.html, ACC. 10-30-2015

Without new trade deals like TPP, the growth in agricultural exports — and the jobs supported by them — enjoyed in years past may be at risk. TPP levels the playing field for farmers, ranchers and manufacturers — many of them in rural areas — by eliminating more than 18,000 unfair taxes that various TPP countries put on American products and further expands our exports to the region. For example, Japan’s beef tariff, which could be as high as 50 percent, will be reduced to 9 percent. Vietnam will eliminate tariffs on beef and Malaysia will lock tariffs in at zero percent. For pork, Japan will eliminate duties on nearly 80 percent of product categories. Japan, which excluded rice from its prior trade agreements, will establish a new, duty-free quota for U.S. rice, while Malaysia and Vietnam will eliminate tariffs on rice. Japan, Malaysia, and Vietnam will eliminate tariffs on all fresh and processed fruits, including citrus. And Malaysia and Vietnam will immediately eliminate all tariffs, and Japan nearly all tariffs, on fresh and processed vegetables. Failing to implement TPP means American products would fall behind our competitors’, as other countries are now aggressively negotiating their own deals in the region that would leave us out.

TPP results in hundreds of billions of growthXenia Wickett, Project Director, US and Dean at The Queen Elizabeth II Academy for Leadership in International Affairs at Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, October 7, 2015, “For the West, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Must Not Falter,” Chatham House, https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/west-trans-pacific-partnership-must-not-falter?utm_source= Chatham%20House%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6254470_Newsletter%20-%2009.10.2015&dm_i= 1TYB,3Q1ZA,ESXKMS,DEFI5,1, ACC. 10-30-2015

Bringing together 12 countries in Asia and Latin America the deal focuses on tariff reductions in some extremely sensitive areas for many of the member states, such as automobiles and agriculture, as well as addressing a number of other trade issues ranging from wildlife conservation to intellectual property issues in the pharmaceutical arena. According to the Peterson Institute in Washington, DC, by 2025 the TPP could result in annual benefits (opens in new window) of $295 billion globally.

Failure to pass TPP sacrifices massive economic benefits for U.S. businessesKoichi Hamada, Special Economic Adviser to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, is Professor Emeritus of Economics at Yale University and at the University of Tokyo, October 31, 2015, “The Fraught Politics of the TPP,” Project Syndicate, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/tpp-economic-gains-political-obstacles-by-koichi-hamada-2015-10, ACC. 10-31-2015

Failure to ratify the TPP in all 12 countries would be a major disappointment, not just because of the tremendous amount of effort that has gone into it, but also – and more important – because of the vast



https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/west-trans-pacific-partnership-must-not-falter?utm_source


https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/xenia-wickett


economic benefits it would bring to all countries involved. In Japan, as long as most of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party stands firm in supporting the TPP, it should be ratified. But the situation in the US Congress is more dubious. One hopes that America’s leaders do not miss a golden opportunity to give US businesses – and thus the US economy – a significant boost.




TPP Good – Economy / Growth Trade under TPP spurs variety and bolsters economies of scaleMichael Jay Boskin, the T. M. Friedman Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He also is Chief Executive Officer and President of Boskin & Co., October 30, 2015, “Trans-Pacific Partnership: the case for trade,” The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/30/tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-the-case-for-trade, ACC. 10-30-2015

Following the conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership by 12 Pacific rim countries, debates about the costs and benefits of trade liberalisation are intensifying. The early leaders in the US presidential campaign – both the Republican Donald Trump and the Democrat Hillary Clinton – have expressed opposition to the TPP, though as secretary of state, Clinton called it the “the gold standard of trade deals”. The right level of trade openness is not a new debate. Historically, trade systems have ranged from rather open to severely restricted by rules, tariffs, or non-tariff barriers, driven by shifts in the relative strength of liberalising or protectionist economic and political forces. But even in closed systems, however severe the penalties they impose on trade, parallel markets usually develop, owing to the “gains from trade” generated by natural economic forces. The desire to trade arises whenever the domestic benefits of importing a good (whether a finished product or component) exceed the price paid – for example, if the imported good cannot be produced domestically, or only at a higher cost. As the British economist David Ricardo demonstrated two centuries ago, it can even be better for a country to import goods that it can produce more cheaply, if doing so enables the production of other goods that are still cheaper to produce. Additional gains from trade include increased variety and the economies of scale implied by producing for global markets.

