Download - Give Back Gitmo - Leonardi

7/28/2019 Give Back Gitmo - Leonardi

1/89

Give Back Gitmo


2/89

1AC

Contention One: Torture

The House is currentlyblocking Obamas attempt to close Guantanamo Bay thestatus quo is political gridlockZengerle 13(Patricia, writer for Reuters, House Votes to block Obama plan to close Guantanamo, 6.14.13, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/14/us-usa-defense-guantanamo-idUSBRE95D12F20130614, [CL])

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a massive defense bill on Friday that includes measures to

block President Barack Obama's plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, underscoring the tough

fight ahead for the White House as it seeks to shutter the controversial detention camp. TheRepublican-controlled House voted, 315-108, for the $638 billion National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes money for weapons, troops andthe war in Afghanistan. But it also addresses a range of policy matters, including this year's efforts to combat sexual assault in the military and

provisions intended to prevent the closure of the prison camp at the base in Cuba. Despite a hunger strike by at least 104 of the 166prisoners and appeals from Obama that the prison is too expensive to maintain and a recruiting tool

for anti-American militants, the House voted, 249-174 , to defeat an amendment calling for its

shutdown by the end of 2014. Lawmakers also voted to prevent the transfer to Yemen or the United States of any of the prisoners,captured in counterterrorism operations after the September 11, 2001, attacks, although more than half have been cleared for release during U.S.military and intelligence reviews. Obama, who had pledged during his 2008 presidential campaign to shut down the Guantanamo prison, had hiscounterterrorism adviser, Lisa Monaco, call legislators this week in a last-ditch effort to build support for closing the base. LESS RESISTANCE IN

SENATE The House vote does not end Obama's hopes of shutting down the prison. The Senatemust still pass its version of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, and then the two will bereconciled before being submitted to Obama, who has threatened to veto the House version of the bill. There is less resistance toclosing Guantanamo in the Senate, where Obama's fellow Democrats hold a slim majority. A handful of Republicans, includingArizona's influential Senator John McCain, also want it shut. The Senate Armed Services Committ ee's version of the bill - which still faces a vote in thefull Senate - would give the defense department more flexibility to close the Guantanamo prison.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/14/us-usa-defense-guantanamo-idUSBRE95D12F20130614http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/14/us-usa-defense-guantanamo-idUSBRE95D12F20130614http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/14/us-usa-defense-guantanamo-idUSBRE95D12F20130614http://www.reuters.com/places/afghanistanhttp://www.reuters.com/places/yemenhttp://www.reuters.com/places/yemenhttp://www.reuters.com/places/afghanistanhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/14/us-usa-defense-guantanamo-idUSBRE95D12F20130614http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/14/us-usa-defense-guantanamo-idUSBRE95D12F20130614


3/89

Meanwhile, conditions are getting worse every day in the prison no one inWashington is willing to move on closing Guantanamo every day that the Baseremains open is a day of torture for prisoners on hunger strikeFrommer 13(Frederic, USA Today, 7.16.13, US Judge Turns Down Bid to End Gitmo Force-Feeding,http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/16/judge-rules-on-gitmo-force-feeding/2521535/, [CL])

WASHINGTON (AP) A federal judge Tuesday turned down a bid by three Guantanamo Bay

detainees on a hunger strike to stop the government from force-feeding them. Judge Rosemary M.

Collyer ruled that she doesn't have jurisdiction in the case , because Congress has removed

Guantanamo detainees' treatment and conditions of confinement from the purview of federalcourts. She said there was "nothing so shocking or inhumane in the treatment" that would raise a constitutional concern. Collyer, an appointee ofPresident George W. Bush, wrote that even if she did have jurisdiction, she would deny the detainees' motion for an injunction.While theeffort is framed as a motion to stop force-feeding, the prisoners' "real complaint is that the UnitedStates is not allowing them to commit suicide by starvation," she wrote. She said that the United States cannot allow aperson in custody to die of self-inflicted starvation, and that numerous courts have recognized the government's duty to prevent suicide and to providelife-saving nutritional and medical care to people in custody. The three men, Shaker Aamer, Nabil Hadjarab and Ahmed Belbacha, have all been clearedfor release but remain at Guantanamo. Jon Eisenberg, one of the attorneys for the detainees, said Collyer was wrong when she said the detainees are

demanding a right to commit suicide. "She has misunderstood the purpose of the hunger strike. It's not to

commit suicide, it's to protest indefinite detention," he said.

As to her conclusion that there wasnothing inhumane about force-feeding, Eisenberg said, "Human rights advocates, medical ethicistsand religious leaders say otherwise." He said the lawyers were considering an appeal. Another judge, Gladys Kessler, turned down asimilar case last week, also concluding that she lacked jurisdiction. But she called force-feeding a "painful, humiliating and degrading process." Kessler,

who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote that there is one person who does have the authority to

address the issue and then quoted a recent speech from President Barack Obama in which he criticized the force-feeding of the

prisoners at Guantanamo as he said he would renew his efforts to close the prison. " The president of the United States, as commander in

chief, has the authorityand powerto directly address the issue of force-feeding of the detaineesat Guantanamo Bay," she wrote. Lawyers for prisoners saythe most recent hunger strike began in Februaryas aprotest of conditions and their indefinite confinement at the U.S. base in Cuba. As of Tuesday, themilitary said, a little under half of the 166 detainees were participating in the hunger strike.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/16/judge-rules-on-gitmo-force-feeding/2521535/http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/16/judge-rules-on-gitmo-force-feeding/2521535/


4/89

In Guantanamo Bay 44 prisoners are force-fed every day. Standard OperatingProcedure is to strap the detainee to a chair while cuffed, insert a long tube fromthe nose into the stomach, and pump nutrients into the stomach with a syringe.The process takes over two hours. Its so painful that it creates permanent healthproblems and scars the victims for life.Hajjar 13(Lisa, professor of Sociology at UC Santa Barbara, The Agony and the Irony of Guantanamos Mass Hunger Strike, 6.20.13,http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/12332/the-agony-and-the-irony-of-guantanamo%E2%80%99s-mass-hunge, [CL])

More than two-thirds of the prisoners at Guantnamo104 reportedlyare hunger striking, and forty-four are being force fed. Four have been hospitalized for causes relating to their force feeding or hunger striking. The current mass hungerstrike bears many resemblances and shares some common causes to the mass strike in 2006. Some prisoners have been on hunger strike for years.Hunger striking is a classic method used by prisoners to protest the conditions of their detention. In Formations of Violence, Allen Feldmans study ofIrish Republican Army (IRA) prisoners in British custody, he explains the politics of deliberate self-starvation: It is not only a matter ofwhat history

does to the body but what subjects do with what history has done to the body. The choice to exercise the limited power thatprotesting prisoners havethe power to refuse to eatis, in Feldmans words, a form of counter-instrumentation of their own bodies. As one Yemeni hunger-striking prisoner wrote in a notereleased by his lawyer David Remes:

A human being should defend himself, but if he were to become totally unable to do so, heshould take the difficult and simple decision because he has no other options. Doing so, he

achieves victory over injustice and humiliation and feels his dignity as a human being.Over a dozen of Remes eighteen clients are hunger striking, and four are being force fed. He provided the following narrativ e of the events that led tothe mass strike:When President Obama took office in 2009, he sent Admiral Patrick M. Walsh to GTMO [Guantnamo] to determine whether the prison met thestandards of Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Conventions]. Predictably, Walsh reported that, yes, the camp complied with Common Article 3, butthey could do even better! Thereafter, conditions in the camps markedly improved, the only creditable aspect of President Obamas GTMO policy. TheJoint Detention Group (JDG), a component of the Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF), ruled with a light touch and maintained the peace an Era of