TPP is a net win for the U.S. manufacturing sectorKoichi Hamada, Special Economic Adviser to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, is Professor Emeritus of Economics at Yale University and at the University of Tokyo, October 31, 2015, “The Fraught Politics of the TPP,” Project Syndicate, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/tpp-economic-gains-political-obstacles-by-koichi-hamada-2015-10, ACC. 10-31-2015

This shift may make sense politically, but it is abysmal economics. In reality, the TPP is a great bargain for the US. The concessions it contains on manufactured products like automobiles are much smaller than those on, say, agricultural products, which will involve profound sacrifices from other TPP countries, such as Japan. After all, existing tariff levels on manufactured goods are already much lower than those on agriculture or dairy products. In short, with the TPP, the US is catching a big fish with small bait. But the increased trade and investment flows brought about by the TPP’s ratification and implementation will benefit even the countries that must make larger sacrifices.



https://ustr.gov/tpp/


TPP Good – Small Businesses / Rural America TPP will boost the global economy and benefit small business expansion globallyShiumei Lin, vice president of Asia-Pacific Public Affairs for UPS and Amgad Shehata, senior vice president of International Public Affairs for UPS, October 27, 2015, “Why the TPP is good for small businesses,” Fortune, http://fortune.com/2015/10/27/tpp-good-for-small-businesses/, ACC. 10-28-2015

As Congress evaluates the details of what could be the world’s biggest trade deal yet in the coming months, one of the most crucial components that often gets overlooked is the agreement’s focus on small and medium-sized businesses. The Trans-Pacific Partnership represents an unparalleled opportunity for the global economy. The deal is the largest and most substantial free trade agreement in history, connecting 12 global economies, 40% of GDP and 800 million consumers across the Americas and the Asia-Pacific region. For the first time in any trade agreement, TPP includes a chapter focused on addressing trade barriers that disproportionately challenge small business, including complex trade paperwork, opaque customs regulations, and the slow delivery of small shipments. Collectively, these improvements through TPP should help small- and medium-sized companies expand their international business or make the decision to go global in the first place.

TPP will revitalize rural AmericaTom Vilsack, secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, October 29, 2015, “Vilsack: TPP deal is a good deal for rural America,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, http://www.richmond.com/opinion/their-opinion/guest-columnists/article_eaa80e9e-aa0f-5dc3-aca3-ec750666ccf5.html, ACC. 10-30-2015

TPP will benefit more than just the segment of the American population directly involved in producing food. It will have a ripple effect all across rural America. Exports today directly support more than 1 million American jobs, and increased exports under TPP will support more good-paying jobs. Expanded export opportunities also benefit the packers, processors, shippers and others employed at every step in the production chain. Expanded U.S. trade overall has added roughly $13,000, on average, to every American family’s income. Higher commodity prices, additional farm income and agribusiness jobs driven by TPP will generate more cash flow in rural economies, supporting local businesses on Main Street. In parts of rural America, these jobs are critical to preserving our small towns and rural way of life.

TPP will be transformative for small businessesAna Campoy, Staff Writer, October 27, 2015, “The TPP could help tiny companies become global exporters,” Quartz, http://qz.com/528698/the-tpp-could-help-tiny-companies-become-global-exporters/, ACC. 10-28-2015

Supporters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are selling it as a way to spur mass exports of manufactured goods such as cars, or commodities like beef. But the trade deal, which still has to be ratified by the 12 participating countries, including the US, Japan, and Mexico, could also make it easier for a mother in Tokyo to buy a handmade crib from a furniture maker in Vermont. Aside from the lower tariffs that are part of any run-of-the-mill trade agreement, TPP has a whole chapter on international e-commerce, and another on small- and medium-sized companies. The specific provisions of the pact have



http://fortune.com/2015/10/27/tpp-good-for-small-businesses/


not been released yet, but a public summary of its contents shows that the TPP “could be potentially transformative,” Ed Gerwin, a trade expert at the Progressive Policy Institute, tells Quartz.



http://www.progressivepolicy.org/

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2015/october/summary-trans-pacific-partnership


TPP Good – Small Businesses / Rural America TPP will allow small businesses to seize international marketsShiumei Lin, vice president of Asia-Pacific Public Affairs for UPS and Amgad Shehata, senior vice president of International Public Affairs for UPS, October 27, 2015, “Why the TPP is good for small businesses,” Fortune, http://fortune.com/2015/10/27/tpp-good-for-small-businesses/, ACC. 10-28-2015

Fundamentally, agreements like TPP make it easier for small businesses to export. With the rise of e-commerce, small businesses from Asia to the Americas can now reach new and international markets, but traditionally many of them do not take advantage of the opportunity because trading across borders has been too cumbersome. Trade agreements like TPP can help change that. Now that small businesses have the opportunity to seize new markets, it is time to ensure that our legislators make this deal a reality. Congress is likely to take up the issue in early 2016, and parliaments across TPP countries will be evaluating and ratifying the agreement in the coming months. For too long, global trade flows have been bogged down by decades-old regulation. TPP allows us to establish a 21st century agreement for our 21st century economy.



http://fortune.com/2015/10/27/tpp-good-for-small-businesses/


TPP Good – Alternative is Protectionism / Depression The alternative to TPP is extreme protectionism and global depressionMichael Jay Boskin, the T. M. Friedman Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He also is Chief Executive Officer and President of Boskin & Co., October 30, 2015, “Trans-Pacific Partnership: the case for trade,” The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/30/tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-the-case-for-trade, ACC. 10-30-2015

Past experience reinforces the view that, ultimately, voluntary trade is a good thing. Extreme protectionism in the early 1930s, following an era of relatively free international trade, had devastating consequences, ultimately setting the stage for the second world war. As the MIT economist Charles Kindleberger showed, America’s Smoot-Hawley tariff, in particular, helped to turn a deep recession into a global depression. Even before the war was over, major powers convened in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to establish a new international trade and finance regime, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Through a succession of lengthy and difficult global negotiations – the so-called “GATT rounds” – tariffs were steadily lowered for an increasing variety of goods. As a result, global trade grew faster than world GDP for most of the postwar period. Virtually all economists agree that this shift toward freer trade greatly benefited the world’s citizens and enhanced global growth. The economists Jeffrey Frankel and David Romer estimate that, in general, trade has a sizeable positive effect on growth . At a time when growth is failing to meet expectations almost everywhere, the TPP thus seems like a good move. To be sure, because tariffs in the TPP member countries are already low (with some exceptions, such as Canada’s tariffs on dairy products and Japan’s on beef), the net benefit of eliminating them would be modest (except for a few items that are very sensitive to small price changes). But the TPP is also expected to reduce non-tariff barriers (such as red tape and protection of state enterprises); harmonise policies and procedures; and include dispute-settlement mechanisms.