Good Feelingsuntil the summer of 2012. In June 2012, JDG command passed to Colonel John V. Bogdan, one-timecommander of an MP [military police] brigade that operated in East Bagdad. Unlike his Obama-era predecessors, Bogdan brought atough-guy approach to detention operations and he has ruled the camps with an iron fist.Marked by displays of power for powers sake, his approach has led to mayhem in the camps. InSeptember, Bogdan, without provocation, had his men storm Camp 6 [where compliant detaineeslived communally]. During the fall, conditions in the camps deteriorated: for example, temperatures in the cells were lowered to 62 [degreesFahrenheit]. In January[2013], a tower guard in the recreation area fired into a group of detainees,

wounding one,[i] and in early February, the mass hunger strike broke out. Bogdan lit the fuse when he or oneof his Officers in Charge (OIC) had the guards conduct a sweeping search of the mens cells in Camp 6, where about 130 of the 166 detainees were held.Guards arbitrarily confiscated personal items including family letters and photographs, legal papers, and extra blankets. (Civilians confiscated thepapers.) Bogdan or his OICs also attempted to search the mens Qurans, using interpreters to do the dirty work.[ii] That fateful decisi on ignited thehunger strike. What upset the men was not how the Qurans were to be searched but the fact that they were to be searched at all. JDG had stoppedsearching Qurans in 2006. According to our clients, JDG has admitted that it had no concrete reason to reinstitute Quran searches. Bogdan, however,decided to revert to the rules of 2006, which provided for Quran searches, a most provocative display of power. The men have offered to surrender theirQurans to the military permanently to avoid searches. Surrendering Qurans was a common solution to threatened searches in the Bush administrationdays, when men feared their Qurans would be searched when they met with their lawyers. (Putting the men to that choice was one of the cleverdisincentives for such meetings.) Bogdan, however, will not agree to stop searches or take the Qurans. Bogdan wont even discuss the mens grievances

until theyend their hunger strike. Hell be damned if he blinks first. Meanwhile, he is using brutal tactics to break the strike.Many men now view the strike as a means of protesting the very fact that they continue to be held. These men, including many of my clients, say theyare determined to leave Guantnamo one way or the otheralive or in a box.Of the 130 detainees who were held in communal conditions in Camp 6, more than 100 were moved into solitary cells during a pre-dawn raid on 13April. According to a newly-revised Standard Operating Procedure manual obtained from the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and published byAl Jazeera, in the event of a mass hung er strike, isolating hunger striking patients from each other is vital to prevent th em from achieving solidarity.

But, according to Remes who spoke by telephone to one of his clients on 14 June, the hunger strike is still going strong. F orce Feeding Thenumber of prisoners being force-fed is rising as the strike endures. The American Medical Association, theInternational Committee of the Red Cross, and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights have protested the practice of

force feeding at Guantnamo as illegal and unethical. Force feeding is a blatant contravention of the will ofprisoners who have chosen to refuse food. When administered by doctors, the practice violates the World Medical Associations(WMA) 1975 Tokyo Declaration and 1991 Malta Declaration. Luke Mitchell, formerly an editor at Harpers Maga zine who has written extensively aboutissues related to force feeding, provided the following account:

The British did not force [IRA prisoner] Bobby Sands to eat and so he died a martyr, which is one reason the USis so eager to force feed prisoners today. I interviewed William Winkenwerder at some length about this in 2006 [during the previous mass hungerstrike at GTMO], when he was the top doctor at the Pentagon. Winkenwerder, citing the WMA 1991 declaration, suggested that force-feeding wasokayit was just up to individual doctors whether or not they wanted to participate. But that was backwards. In fact, the WMA had declared that in acase where a doctor cannot accept the patients decision to refuse such aidthat is, force feedingthe patient would then be entitled to be attendedby another physician. In other words, all conscious patients have an absolute r ight to refuse aid when that aid is in the form of force-feeding. I readthat passage to Winkenwerder, and he said that's new to me.
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/12332/the-agony-and-the-irony-of-guantanamo%E2%80%99s-mass-hungehttp://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/12332/the-agony-and-the-irony-of-guantanamo%E2%80%99s-mass-hunge


5/89

What does all of this have to do with Sands? I asked Winkenwerder about Sands, and he said he hadn't studied that case. But ju st a few weeks later,

an unnamed Pentagon official told the Toronto Star that death by starvation was unacceptable.The worst case would be to have someone go from zero to hero, he said. We dont want a BobbySands. Why was Winkenwerder being so disingenuous? The legality of force-feeding [under US law] is vague. Federal Bureau of Prison guidelinesallow it, but some specific cases forbid it.[iii] Judges can go either way. Considerable evidence suggests that it is being used as a form of torture, though.

Torture is illegal, of course, and so the Pentagon has an important stake in convincing the public(and the courts) that force-feeding is an ethical medical procedure. But that requiresconsiderable rhetorical dexterity, because the WMA is absolutely unambiguous: force-feeding isunethical. The rhetorical dexterity includes euphemization; the practice of force feeding is officially termed enteral feeding or tube feeding.Prisoners who absolutely refuse to be fed may be strapped to restraint chairs which were imported to thefacility during the 2006 strike and in design resemble electric chairs. Some who wish to strike but are faced with the prospect of violent cell extraction

and the chair consent to having the tube inserted into their noses and the Ensure pumped into their stomachs.According tospokesperson Durand, Passing out constitutes consent to a tube feeding. Apparently, President Obama did notget the memo on the o fficial preference for euphemism. On 23 May he delivered a major national security speech (the second in his entire term in office) in which he spoke about the hunger strike at Guantnamoas a crisis and a policy failure: Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike. Is that who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that theAmerica we want to leave to our children? At a press conference on 4 June, Marine General John F. Kelly, the commander of SOUTHCOM, took issue with the presidents statement. We dont force-feed rightnow at Gitmo. Rather, troops enterally feed hunger strikers. White House National Security spokesperson Caitlin Hayden was asked whether Obama would retract his remarks about forced feedings. ThePresidents comments stand. Journalists Are the Eyes of the World In March, one month into the strike, The Miami Heralds Ca rol Rosenberg reported on a tour of Camp 6 during which she and other journalistswitnessed prisoners refusing food. A Guantnamo spokesperson, Navy Captain Robert Durand, responded to media queries by stating that the hunger strike is specifically designed by the prisoners to attractmedia attention. Rosenberg reported on the array of answers provided to journalists about why the prison military and medical staff would not permit prisoners to refuse to eat: Its not humane. The motto of the1,700-strong detention center staffis Safe,Humane, Legal, Transparent. And the answer from an Army captain named John, the officer in charge of Guantnamos communal Camp 6, was that the militarycouldnt let detainees starve themselves to death because that would be inhumane. They can choose not to eat but were not going to let them starve.First, do no harm is the creed of medical professionals, andto let a captive starve is at odds with US military medicine. A Navy lieutenant commander wearing a nameplate with the moniker Leonato put it this way: Were obligated to protect life. I signed on as a nurse notto carry a rifle but to keep people alive, render medical care. Im here to deliver therapeutic care as a mental health professional.Its un-American. Allowing a detainee to harm himself is not only counter to ourresponsibilities under the laws of war, but is anathema to our values as Americans, says Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, the Pentagon spokesman responsible for detention and legal issues. Allowing a peacefullyprotesting detainee to harm himself by choosing to sit by while he starves himself to the point of endangering his life is not only a violation of the very code followed by civilized peoples everywhere, but it is theworst kind of victors justice: repugnant and wholly unacceptable.It looks bad. Its our job to take care of them, to feed them and take care of their needs, says Zak, the Arab-American cultural advisor to the

admiral in charge of the detention center, who like nearly everybody who works there grants interviews on condition that his full name not be published. Otherwise they will say we killed them, [or] let them die.Its policy. Thats [the answer provided by spokesperson] Durand... Journalists currently reporting from Guantnamo are not taken on prison tours, except the abandoned Camp X-ray. According to TruthoutsAdam Hudson, the explanation offered by the JTF spokesperson is that the military commissions and the prison are separate issues, and journalists are there to report on the former. Rolling Stones John Knefelreports that journalists who want to tour th e prison must schedule a separate expedition to the island and, according to a Pentagon spokesperson, We're booked up until mid-fall and possibly beyond. The Math

and Chemistry of Strike Breaking The Standard Operating Procedure manual, which went into effect on 5 March, details thegeneral algorithm for assessing hunger strikers. Al Jazeeras Jason Leopold writes:Prisoners are designated as hunger strikers, according to the guidelines, if they communicate, either directly or indirectly (i.e.: repeated meal refusals)his intent to undergo a hunger strike or fast as a form of protest or demand attention, or if they miss nine consecutive mea ls and their body weight falls

below 85 percent of either previous or ideal weightusually calculated using the median BMI [body mass index] for a prisoner's height. Themanual also describes the chair restraint system clinical protocol for personnel whoadminister the force feeding. The medical personnel, who serve under Guantnamo Commander John Smith, have no professionalautonomy according to the manual.A prisoner selected for force feeding undergoes the following procedures: First, he isoffered one last chance to eat voluntarily before being put in the restraint chair. If he does notconsent to eat, the medical provider signs [the] medical restraint order. Then a guard shacklesthe prisoner and places a mask over his mouth to prevent spitting and biting. A feeding tube is

inserted through his nose. Medics use a stethoscope and a test dose of water to check that the tube has descended all the way to hisstomach. When the tube has been secured with tape, the enteral nutrition and water that has been ordered is started, and flo w rate is adjusted

according to detainee's condition and tolerance. The feeding can be completed in twenty to thirty minutes but might take up to twohours. After the nutrient infusion is completed, he is placed in a dry cell and observed for up to sixty minutes for any indications of vomiting orattempts to induce vomiting. If he vomits, he can be put through the whole process again. If this coercive hungermanagement process were not appalling enough, another revelation contained in the manual is the authorizationofa controversial drug to enhance digestion that may cause serious and permanent neurological disorders. Al JazeerasLeopold reports:

Metoclopramide, commonly known by its brand name Reglan, is supposed to speed up the digestive process andremove the urge to vomit during force feeding. However , medical studies into the drug have determined thatReglan also is linked to a high rate of tardive dyskinesia (TD), a potentiallyirreversible anddisfiguring disorder characterized by involuntary movements of the face, tongue, or extremities.The studies prompted the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] in February 2009 to slap Reglan with a black box label the agency's strongest

warningto inform patients about the dangers associated with chronic use of the drug. According to the FDA's own medication guide, additionalside effects include depression, thoughts about depression and, in extreme cases, suicidal thoughts and suicide. Thelack of consent in force feeding as well as the involuntary administration of Reglan and other drugs is medical malpractice. That some of the drugsprisoners are forced to ingest or are given unaware have potentially harmful side effects borders on human experimentation, especially given the stern

FDA warnings. On 30 May, fourteen prisoners wrote an open letter to the Guantnamo medical staffprotesting their treatment and requesting access to independent doctors. Dear doctor, they wrote:

You may be able to keep me alive for a long time in a permanently debilitated state. But with somany of us on hunger strike, you are attempting a treatment experiment on an unprecedentedscaleWhether you remain in the military or return to civilian practice, you will have to live with

what you have done and not done here at Guantnamo for the rest of your life.


6/89

Pain in itself is a difficult impact to conceptualize because it eludes the grasp ofwords, but today we challenge you to think about the pain that detaineesexperience every day torture is not just pain, it destroys the person whoexperiences it from the inside out. Every day in Guantanamo we take people apartand annihilate the things that make them human dignity and autonomy.Scarry 87(Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University , Elaine, The Body in Pain, 1987, BH)

The position of the person who is tortured is in many ways, of course, radically different from that of theperson who experiences pain in a religious context, or that of an old person facing death, or that of the person who is hurtin a dentist's office. One simple and essential difference is duration: although a dentist's drill may in fact be the torturer's instrument, itwill not land on a nerve for the eternity of a few seconds but for the eternity of the uncountable number of second s that make up the period of torture, a

period that may be seventeen hours on a single day or four hours a day on each of twenty-nine days . A second difference is control:the person tortured does not will his entry into and withdrawal out of the pain as the religiouscommunicant enters and leaves the pain of a Good Friday meditation, or as the patient enters and leaves the pain of the healing therapy. A thirddifference is purpose: the path of worldly objects is swept clean not, as in religion, to make roomfor the approach of some divinely intuited force nor, as in medicine and dentistry, to repair the ground for the return of theworld itself; there is in torture not even a fragment of a benign explanation as there is in old agewhere the absence of the world from oneself can be understood as an experienceable inversion

of the eventual but unexperienceable absence of oneself from the world . Perhaps only in the prolonged andsearing pain caused by accident or by disease or by the breakdown of the pain pathway itself is there the same brutal senselessness as in torture. Butthese other nonpolitical contexts are called upon because they make immediately self-evident a central fact about pain that, although emphatically

present in torture, is also obscured there by the idiom of "betrayal." It is the intense pain that destroys a person's self andworld, a destruction experienced spatially as either the contraction of the universe down to theimmediate vicinity of the body or as the body swelling to fill the entire universe. Intense pain isalso language-destroying: as the content of one's world disintegrates, so the content of one's language disintegrates ; as the selfdisintegrates, so that which would express and project the self is robbed of its source and itssubject. World, self, and voice are lost, or nearly lost, through the intense pain of torture and not through the confession as iswrongly suggested by its connotations of betrayal. The prisoner's confession merely objectifies the fact of their being almost lost, makes their invisibleabsence, or nearby absence, visible to the torturers. To assent to words that through the thick agony of the body can be only dimly heard, or to reachaimlessly for the name of a person or a place that has barely enough cohesion to hold its shape as a word and none to bond it to its worldly referent, is away of saying, yes, all is almost gone now, there is almost nothing left now, even this voice, the sounds I am making, no longer form my words but thewords of another. Torture, then, to return for a moment to the starting point, consists of a primary physical act, the infliction of pain, and a primaryverbal act, the interrogation. The verbal act, in turn, consist s of two parts, "the question" and "the answer," each with conventional connotations thatwholly falsify it. "The question" is mistakenly understood to be "the motive"; "the answer" is mistakenly understood to be "the betrayal ." The first

mistake credits the torturer, providing him with a justification, his cruelty with an explanation. The second discredits the prisoner, making him ratherthan the torturer, his voice rather than his pain, the cause of his loss of self and world. These two misinterpretations are obviously neither accidentalnor unrelated. The one is an absolution of responsibility; the other is a conferring of responsibility; the two together turn the moral reality of torture

upside down.Almost anyone looking at the physical act of torture would be immediately appalledand repulsed by the torturers. It is difficult to think of a human situation in which the lines ofmoral responsibility are more starkly or simply drawn, in which there is a more compellingreason to ally one's sympathies with the one person and to repel the claims of the other.Yet assoon as the focus of attention shifts to the verbal aspect of torture, those lines have begun to

waver and change their shape in the direction of accommodating and crediting the torturers.21This inversion, this interruption and redirecting of a basic moral reflex, is indicative of the kind of interactionsoccurring between body and voice in torture and suggests why the infliction of acute physicalpain is inevitably accompanied by the interrogation. However near the prisoner, the torturer stands, the distance betweentheir physical realities is colossal, for the prisoner is in overwhelming physical pain while the torturer is utterly without pain; he is free of any painoriginating in his own body; he is also free of the pain originating in the agonized body so near him. He is so without any human recognition of or

identification with the pain that he is not only able to bear its presence but able to bring it continually into the present, inflict it* sustain it, minute afterminute, hour after hour. Although the distance separating the two is probably the greatest distance that can separate two human beings, it is an

invisible distance since the physical realities it lies between are each invisible. The prisoner experiences an annihilatingnegation so hugely felt throughout his own body that it overflows into the spaces before his eyesand in his ears and mouth; yet one which is unfelt, unsensed by anybody else. The torturerexperiences the absence of this annihilating negation., These physical realities, an annihilating negation and an absenceof negation, are therefore translated into verbal realities in order to make the invisible distance visible, in order to make what is taking place in terms ofpain take place in terms of power, in order to shift what is occurring exclusively in the mode of sentience into the mode of self-extension and world. Thetorturer's questionsasked, shouted, insisted upon, pleaded forobjectify the fact that he has a world, announce in their feigned urgency the criticalimportance of that world, a world whose asserted magnitude is confirmed by the cruelty it is able to motivate and justify. Part of what makes his worldso huge is its continual juxtaposition with the small and shredded world objectified in the prisoner's answers, answers that articulate and comment on


7/89

the disintegration of all objects to which he might have been bonded in loyalty or love or good sense or long familiarity. It is only the prisoner's steadilyshrinking ground that wins for the torturer his swelling sense of territory. The question and the answer are a prolonged comparative display, anunfurling of world maps.

The dehumanization that torture necessitates breeds a way of thinking about otherpeople that turns us into a brutal, violent people that wont think twice about thehumanity of those outside of our moral compass this makes all forms of violence

possibleCrelinsten 3(RONALD CRELINSTEN is Professor of Criminology at the University of Ottawa, Canada, Observatorio de Seguranca, The world of torture: Aconstructed reality, 2003, http://www.observatoriodeseguranca.org/files/the%20world%20of%20torture.pdf)

Finally, dehumanization is used to render the victim deserving of his or her fate in the eyes of thetorturer. Torturers represent the end product of a selective and progressive training process in

which conscientious objectors, doubters, independent thinkers and sensitive persons areweeded out along the way. As a result, those who becomeprofessional torturers are no longer in easy touch with such feelings asempathy, compassion or concern for the fate of their victims. As Pieter Kooijmans, former UN Special Rapporteur on questions of torture, puts it in his1992 report: We should be aware . . . that torture is only the final link in a long chain. The seeds of torture are sown whene ver a society toleratessituations where respect for the human dignity of fellow citizens is taken lightly. The situation in the former Yugoslavia is a vivid illustration of this.

Lack of respect for the inherent dignity of fellow human beings just because they belong to adifferent ethnic group has led to a situation where torture, rape and murder are rampant. (United

Nations, 1993: 129, para. 582, emphasis added) Here we see the nefarious consequences of scapegoating andus/them thinking, whereby certain groups or individuals are excluded from the moral universeof respect for other human beings, thereby opening the way to brutal and savage treatment. Groupcohesion is so often maintained by the creation of a common enemy, an out-group, replete with social pariah s, traitors, infidels and barbarians. Thisinout, usthem splitting is one of the prime vehicles for legitimizingwithin the eyes of the in-groupthe moral transgressions towards members of the out-group.The process of realityconstruction involves the gradual and progressive exclusion of the members of the targetedgroup by stripping them of their human identity and redefining them as enemy aliens. The Jews weredepicted by the Nazis as vermin. In the Second World War, the Americans depicted the Japanese as apes, while the Japanese depicted the Americans as

insects (Dower, 1986). In Rwanda, the Hutus called the Tutsis snakes and cockroaches (Ruth Jamieson, personal communication). In war, ingenocide, in repression, one of the principal features of gross human rights violations, such astorture, systematic rape or ill-treatment of prisoners, is the denial of the victims human dignity.This redefinition of part of the human family is a core element of the new reality constructed bythe torture regime.