All their anti-TPP arguments are empirically denied. The alternative is no free tradeMark Warner, Canadian international trade and competition lawyer, October 18, 2015, “Attack on TPP is attack on all trade,” Toronto Sun, http://www.torontosun.com/2015/10/18/attack-on-tpp-is-attack-on-all-trade, ACC. 10-30-2015

However, at this point, political attacks on the TPP appear to be stealth attacks against all of our existing and future trade agreements. If that’s what the deal’s critics really want, they should say so clearly and directly. In reality, the fact that the fight against free trade has been reduced to this very narrow point shows the progress that has been made. The sky did not collapse from our past trade agreements, and won’t because of the TPP.



http://www.project-syndicate.org/columnist/jeffrey-frankel

https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_e.pdf

https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_e.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1991633

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.89.3.379


TPP Good – Alternative is Protectionism / No Heg No TPP means we slide into protectionist isolationism. Passing it is crucial to U.S. leadershipKen Moriyasu, Staff Writer, October 30, 2015, “TPP a 'defining moment' for America-led world,” Nikkei Asian Review, http://asia.nikkei.com/Features/Trans-Pacific-Partnership/TPP-a-defining-moment-for-America-led-world, ACC. 10-30-2015

Besides eliminating trade barriers and tariffs, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is meant to ensure Internet freedom, work to abolish child labor, oppose wildlife trafficking and promote environmental protection. In other words, says former U.S. trade negotiator Ira Shapiro, it reflects key values that the U.S. stands for -- high-standard rules to govern the 21st Century economy -- and whether the U.S. Congress ratifies the agreement or not will be a "defining moment" for the America-led world. Shapiro, who was general counsel to U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor and chief trade negotiator with Japan and Canada during the Bill Clinton administration, was in Tokyo on Friday to attend a TPP symposium hosted by The Nikkei. "If Congress rejects TPP, the world will conclude that we are a protectionist, isolationist nation, unmistakably in retreat," he told the Nikkei Asian Review in an interview.

Without TPP, we’ll slip into protectionism, which undermines U.S. leadership on global trade and resolving conflicts with ISIS and the South China Seas. Free trade causes de-escalationMichael Jay Boskin, the T. M. Friedman Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He also is Chief Executive Officer and President of Boskin & Co., October 30, 2015, “Trans-Pacific Partnership: the case for trade,” The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/30/tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-the-case-for-trade, ACC. 10-30-2015

Though the TPP’s precise provisions have not been made public, political leaders in the member countries predict that the deal, once ratified and implemented, will add hundreds of billions of dollars to their economies and bolster employment. Smaller and developing economies will probably gain the most, relative to size, but everyone will benefit overall. Other important outcomes are not included in these calculations. The alternative to liberalising trade is not the status quo; it is a consistent move away from openness. This can occur in a number of ways, such as the erection of non-tariff barriers that favor domestic incumbents at the expense of lower-priced potential imports that would benefit consumers. Moreover, it is much easier to build mutually beneficial trade relationships than it is to resolve military and geopolitical issues, such as combating the Islamic State or resolving tensions in the South China Sea. But strong trade relationships have the potential to encourage cooperation – or, at least, discourage escalation of conflict – in other, more contentious areas.




TPP Good – Boosts Free Trade TPP will spread free trade throughout the Asia-PacificLee G. Branstetter and Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Analysts at the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, October 5, 2015, “The Case for TPP: Rebutting the Naysayers,” Trade and Investment Policy Watch, Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, http://blogs.piie.com/trade/?p=436, ACC. 10-31-2015

Neither the United States nor Japan is a free trader. Tariff barriers to US imports of selected agricultural products are high and nontariff barriers to imports of services are severe. Japan’s agricultural trade is even more restrictive. Significant barriers remain on US and Japanese exports to the ten TPP markets abroad. Of course TPP will not eliminate all these barriers in one fell swoop but it will make a good start. Over the next decade, TPP could additionally serve as a gateway to productive deals with other Asian nations, and eventually serve as the foundation for a free trade agreement encompassing the entire Asia-Pacific region.



http://blogs.piie.com/trade/?p=440




TPP Good – Boosts Japanese Economy TPP will be a major boost to the Japanese economyKaori Kaneko, Staff Writer, October 31, 2015, “TPP to play key role in helping Japan meet GDP target: Nikkei,” Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/31/us-japan-economy-idUSKCN0SP04X20151031, ACC. 10-31-2015

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will play a key role in helping the Japanese government to boost economic growth, the Nikkei business daily reported on Saturday. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe vowed in September to raise gross domestic product by nearly a quarter to 600 trillion Japanese yen ($5 trillion), though he gave no timeframe. A draft by the government's top economic advisory panel, the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy, suggests the TPP free-trade deal, which still needs ratification, will help boost the nation's potential growth rate to around 2 percent from current levels of below 1 percent, the Nikkei said. The draft says 25 trillion yen will likely come from increased exports thanks to TPP, which will also help orders for infrastructure work such as bullet trains to grow 30 trillion yen from 10 trillion yen in 2010, the Nikkei said.




TPP Good – U.S. Leadership / Asia Pivot TPP will solidify U.S. leadership and the Asia PivotDan Steinbock, Difference Group analyst, October 30, 2015, “TPP – The Iron Curtain scenario And The Inclusive free trade scenario,” ValueWalk, http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/10/tpp-the-iron-curtain-scenario-and-the-inclusive-free-trade-scenario/?all=1, ACC. 10-30-2015

Recently, the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement has been greeted with great fanfare by the U.S. foreign policy elite and mainstream media. In typical fashion, the Washington Post has argued that “by knitting the U.S. and Japanese economies together in their first free-trade deal – and binding both of them closer to rising Asian nations – the TPP would create a counterweight to China in East Asia.” While the creation of the TPP has been a great disappointment in China and resulted in mixed feelings across the Asia Pacific, it is very much in line with Washington’s new and more assertive approach in the Asia Pacific, as reflected by Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China, a recent Council on Foreign Relations report. In reality, the TPP seeks to expand U.S. geopolitical presence in the Asia Pacific, as deemed by the U.S. Department of Defense and its Joint Vision 2020’s ‘full spectrum dominance” – the aspiration to achieve control over all dimensions of the competitive space.



http://www.differencegroup.net/


TPP Good – Agriculture TPP opens agricultural markets to U.S. products to 66% of the world’s middle classTom Vilsack, secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, October 29, 2015, “Vilsack: TPP deal is a good deal for rural America,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, http://www.richmond.com/opinion/their-opinion/guest-columnists/article_eaa80e9e-aa0f-5dc3-aca3-ec750666ccf5.html, ACC. 10-30-2015

Why is the TPP agreement a good deal for American agriculture? TPP positions the United States and American agriculture as a leader. With TPP, American agricultural products have the opportunity to set the standard for excellence and build a loyal customer base in a region where demand for rural-grown and rural–made products is projected to grow substantially in the next 15 years. As with any negotiation, the final TPP agreement reflects compromise on all sides, but we believe our negotiators got the best possible deal for American agriculture. Despite current taxes on our products overseas, U.S. agricultural exports totaled over $13 billion to Japan, $2.3 billion to Vietnam, and just under $1 billion to Malaysia in 2014. Overall, TPP countries purchased 42 percent of all U.S. agricultural exports, totaling $63 billion, despite the disadvantage we currently face.

The TPP agreement balances meeting the diverse marketing needs of American farmers and ranchers right now with the market access we’ll need to cater to the tastes of consumers in TPP countries — the Asia-Pacific region holds the world’s fastest growing middle-class populations — 10 or more years from now. By 2030, the Asia-Pacific region will represent 66 percent of the world’s middle class and will be looking for even more high-quality products that the United States excels at producing, like meat, dairy, fruits and vegetables. No one is better positioned to meet that growing demand than the most productive farmers in the world, and with the TPP agreement, we have a business plan that helps get that abundance into the hands of consumers.




TPP Good – Environment TPP sets a new benchmark for international cooperation to address biodiversity issues and transitioning to a low-carbon economyCraig Foss, Staff Writer, October 29, 2015, “TPP offers green game-changer,” Hawkins Bay Today, http://m.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503459&objectid=11536778, ACC. 10-30-2015

The TPP sets a new benchmark for environmental provisions in trade agreements. It does more to address the growing pressure on our natural resources than any agreement before it. The reality is that environmental issues like protecting our forests, oceans, and wildlife actually do require a co-ordinated international response. The most significant environmental features of the TPP cover conservation of flora and fauna; illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; protection of sharks, seabirds, turtles and marine mammals; transition to a low-carbon economy; and tackling alien invasive species.