Plan:

The United States federal government should declare Guantanamo Bay a Cubanfree trade zone.

Contention Two: Solvency

Turning Guantanamo Bay into a free trade zone returns the Bay to Cubans withouthanding it over to the Castros that shuts down the prison and protects the islandfrom predatory investmentSymmes 9(Patrick, The Daily Beast, Tear Down this Wall, 4.10.09, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/04/10/tear-down-this-wall.html, [CL])

The Cuban revolution's many failures have left a regime weakened and vulnerable, yet capable of sustaining itself for years thanks to isolation and a

monopoly grip on every aspect of life. The sea keeps Cubans trapped inside the Castro system, and I well remember on my first visit to
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/04/10/tear-down-this-wall.htmlhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/04/10/tear-down-this-wall.htmlhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/04/10/tear-down-this-wall.htmlhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/04/10/tear-down-this-wall.html


8/89

Havana in 1992 noting its seeming openness and tranquility. I saw no barbed wire, no machine guns or snarling dogs.Cuba didn't look like East Berlin. But there is a wall. It is 17.4 miles long, and topped with razor

wire. It is thewalla fence, reallythat separates Gitmo from the rest of Cuba. Opening up

Guantnamo Bay to free trade with Cuba effectively lifting the trade embargo, but only here

could transform a symbolic sore spot for America into a free-trade zone where Cubans and Cuban-

Americans could leverage trade into a better society. The way to bring radical change to Cuba is to returnGuantnamo Bay to the Cubansbut not to the Castros. The Miami-based diaspora of some 1.6 million Cuban-bornpeople and their offspring could turn the base into something many of them love dearly: a business opportunity. As a tax-free, duty-free, open-tradezone run by Cuban-Americans for the benefit of their brethren on the island, Guantnamo Bay could become a model for a new Cuba, a place where fairdealing, the rule of law and free speech are the norm. By starting businesses catering to Cubans, and later opening factories to employ them, Cuban-Americans would bring normal rights o nto Cuban soil. Open the border at Gitmo, initiate trade and the Castro regime's stranglehold would start to

crumble. Pent-up demand for goods is huge in Cuba. The population has been deprived for decades of everything from shoesand bluejeans to auto parts and chicken sandwiches. Cubans would empty a Wal-Mart in hours if they had thechance. But they don't. Private shops were shut in the 1960s, self-employment is tightlyrestricted (under Ral Castro, working as a birthday-party clown has been banned) and it is still illegal to employ even oneother person. Only the state can run a business: more than 90 percent of Cubans earn agovernment paycheck, often worth as little as $12 a month, and are dependent on a rice-and-

beans rationing system that can't deliver much else.What can people without money buy in a free-trade zone? Everything they already buy, but cheaper. Ordinary people spend their tiny salaries on overpriced goods instate storeseffectively subsidizing their oppressors. Cuba buys cooking oil abroad for 80 cents a liter and sells it in state-run "dollar stores" at $2.20 aliter. Much of that money comes from abroad, anyway: President Obama has already loosened currency restrictions on Cuban-Americans, who send $1

billion home to the island annually. But the Castro government takes 20 percent of every dollar incommissions, so any increase in spending power for Cubans merely translates into deeper

pockets for the regime. A total lifting of the embargo would have the same effect: as long as

the state stores hold a monopoly, all trade deals only keep the decrepit Communist Party

system running . Washington does approve one form of trade with Cuba: farm products. In the name of humanitarianism, agribusinessgiants are allowed to ship Kansas wheat, Louisiana rice and frozen Arkansas chicken to Cuba. In one Havana store, guarded by a man with a club, I saw

pork sausage from North Carolina and turkeys from Virginiaall at hard-currency prices no Cuban could afford without money from abroad. Thisinvisible U.S.-Cuban trade is worth some $800 million a year, and one third of all calories inCuba now come from the U.S. Why is this outreach entrusted only to large exporters with big lobbying arms? Why not let America'smost devoted apostles of free trade and small business, the Miami Cubans, have a go? If anyone knows how to start from nothing which is thecondition Cuba is in nowit is the island's children abroad. Let the exiles return, if only to sell bluejeans and roof tiles out of Guantnamo. It may be

tempting to cut the knot with one blow, ending all trade and travel restrictions. But don't lift the embargo just to let big U.S.exporters deal directly with the island's jailers. Lift the embargo at Guantnamo Bay, and on ourterms: direct trade with ordinary Cubans. Of course this is unrealistic. But it was unrealistic of Ronald Reagan to demand in1987 that the Soviets tear down the Berlin Wall. He laid bare the tyranny that maintained the wall, and the people tore it down. If the United Statesdoes try to pull down the fence, or open its one gate, Havana will be forced to admit that the border is really sealed (by checkpoints) on the regime'sside. Legal objections, like the 1903 treaty restricting Guantnamo Bay to "no other purpose" than refueling ships, are meaningless. Fidel Castro alwaysdenounced the treaty as invalid and without force. Let him complain when he starts cashing the rent checks that have been sent punctually by courier

for the last 50 years. Creating a free-trade zone by and for Cubans, opening businesses and erectinghomes and perhaps even political institutions is a long-term project. But Ral Castro has purged his rivals andconsolidated power in the past two years, and there's no sign he's going away.Why not use the next few years to buildsomething better at Guantnamo Bay? Like a new Cuba. Tearing down the wall would be agrand gesture, but not an empty one. The regime is vulnerable to a tightly orchestrated lifting ofthe embargo at Gitmothat calm and beautiful destination in the Cuban sun.


9/89

Cuba wants to close the prison and will accept their land backits THEIR landDaily Star 13(The Daily Star Lebanon is an online journalism publication, Cuba Says U.S. Must Shut Guantanamo, Hand Back Base, 5.01.13,http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2013/May-01/215729-cuba-says-us-must-shut-guantanamo-hand-back-base.ashx#axzz2ZGOgoQ00, [CL])

GENEVA: Cuba's foreign minister demanded Wednesday that Washington shut its controversial

jail at Guantanamo Bay and return the long-held military base to Havana . The comments by BrunoRodriguez Parrilla to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva came a day after US President Barack Obama vowed again to shut the military prison,

saying it was damaging US interests. "We are deeply concerned about the legal limbo that supports thepermanent and atrocious violation of human rights at the illegal naval base in Guantanamo, aCuba territory that was usurped by the United States, a centre of torture and deaths of prisoners who are under custody,"Parrilla said during a review of Cuba's own rights record. He said 160 people had been detained in Guantanamo for 10 years , "without any guarantees,without being tried by a court or the right to legal defence". "That prison and military base should be shut d own and that territory should be returned to

Cuba," he said. The hunger strike, now into its 12th week, has heightened the pressure on Washington to shutwhat Obama has called a legal "no man's land". Obama said Tuesday he did not want any inmates to die and urgedCongress to help him find a long-term solution that would allow for prosecuting terror suspects

while shutting down Guantanamo. The facility was set up by his predecessor George W. Bush to hold suspects captured inAfghanistan and elsewhere after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Even before the creation of the jail, the US Navy base was a source of disputebetween Havana's communist rulers and bitter rival Washington. The United States signed a long-term lease for Guantanamo B ay after helping Cubathrow off Spanish colonial rule at the end of the 19th century. Already strategic for Washington's Caribbean regional policy because of its location in

southeastern Cuba, it acquired additional importance during the Cold War after the 1959 Cuban revolution. Since then, Cuba repeatedly haspressed for its return and has refused to cash in the rent which Washington pays into an escrowaccount.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2013/May-01/215729-cuba-says-us-must-shut-guantanamo-hand-back-base.ashx#axzz2ZGOgoQ00http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2013/May-01/215729-cuba-says-us-must-shut-guantanamo-hand-back-base.ashx#axzz2ZGOgoQ00http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2013/May-01/215729-cuba-says-us-must-shut-guantanamo-hand-back-base.ashx#axzz2ZGOgoQ00http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2013/May-01/215729-cuba-says-us-must-shut-guantanamo-hand-back-base.ashx#axzz2ZGOgoQ00http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2013/May-01/215729-cuba-says-us-must-shut-guantanamo-hand-back-base.ashx#axzz2ZGOgoQ00