TPP Good – A2: Big Pharma TPP will allow greater development of generic drugs at lower costsCaroline Freund, Analyst at the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, October 5, 2015, “The Pharma Compromise on TPP Is Good for US Consumers,” Trade and Investment Policy Watch, Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, http://blogs.piie.com/trade/?p=440, ACC. 10-31-2015

The US pharmaceutical companies argued that the revenue they earn from the longer period is needed to cover the innovation costs of the drugs. But protecting data comes at the cost of delaying scientific progress on related drugs, because biosimilar products (the generics of biologic drugs) must either wait or repeat costly development and drug trials. Even with the data available, biosimilars are more costly to develop than regular generics. It is no doubt important to grant some protection to encourage innovation, but there is no evidence that such a long duration is required. Even Europe, with pharmaceutical giants such as Roche, Novartis, and Bayer, has shorter time spans. Determining the right length is tricky because the pharma industry has a strong incentive to push for a long period to expand profits. Balancing consumers and industry would have been hard to address unilaterally because of existing laws. TPP worked to improve the balance in favor of US consumers and the government. By definition, trade negotiations involve demands that are followed by concessions in exchange for concessions from the other side. The Australians and their relatively stronger consumer protection on this issue helped us reach a better balance.






http://blogs.piie.com/trade/?author=65


*General Issues*




A2: “Anti-China” TPP is not anti-ChinaXenia Wickett, Project Director, US and Dean at The Queen Elizabeth II Academy for Leadership in International Affairs at Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, October 7, 2015, “For the West, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Must Not Falter,” Chatham House, https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/west-trans-pacific-partnership-must-not-falter?utm_source= Chatham%20House%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6254470_Newsletter%20-%2009.10.2015&dm_i= 1TYB,3Q1ZA,ESXKMS,DEFI5,1, ACC. 10-30-2015

Despite the rhetoric from some, the deal is not about excluding China. There are some who hope, some day, to see it join. But, at the same time, it could facilitate a diversification by many Asian states away from their current China-dependence (excepting Brunei, China is the number one importer for all the Asian TPP states and in the top three for their exports).





https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/xenia-wickett


A2: Chinese Hates China doesn’t care about TPP. It will just circumventAllison Jackson, Staff Writer, October 9, 2015, “Why China doesn’t mind being left out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/10/09/why-china-doesnt-mind-being-left-out-trans-pacific-partnership/73640192/, ACC. 10-30-2015

Excluding China has been widely interpreted as an attempt by the United States to curtail Beijing’s growing political and economic might in the Asia Pacific region, and some experts have described it as a “terrible mistake.” But does Beijing really care? Possibly not as much as you might think. For starters, China doesn’t need to belong to the TPP to enjoy some of the perks that come with being a member. Beijing already has free trade agreements with more than half of the TPP countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, Singapore, Brunei and Vietnam, and it can exploit those arrangements to minimize or avoid import duties that would normally apply to made-in-China products.

China doesn’t need the TPP for global leadershipAllison Jackson, Staff Writer, October 9, 2015, “Why China doesn’t mind being left out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/10/09/why-china-doesnt-mind-being-left-out-trans-pacific-partnership/73640192/, ACC. 10-30-2015