10/89

Guantanamo is a crossroads for American democracy and the penal regime inthe face of a proliferating prison-industrial complex we must make a consciouschoice to become politically and ethically accountable for the consequences ofmilitary detainment and uniquely violent social institutions cloaked in thelanguage of legal technicality and acceptability.Brown 5(Professor of Crimonolgy and Sociology at Ohio State, 2005 (American Quarterly, 57:3, 973-977, MUSE)

Abu Ghraib, like Guantanamo and otherU.S. military prisons, marks the kind of penal expansion

that takes place in the context of wars with no end : wars on drugs, crime, and terror. In the U.S.,we imprison

more than anyone in the world and more than any other society has ever imprisoned for thepurposes of crime control, and we do so in a manner that is defined by race .57 Thisunprecedented use of imprisonment has largely taken place outside of democratic checks orpublic interest, in disregard of decades of work by penal scholars and activists who have introduced a vocabulary of warning through termssuch as "penological crisis," "incarceration binge," "prison-industrial complex," and the "warehousing" of offenders. Such massiveexpansion has direct effects upon the private lives of prisoners, prison workers, their families,and their communities. I have tried, at least, to point to the ways in which these effects may extend far beyond their immediate contextsinto a potential reconfiguration of public life. Such unprecedented penal expenditures mark the global

emergence of a new discourse of punishment , one whose racial divisions and abusivepractices are revised into a technical, legal language of acceptability, one in which Americans

are conveniently further distanced from the social realities of punishment through strategies ofisolation and exclusion, all conducted in a manner and on a scale that exacerbates thefundamental class, race, and gender contradictions and divisions of democracy. In this respect, the"new war prison" is constituted by both material practices and a discursive language whoseexpansion and intensification need recognize no limits, no borders, no bounds. I have used punishmentand torture interchangeably across this piece, not because I believe they are without distinction or difference, but because I believe, as history and

social theory teach us, that they are grounded in the same fundamental practice: the infliction of pain. Because punishment carries

pain, rupture, and trauma with it, its implementation will always be fundamentally tragic .

Torture, then, is not incidental to punishment. It is at its core . Instead of accepting this reality, the history of the practice and study of

punishment is marred by an assumption that intention matters, that explanations and justifications define punishment and itsappropriate use, and that the law can control its violence . However, these kinds of assumptions conceal thepresence of the law itself. When punishment is invoked, it is always intended to remind the people of the power and presence of the state.However, this is an invocation that is precisely meant to be avoided in democratic contexts, as strong governments have no need to rely upon force.

According to both Nietzsche and Durkheim, it is a weak state that will resort to a display offeree and violence. Any regime that decides

to inflict pain and harm will inevitably find itself caught up in a unique social institution

whose essence is violence and whose justifications are inherently problematic. Punishment is, thus,

always most usefully understood at its most elemental level: as a bloodlust for revenge, one whose essence is passion,unreason, anger, and emotion, whose invocation is highly individualized, subjective, and

personal, an insatiable urge that knows no limits . In such a setting, as sociolegal scholar

Austin Sarat argues, a "wildness" is introduced into the "house of law," wherein "privatebecomes public and public becomes private; passion is introduced into the temple of reason, and yet passion itself is subject tothe discipline of reason. Every effort to distinguish revenge and retribution nevertheless reveals that Vengeance arrives among us in a judiciousdisguise.'"58 The vengeance that underlies the implied calm reason of systematic, procedural, proportional retribution cannot be repressed and is

evidenced in contemporary patterns of punishment in the United States that often defy a rational logic of any kind.Any solidarity orsociality gained at the price of such punishment, then, speaks not only to the end of democracy

but of humanity as well. And so we went from September 11 to a war on terror, from Abu Ghraib to the summer of beheadings in anendless repetition whose limits are defined currently only in the possibility of sheer exhaustion. For American studies, this means that AbuGhraib operates at a series of intersections and borders that have rendered the fundamentalcontradictions of imprisonment in a democratic context acutely visible, if only temporarily. As the impossible

case for democracy, the "scandal" at Abu Ghraib reveals how an unmarked proliferation of penal


11/89

discourses, technologies, and institutions not only "set the conditions" for the grossest

violations of democratic values but revealed the normalcy and acceptability of these kinds of

practices in spaces beyond and between the law. Consequently,Abu Ghraib falls within a distinct category of

legal and territorial borders, those spaces that sociolegal scholar Susan Bibler Coutin observes "defy categories and paradigms,that 'don't fit,' and that therefore reveal the criteria that determine fittedness, spaces whose very

existence is simultaneously denied and demanded by the socially powerful." Capturing the sense ofdoubleness that characterizes Abu Ghraib, she describes these "targets of repression and zones of militarization" ascontradictory spaces that "are marginalized yet strategic, inviolate yet continually violated,forgotten yet significant."59 Many peoples exist at these borders, and all stories may be told there. But, and this is of crucial significance,there is no guarantee that these stories will be told. So much of the writing and thought surrounding the borderlands has beendirected at the development of a new social vision, derived from the pain of history andexperience, but grounded in the celebratory justice of the inevitable, vindicating arrival of thehybrid. As Gloria Anzaldua insists, "En unaspocas centurias, the future will belong to the mestiza."60 YetAbu Ghraib falls squarelyinto the kind of border zone that cannot be celebrated, a subaltern site where many stories and voices will never be toldor heard, no matter how we reconstruct its history and its events. Judith Butler observes that the subject outside of the law "is

neither alive nor dead , neither fully constituted as a subject nor fully deconstituted in

death."61 Under Saddam Hussein's rule, numberless thousands were lost in the prison. Under American occupation, "ghost detainees"

were a prevalent problem, unidentified, vanished inside the institution's own lost accountability.As Zizek points out, these individuals constitute the "living dead," those missed by bombs in thebattlefield, "their right to life forfeited by their having been the legitimate targets of murderous

bombings." This positioning has direct impact upon the legal privilege of their captors: "And just as the Guantnamo prisoners are

located , like homo sacer, in the space 'between two deaths,' but biologically are still alive ,the U.S. authorities that treat them in this way also have an indeterminate legal status. They set themselves up as a legal power, but their acts are no

longer covered and constrained by the law: they operate in an empty space which is, nevertheless, within the domain of the law."62 The spectacleof abuse at Abu Ghraib makes plain the consequences of putting prisoners and custodians in thisspace "between two deaths," a legal borderland filled with spectral violence, a space packed withpeople and yet profoundly empty of its humanity. Bibler Coutin writes, "I cannot celebrate the space of nonexistence.Even if this space is in some ways subversive, even if its boundaries are permeable, and even if itis sometimes irrelevant to individuals' everyday lives, nonexistence can be deadly."63 When writing ofAbu Ghraib, I find myself in a similar space, peering in at a border whose history, purpose, and foundations prevent it from being redeemed orreclaimed, its terrorized inhabitants the essence of Anzaldua's "zero, nothing, no one."64 Abu Ghraib reminds us then of the pains we had hoped totranscend, of the "intimate terrorism" we had hoped to end, of the bloody sovereignty we had hoped to eclipse in a postnational context.65 As Anzaldua

observed of "life in the borderlands" nearly two decades ago: The world is not a safe place to live in. We shiver in separate cells inenclosed cities, shoulders hunched, barely keeping the panic below the surface of the skin, daily drinking shock along with our morning coffee, fearing

the torches being set to our buildings, the attacks in the street. Shutting down . . . The ability to respond is what ismeant by responsibility, yet our cultures take away our ability to act-shackle us in the name ofprotection. Blocked, immobilized, we can't move forward, we can't move backwards . That writhingserpent movement, the very movement of life, swifter than lightning. Frozen.66 In the working vocabulary and

memory of a penal culture, Abu Ghraib remains a border lost to us, accessible only through the fixed

and frozen images that remind us of its irrevocableness. We find ourselves, in a sense, at a new

border that is very old, caught at the crossroads, left alone with America, asking, and with

considerable trepidation, what will our futures be?


12/89

T Cards


13/89

EE = SEZ

Contemporary understandings of economic engagement includes use of territoryand SEZs.Mehdudia 12(Sujay, writer for The Hindu, Land for India-specific SEZs sought in Bangladesh, 12.6.12,http://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/land-for-indiaspecific-sezs-sought-in-bangladesh/article4171367.ece , [CL])

In a bid to give trade, investment and economic engagement between the two nations a big push,India has asked Bangladesh to allow the use of its territory to enable Indian companies operating inBangladesh to export their goods through North-East states corridor and also sought earmarkingland for setting up India-specific special economic zone (SEZ). This is being seen as an attempt by India tonarrow down the bilateral trade gap that presently heavily loaded in favour of India. At presentBangladesh exports to India stand at around 536 million and exports from India to Bangladesh stand at $4.5 billion.