And China clearly doesn’t require the TPP to enhance its already sizeable influence in the world. Beijing is a card-carrying member of the W orld Trade Organization, has a permanent seat on the U nited Nations Security Council and is the driving force behind the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which could potentially become a rival to the World Bank and Asia Development Bank once it gets going. The China-led AIIB, which has the support of dozens of countries, aims to fund infrastructure projects in the region and could help Beijing buy the support of its neighbors. China is also on track to become one of the world’s biggest overseas investors by 2020, with outbound foreign direct investment already topping $100 billion a year. In some countries, China’s investment is actually bigger than the loans they get from the International Monetary Fund, and that gives Beijing a lot of economic and political clout. On top of that China is busy negotiating its own free-trade pact with 15 countries in the Asia Pacific region and is expected to become the world's largest economy in the next decade. “That preponderance is driven by China’s sheer size, its continued growth — which though slower than in the past is still faster than that of most other Asian economies — and its increasing centrality in global supply chains,” Arthur Kroeber, managing director of Gavekal Dragonomics and editor of China Economic Quarterly, told Foreign Policy. Missing out on a TPP membership card won't change that.




A2: Hurts Chinese Economy / Leadership TPP will not undermine Chinese economic influence in Asia for three reasonsArthur R. Kroeber, managing director of GaveKal Dragonomics and editor of China Economic Quarterly, October 5, 2015, “What Will the TPP Mean for China?,” Foreign Policy, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/china-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-obama-us-trade-xi/, ACC. 10-31-2015

For the most part I concur with Barry about the scale and importance of the TPP, and the challenges it poses for China both economically and strategically. I’m not sure I agree, though, that it will do much to “reduce Chinese economic preponderance” in the region. That preponderance is driven by China’s sheer size, its continued growth — which though slower than in the past is still faster than that of most other Asian economies — and its increasing centrality in global supply chains. Moreover, China has its own strategy for increasing its influence, through projects under the “Belt and Road” umbrella, which will be funded by Chinese policy banks and the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The impact of the Belt and Road initiative will likely be felt more immediately and concretely than the effect of the TPP, many of whose features will phase in slowly over several years.

TPP would improve Chinese economic performance via reformsBarry Naughton, the So Kwanlok Chair of Chinese International Affairs at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego, October 5, 2015, “What Will the TPP Mean for China?,” Foreign Policy, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/china-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-obama-us-trade-xi/, ACC. 10-31-2015

Third, TPP increases the pressures within China for more decisive economic reforms. China launched the Shanghai Free Trade Zone (FTZ) two years ago, partly in order to pilot measures of external liberalization that would be useful in a new round of reform. The possibility that TPP would be agreed to was a consideration, and part of the impetus for the Shanghai FTZ. However, the FTZ has so far under-performed expectations. Now, the new trade agreement will present officials with a clear benchmark of global best practice. The TPP will give advocates of economic reform within China a new argument to support more substantial opening measures after a bad year.







A2: TPP = Global Model TPP will not go global Guy de Jonquières, a senior fellow at the European Centre for International Political Economy, October 5, 2015, “What Will the TPP Mean for China?,” Foreign Policy, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/china-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-obama-us-trade-xi/, ACC. 10-31-2015

Obama’s claims that the TPP will enable the United States to set the rules for global trade also look more than a touch hyperbolic for other reasons, too. For one thing, to do so would require China’s assent. But why should China sign up to U.S.-prescribed rules on labor or environmental standards, with no guarantee of obtaining reciprocal trade benefits from the U.S. that Washington would undoubtedly find politically difficult to deliver? For another, to be truly global, rules would require the acquiescence of the European Union. Yet attempts by Washington and Brussels to achieve common regulatory ground in negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership are progressing very slowly, and in some areas the gaps between the U.S. and Europe appear to be widening, not narrowing. For all these reasons, China may feel it can afford to take a relaxed attitude to TPP. In any case, it now believes initiatives such as One Belt One Road, the China-led AIIB and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), its own regional trade plan, have given it options. In addition to which, as Arthur points out, it is far from obvious that Washington has a coherent strategic vision of how the TTP fits into its concept of its relations with China.




Verbatim 4.6 · Web viewThe personal trauma of facing the TSA's airport screening process was...

Documents

Transcript of Verbatim 4.6 · Web viewThe personal trauma of facing the TSA's airport screening process was...