SEZs fall under the category of Economic Engagement because they are policytools for promoting international co-investment and development

Kweka and Farole 11(Tom Farole and Josaphat Kweka are both writers for World Bank, who is a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countriesaround the world, Worldbank.org, Institutional Best Practices for Special Economic Zones: An Application to Tanzania, August, 2011,http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/EXTAFRREGTOPTRADE/0,,contentMDK:22987846~pagePK:34004173~piPK:34003707~theSitePK:502469~isCURL:Y,00.html)

Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are increasingly a policy tool of choice for governments seeking toattract foreign investment, promote export-oriented growth, and generate employment. Recentestimates indicate that there currently are more than 2,300 SEZs established in 120 countries. SEZs arespatially delimited areas, which offer a combination of high-quality infrastructure, expeditedcustoms and administrative procedures, and a range of fiscal and non-fiscal incentives toovercome barriers that hinder investment in the wider economy.[1]Well-designed SEZs have

been successful as instruments for export-led development, particularly in Asia and LatinAmerica where many zone programs have been in place for several decades. However, despite high profile successes, many SEZs around the world

have failed to meet their potential. Although multiple factors contribute to the failure of an SEZ program, in most cases, they can be traced back to theinitial planning stages, and derive from an ineffective regulatory and institutional framework. In common with many other countries in Africa andelsewhere, Tanzania sees the development of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) as a critical element of a program to facilitate private sector investmentand transform the manufacturing sector to enhance competitiveness and industrialization for job creation. Indeed, SEZs traditionally have been used toaddress the very constraints facing investors in Tanzania and as quick-win measures to exploit the potential for private sector driven job creation. It istherefore crucial that the policy and institutional aspects of the SEZ regime are designed and implemented effectively to ensure that it delivers on itspotential role as a facilitator of investment, competitiveness, and job creation.
http://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/land-for-indiaspecific-sezs-sought-in-bangladesh/article4171367.ecehttp://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/land-for-indiaspecific-sezs-sought-in-bangladesh/article4171367.ecehttp://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/land-for-indiaspecific-sezs-sought-in-bangladesh/article4171367.ecehttp://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/land-for-indiaspecific-sezs-sought-in-bangladesh/article4171367.ecehttp://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/land-for-indiaspecific-sezs-sought-in-bangladesh/article4171367.ecehttp://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/land-for-indiaspecific-sezs-sought-in-bangladesh/article4171367.ece


14/89

SEZ/Trade Zone = Integration

Foreign Trade Zones are a designation of SEZ designed to minimize trade barriers,increase integration, and lubricate economic activity.SBA 10(Small Business Association is an independent agency of the federal government to aid, counsel, assist and protect the interests ofsmall business concerns, to preserve free competitive enterprise and to maintain and strengthen the overall economy of our nation,SBA.gov,Free Trade Zones: What are They and How Can Small Businesses Benefit?, June 25, 2010,http://www.sba.gov/community/blogs/community-blogs/business-law-advisor/free-trade-zones-what-are-they-and-how-can-smal)

Many countries designate certain areas within their borders as a free trade zone. Free trade zones help to minimizeinternational trade barriers, enabling importers and exporters to operate under better economicconditions. However, many importers and exporters are unfamiliar with free trade zones and uncertain how to take advantage of them. What is afree trade zone?A free trade zone is a designated area that eliminates traditional trade barriers, suchas tariffs, and minimizes bureaucratic regulations. The goal of a free trade zone is to enhance global marketpresence by attracting new business and foreign investments. How do the terms;free trade zon-,-export processingzon', and'foreign trade zon' relate to and differ from one another? Free, foreign, and export processing zones all fall under the umbrella of being freetrade zones. Because these terms are confusingly similar, they are often used interchangeably. The distinction between each term often depends on

where a particular zone is located. Generally speaking:Foreign Trade Zone is the term used in the United States. Formore information on U.S. foreign trade zones, visit their overseeing body' the U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Free Trade Zone is the term used inother developed countries, such as those included in the European Union. Export Processing Zone is commonly used in developing nations. Becausethe principals and regulations of each free trade zone differs from country to country, you must check the governing authority of the country in whichyou wish to operate for specific benefits of their programs. Visit Export.gov for free trade zone guides of specific countries. Where are free trade zoneslocated? Free trade zones are generally located near a countr's ports of entry. For convenience purposes, locations with a close proximity to seaportsand airports are commonly designated free trade zones. In some cases, free trade zone are designated outside these areas to accommodate a specificindustry or trade purpose. For example, in the United States, foreign trade subzones are designated as single-purpose sites for businesses such as oilrefineries or large manufactures because they could not feasibly be moved to a traditional location. What types of business use free trade zones? Freetrade zones are utilized by everyone from large manufactures to small businesses to individuals. Any person or entity that intends to import or export

goods and can consider taking advantage of free trade zones. What are the benefits to trading in a free trade zone?Operating within acountry's free trade zonesoffers many benefits to importers and exporters. Common economic

benefits include the deferral or elimination of customs duties, exemption from certain taxes, andinverted tariff relief. Free trade zones also offer operational benefits such as indefinite storageopportunities, increased security and insurance on goods, and top-of-the-line operatingfacilities. Who can I contact for more information on foreign trade zones in the United States? If yo're looking to do business through one of theforeign trade zones in the United States, you should contact the appropriate project liaison in the most convenient area. Visit the International TradeAdministratio's U.S. Foreign Trade Zone guide for details.


15/89


16/89

EE Rigid Definitions Bad

Economic statecraft is broad and complicated --- rigid definitions should berejectedDobson 1(Alan, Professor of International Relations at the University of Wales, US Economic Statecraft for Survival 1933-1991, p. 7-8)

Thus economic statecraft emerges as a focus of concern for scholarswithin the broader field of foreignpolicy. In this study, activity falls within the scope of economic statecraft not only when economicinstruments are used as means for conducting statecraft,but also when non-economic instruments areused against specific economic targets in wartime. In examining the different categories of economicinstruments of statecraft, it is clear that sharp theoretical distinctions drawn between sanctions,

strategic embargoes, cold economic warfare and economic warfare cannot be sustained when

trying to explain practice. We come to understand things by experiencing change and rendering it into an explanatory form

via an appropriate theoretical framework. Practice is too complicated to be captured by preconceived

rigid definitions that make no allowance for change. In simple terms, trying to define sanctions in

the abstract has severe limitations . However, using the term sanction in a particular context can make sense, evenwhen it overlaps with other tactics or strategies of economic statecraft, and when it has both instrumental and expressive effects.

Actors often have several motives and several objectives in mind when they impose trade

controls. Both intent and effect might simultaneously involve restricting and weakening the military and economic strength of atarget state, economically strengthening satellites of the main target state in order to create tensions and jealousies, enhancing abargaining position, allowing trade with the specific aim of trying to seduce mass opinion in the opponent state, attempting topersuade it to change policy, making a moral statement, and sending complicated and different messages to the target, neutralstates, allies and the senders own domestic constituency. In these kinds of situations a single action is a sanction, a strategicembargo, a message-sender, and an instance of cold economic warfare or economic warfare. In situations where trade is allowed orpromoted and looks like normal trade from the outside, it is only by addressing intention that we can see that more is at stake thanjust profit and loss. If the intent is to change attitudes in the target state, then this distinguishes the trade from normal commercialtransactions. However it is not just in cases where trade is allowed or promoted that we need to be sensitive to the expressive as well

as the instrumental effects oftrade controls. Theyall make statements. Sometimes they speak to a target state in a waythat was not intended by the sender, but they always say something. Particularly in times of heightened tension short of war, andespecially in the Cold War, the ability of economic instruments of statecraft to send messages was of great significance to Americanpolicy-makers. For much of the Cold War it was more important than the instrumental effects of trade controls.


17/89

EE Includes Strategic Considerations

Economics cannot be split off from strategic considerations --- their interpretationwarps the discussion of foreign policyDobson 1(Alan, Professor of International Relations at the University of Wales, US Economic Statecraft for Survival 1933-1991, p. 4)

There are plenty of works on US foreign policy conceived of primarily in political and strategic terms. By comparison, economicinstruments of foreign policy and economic issues as the subject of policy-making are generally only of peripheralor passing concern, or are seen as technically separate from other aspects of foreign policy.Banishment to the periphery and the segregation of the economic from the political and the

strategic are regrettable . Deterrence and attempts at deterrence in the 1930s and in the Cold Warwent deeper

and spread broader than can be captured simply by focusing on the purely political and the

purely strategic. The political, the strategic and the economic are all inextricably intertwined

strands of foreign policy. A brief excursion into the 1930s will demonstrate the pertinence of this judgement.


18/89

EE Includes Statecraft Considerations

Strict separation of economic from other statecraft undermines policy analysisBaldwin 12(David A., Professor of World Order Studies and Political Science at Columbia University, Handbook of International Relations, Ed. Carlsnaes, Risse,

and Simmons, p. 289)

Comparative influence techniquesThe instruments of statecraft - diplomatic, economic, military, and

symbolic -tend to be studied separately. This is a hindrance from the standpoint of both

theory and policy relevance . Without comparative research on techniques of statecraft,

theorists can say little about the utility of various policy instruments. If the success rate of economicsanctions is estimated at 34%, should one conclude that policy-makers are fools for using an instrument with such a low rate of

success? Or is this about the best that can be expected of any instrument of statecraft? There is little or no reliable dataon comparative success rates of instruments of statecraft.


19/89

List Definition

Resnick 1(Dr. Evan Resnick, Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yeshiva University, Defining

Engagement, Journal of International Affairs, Spring, 54(2), Ebsco )

Scholars have limited the concept of engagement in a third way by unnecessarily restricting the scope of thepolicy. In their evaluation of post-Cold War US engagement of China, Paul Papayoanou and Scott Kastner defineengagement as the attempt to integrate a target countryinto the international order through promoting

"increased trade and financial transactions." (n21) However, limiting engagement policy to the

increasing of economic interdependence leaves out many other issue areas that were an integral part of

the Clinton administration's China policy, including those in the diplomatic , military and cultural

arenas. Similarly, the US engagement of North Korea, as epitomized by the 1994 Agreed Framework pact, promises eventualnormalization of economic relations and the gradual normalization of diplomatic relations.(n22) Equating engagement witheconomic contacts alone risks neglecting the importance and potential effectiveness of contacts in noneconomic issue areas. Finally,some scholars risk gleaning only a partial and distorted insight into engagement by restrictively evaluating its effectiveness inachieving only some of its professed objectives. Papayoanou and Kastner deny that they seek merely to examine the "securityimplications" of the US engagement of China, though in a footnote, they admit that "[m]uch of the debate [over US policy toward thePRC] centers around the effects of engagement versus containment on human rights in China."(n23) This approach violates acardinal tenet of statecraft analysis: the need to acknowledge multiple objectives in virtually all attempts to exercise inter-stateinfluence.(n24) Absent a comprehensive survey of the multiplicity of goals involved in any such attempt, it would be naive to accept

any verdict rendered concerning its overall merits.A REFINED DEFINITION OF ENGAGEMENT In order toestablish a more effective framework for dealing with unsavory regimes, I propose that wedefine engagement as the attempt to influence the political behavior of a target state through the

comprehensive establishment and enhancement of contacts with that state across multiple

issue-areas (i.e. diplomatic , military, economic , cultural ). The following is a brief list of

the specific forms that such contacts might include:

DIPLOMATIC CONTACTS

Extension of diplomatic recognition; normalization of diplomatic relationsPromotion of target-state membership in international institutions and regimes

Summit meetings and other visits by the head of state and other senior government officials ofsender state to target state and vice-versa

MILITARY CONTACTS

Visits of senior military officials of the sender state to the target state and vice-versaArms transfersMilitary aid and cooperationMilitary exchange and training programsConfidence and security-building measuresIntelligence sharing

ECONOMIC CONTACTS

Trade agreements and promotion

Foreign economic and humanitarian aid in the form of loans and/or grantsCULTURAL CONTACTS

Cultural treaties Inauguration of travel and tourism links Sport, artistic and academic exchanges(n25) Engagement is an iterated process in which the sender and target state develop a relationship of increasing interdependence,culminating in the endpoint of "normalized relations" characterized by a high level of interactions across multiple domains.Engagement is a quintessential exchange relationship: the target state wants the prestige and material resources that would accrueto it from increased contacts with the sender state, while the sender state seeks to modify the domestic and/or foreign policybehavior of the target state. This deductive logic could adopt a number of different forms or strategies when deployed inpractice.(n26) For instance, individual contacts can be established by the sender state at either a low or a high level ofconditionality.(n27) Additionally, the sender state can achieve its objectives using engagement through any one of the followingcausal processes: by directly modifying the behavior of the target regime; by manipulating or reinforcing the target states' domestic


20/89

balance of political power between competing factions that advocate divergent policies; or by shifting preferences at the grassrootslevel in the hope that this will precipitate political change from below within the target state. This definition implies that threenecessary conditions must hold for engagement to constitute an effective foreign policy instrument. First, the overall magnitude ofcontacts between the sender and target states must initially be low. If two states are already bound by dense contacts in multipledomains (i.e., are already in a highly interdependent relationship), engagement loses its impact as an effective policy tool. Hence,one could not reasonably invoke the possibility of the US engaging Canada or Japan in order to effect a change in either country'spolitical behavior. Second, the material or prestige needs of the target state must be significant, as engagement derives its powerfrom the promise that it can fulfill those needs. The greater the needs of the target state, the more amenable to engagement it is

likely to be. For example, North Korea's receptivity to engagement by the US dramatically increased in the wake of the demise of itschief patron, the Soviet Union, and the near-total collapse of its national economy.(n28) Third, the target state must perceive theengager and the international order it represents as a potential source of the material or prestige resources it desires. This meansthat autarkic, revolutionary and unlimited regimes which eschew the norms and institutions of the prevailing order, such as Stalin's

Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany, will not be seduced by the potential benefits of engagement. This reformulated

conceptualization avoids the pitfalls of prevailing scholarly conceptions of engagement. It

considers the policy as a set of means rather than ends, does not delimit the types of states that can eitherengage or be engaged, explicitly encompasses contacts in multiple issue-areas, allows for the existenceof multiple objectives in any given instance of engagement and, as will be shown below, permits the

elucidation of multiple types of positive sanctions .


21/89

Case


22/89

Inherency

Guantanamo Wont Be ClosedLegal Roadblocks RemainCRS 13[Michael John Garcia, Jennifer K. Elsea, R. Chuck Mason, Edward C. Liu, are all Legislative Attorneys, submitting Closing the Guantanamo Detention

Center: Legal Issues to the Congressional Research Service, 30 May 2013;http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40139.pdf]

In January 2009, President Obama issued an Executive Order to facilitate the closure of the Guantanamo detention facilitywithin a year. This deadline was not met, but the Administration has repeatedly stated its intent to close the facility. In March 2011,President Obama issued a new Executive Order establishing a process to periodically review whether the continued detention of a lawfully held

Guantanamo detainee is warranted, which resulted in some 80 detainees being cleared for release and transfer to a foreign country. Efforts totransfer these prisoners and close Guantanamo have been hampered by a series of congressionalenactments limiting executive discretion to transfer or release detainees into the United States,including, most recently, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013 (2013 NDAA; P.L. 112-239) and the Consolidated and Further ContinuingAppropriations Act, 2013 (2013 CAA; P.L. 113-6 ). By prohibiting funds from being used to transfer or release detainees int o the United States, or to

assist in the transfer or release of detainees into the country, these acts seem to ensure that the Guantanamo detentionfacility remains open at least through the 2013 fiscal year, and perhaps for the foreseeablefuture. Moreover, the measures appear to make military tribunals the only viable forum by which Guantanamo detainees could be tried for criminaloffenses, as no civilian court operates within Guantanamo, unless efforts to close the facility are successfully renewed. Upon signing each of these

measures into law, President Obama issued a statement describing his opposition to the restrictions imposed on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees,and asserted that his Administration will work with Congress to mitigate their effect.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40139.pdfhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40139.pdfhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40139.pdf


23/89

Gitmo = Torture

Guantanamo detainees are repeatedly subjected to torture methodsAmnesty USA 13(End Indefinite Detention at Guantanamo, Charge or Release Shaker Aamer, http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-shaker-aamer, DOA:

7/16/13, JTY)

Shaker Aamer was arrested by Afghan forces in late 2001 in Jalalabad, Afghanistan and subsequentlytransferred to US custody. Aamer is originally from Saudi Arabia, and his wife and four children are all British nationals and currently live inSouth London in the United Kingdom (UK). He had permission to live indefinitely in the UK, on the basis of his marriage to a British national, when hewas originally detained by Afghan force s in late 2001. On February 13/14 2002 he was transferred from US custody in Afghanistan to the US naval base

at Guantnamo Bay in Cuba and has been held there ever since. He is the last former resident of the UK held atGuantnamo and has never been charged, tried or convicted of any criminal offense by the US

authorities. Via his lawyers, Shaker Aamer has alleged that he was subjected to torture, including severe

beatings, and other ill-treatment while being held in secret detention and interrogated at BagramTheater Internment Facility, Afghanistan in early 2002. He has alleged that, as well as US officials, men claiming to be UK Security Service (MI5)officers were present at interrogations during which his head was repeatedly banged so hard against a wall that it bounced". Since his transfer to

Guantnamo Bay, Shaker Aamer has repeatedlyalleged that he hasbeentortured there. According to his lawyers,throughout much of his detention he has been held in solitary confinement. Shaker Aamer speaks fluentEnglish and his lawyers understand that he has been involved in protesting against conditions at the camp, including participating in hunger strikesand speaking out on behalf of other detainees. They have stated their belief that he has been subjected to prolonged isolation and frequent ill-treatment

as punishment for his defiance against his indefinite detention and ill-treatment. Shaker Aamers lawyers have said that while he remainsdefiant, his physical and mental health continue to deteriorate. They say that lack of adequate medical treatment for themultiple illnesses from which he is now reported to suffer means that increasingly his long-term health and well-being is atrisk. His legal team is attempting to secure an independent medical assessment for him but claim that US authorities continue to refuse access. Hislawyers inform us that despite receiving some medical assistance Shaker Aamer continues to suffer from a number of ailments. The UK

Government has agreed to accept him if he is returned to the UK and has on numerous

occasions since 2007 called for the USA to release him . According to media reports, in March 2009, the then JointHead of the Counter Terrorism Department at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, Robert Chatterton-Dixon, told the US Department ofState's Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Dell Dailey, that neither the United Kingdom nor Saudi Arabia would prosecute Shaker Aamer if he werereleased. On March 1, 2012, British Foreign Secretary William Hague met with Shaker Aamers local UK Member of Parliament and legalrepresentatives. AI UK has received confirmation in writing and in person on several occasions that Foreign Secretary Hague has personally raisedShaker Aamers case with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, calling for him to be returned to his family in the UK. On S eptember 21, 2012 the U.S.

Department of Justice made public a list of 55 current Guantnamo detainees, including Shaker Aamer, who had beenapproved for transfer bythe Guantnamo Review Task Force, a body consisting of officials from key government departmentsand the intelligence agencies and established under President Barack Obamas January 22, 2009 executive order on resolution of the Guantnamodetentions and the closure of the detention facility. The Task Forces final report was issued on January 22, 2010. The list made public in September2012 did not include any current detainee whose transfer status was sealed under protective order. A 56th detainee approved for transfer has beenidentified since then. Despite the seeming willingness of UKauthorities to permit Shaker Aamers return to the UK and rejoin his family, and the

absence to date of any charges, he remains detained without charge or criminal trial at Guantnamo Bay.

Shaker Aamer's designation by US authorities as approved for transfer implies that USauthorities have no intention of charging him with criminal offenses. If so, like any other Guantnamo detaineewho is not to be charged, he should be immediately released. In Shaker Aamer's case he should be released to the UK following repeated requests forhis return made by the UK government.


24/89

I/L Cuba Relations

The plan would rectify a history of US domination of Cuba and set the stage for anew era of US-Cuban relationsHansen 12(Jonathan, 1.10.12, Give Guantanamo Back to Cuba,http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/give-guantanamo-back-to-cuba.html?_r=1&ref=global-home, [CL])

IN the 10 years since the Guantnamo detention camp opened, the anguished debate over whetherto shutter the facility or make it permanent has obscured a deeper failure that dates back more thana century and implicates all Americans: namely, our continued occupation of Guantnamo itself. It is pasttime to return this imperialist enclave to Cuba. From the moment the United States government forced Cuba to lease theGuantnamo Bay navalbase to us, in June 1901, the American presence there has been more than athorn in Cubas side. It has served to remind the world of Americas long history ofinterventionist militarism. Few gestures would have as salutary an effect on the stultifyingimpasse in American-Cuban relations as handing over this coveted piece of land. The circumstances bywhich the United States came to occupy Guantnamo are as troubling as its past decade of activity there. In April 1898, Ameri can forces intervened inCubas three-year-old struggle for independence when it was all but won, thus transforming the Cuban War of Independence into what Americans arestill wont to call the Spanish-American War. American officials then excluded the Cuban Army from the armistice and denied Cuba a seat at the Paris

peace conference. There is so much natural anger and grief throughout the island, the Cuban general Mximo Gmez remarked in January 1899 , afterthe peace treaty was signed, that the people havent really been able to celebrate the triumph of the end of their former rulers power. Curiously, theUnited States declaration of war on Spain included the assurance that America did not seek sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over Cuba and

intended to leave the government and control of the island to its people. But after the war, strategic imperatives tookprecedence over Cuban independence. The United States wanted dominion over Cuba, along with naval bases from which toexercise it. Enter Gen. Leonard Wood, whom President William McKinley had named military governor of Cuba, bearing provisions that became known

as the Platt Amendment. Two were particularly odious: one guaranteed the United States the right to intervene atwill in Cuban affairs; the other provided for the sale or lease of naval stations. Juan Gualberto Gmez, aleading delegate to the Cuban Constitutional Convention, said the amendment would render Cubans a vassal people.Foreshadowing the Cuban Missile Crisis, he presciently warned that foreign bases on Cuban soil would only draw Cuba into con flict not of our ownmaking and in which we have no stake. But it was an offer Cuba could not refuse, as Wood informed the delegates. The alterna tive to the amendmentwas continued occupation. The Cubans got the message. There is, of course, little or no real independence left Cuba under the Platt Amendment,Wood remarked to McKinleys successor, Theodore Roosevelt, in October 1901, soon after the Platt Amendment was incorporated into the CubanConstitution. The more sensible Cubans realize this and feel that the only consistent thing now is to seek annexation. But with Platt in place, whoneeded annexation? Over the next two decades, the United States repeatedly dispatched Marines based at Guantnamo to protect its interests in Cubaand block land redistribution. Between 1900 and 1920, some 44,000 Americans flocked to Cuba, boosting capital investment on the island to just over

$1 billion from roughly $80 million and prompting one journalist to remark that little by little, the whole island is passin g into the hands of Americancitizens. How did this look from Cubas perspective? Well, imagine that at the end of the AmericanRevolution the French had decided to remain here . Imagine that the French had refused to allow Washington and his armyto attend the armistice at Yorktown. Imagine that they had denied the Continental Congress a seat at the Treaty of Paris, prohibited expropriation ofTory property, occupied New York Harbor, dispatched troops to quash Shays and other rebellions and then immigrated to the colonies in droves,

snatching up the most valuable land. Such is the context in which the United States came to occupyGuantnamo. It is a history excluded from American textbooks and neglected in the debates over terrorism, international law and the reach ofexecutive power. But it is a history known in Cuba (where it motivated the 1959 revolution) and throughout Latin America. It explains whyGuantnamo remains a glaring symbol of hypocrisy around the world. We need not even speak of the lastdecade. IfPresident Obama were to acknowledge this history and initiate the process of returningGuantnamo to Cuba, he could begin to put the mistakes of the last 10 years behind us, not tomention fulfill a campaign pledge. (Given Congressional intransigence, there might be no better way to close the detention campthan to turn over the rest of the naval base along with it.) It would rectify an age-old grievance and lay the

groundwork for new relations with Cuba and other countries in the Western Hemisphere and around theglobe. Finally, it would send an unmistakable message that integrity, self-scrutiny and candorare not evidence of weakness, but indispensable attributes of leadership in an ever changing world. Surelythere would be no fitter wayto observe todays grim anniversary than to stand up for the principlesGuantnamo has undermined for over a century.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/give-guantanamo-back-to-cuba.html?_r=1&ref=global-homehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/give-guantanamo-back-to-cuba.html?_r=1&ref=global-homehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/give-guantanamo-back-to-cuba.html?_r=1&ref=global-homehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/give-guantanamo-back-to-cuba.html?_r=1&ref=global-homehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/give-guantanamo-back-to-cuba.html?_r=1&ref=global-homehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/give-guantanamo-back-to-cuba.html?_r=1&ref=global-home


25/89

I/L Cuba Relations

Giving Guantanamo back to Cuba would transform the US-Cuba relationshipovernight and fulfills empty campaign promises to close the baseSweig 9(Julia E., WaPo, 5.3.9, Dont Just Close Gitmo. Give It Back. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-05-03/opinions/36792416_1_guantanamo-bay-naval-base-travel-and-financial-restrictions/2, [CL])

President Obama has promised to shut down the detention camp at GuantanamoBay, seeking to erase a blot onAmerica's global image. He has also reached out to Cuba, easing some travel and financial restrictions in an effortto recast Washington's approach to the island. These two initiatives have proceeded on separate tracks so far, but now is the time tobring them together. Hiding in plain sight, the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay is the ideal place for Obamato launch a far-reaching transformation of Washington's relationship with its communist neighbor. How? Bypreparing to give Guantanamo back to Cuba. It's not as impossible as it sounds. The United States has scaled

back, modified or even withdrawn its military presence elsewhere; thinkOkinawa, South Korea,Subic Bayin the Philippines or Vieques in Puerto Rico. Whatever Guantanamo's minor strategic value to the United States for processing refugeesor as a counter-narcotics outpost, the costs of staying permanently -- with the stain of the prisons, the base's imperial legacy and the animosity of the

host gove