Constitution Advantage - HSS 2015

7/25/2019 Constitution Advantage - HSS 2015

1/38

Notes/Explanation

This is an advantage that can be read by an afrmative that curtails any (arguably) unconstitutional

surveillance practice. Additional links or internal links (X program is unconstitutional) will be ound in

the relevant afrmative !les.


2/38

1AC


3/38

1AC Contractualism Version

First, mass surveillance is unconstitutional because it violates

the Fourth Amendment. The Freedom Act as a net!ne"ative

because it extended unconstitutional pro"rams.

#arthes 1$"Ale# $arthews% &ational 'hair at estore The ourth"a *+,(c)(-) nonpro!t thatseeks to strengthen the ourth Amendment to the nited /tates 'onstitution and end programs that

violate it% holds a $asters in 0ublic 0olicy rom the niversity o 'aliornia12erkeley and a 2.A. in 3nglish

rom the niversity o 'ambridge% 4+,- (5e &eed eal /urveillance eorm% &ot The 6ouse7s 8/A

reedom Act9% Restore The Fourth% $ay 4:th% Available ;nline at http1,?14+,*)

@ast week% the 6ouse o epresentatives passed the bill calledThe /A reedom Act% + votes

to ,4,. ollowing a series o amendments% the bill as it passedin the end contained much

ea%er re&orms than even the very modest ones it originally

proposed. The 'hair o theBudiciary 'ommittee7s manager7s amendmentremoved two1thirds o its substantive reormsC the 'hair o the

Dntelligence 'ommittee and the 5hite 6ouse worked hard to remove as

much as possible o what remained% leaving a shell that will still

permit mass surveillance.

The ourth Amendment is clear< #ass surveillance is

unconstitutional. A government search is unreasonable% and

there&ore unconstitutional% i it is not authoriEed beorehand by a

warrant issued by a Fudge% on the basis o Gprobable causeG o

involvement in an actual crime% supported by an Goath or afrmation%and particularly describingG the Gpersons or things to be seiEed.G

That7s what ought to happen.This bill% on the other hand% would allow

government searches o millions o& innocent people's data and

movements% not based on probable cause or even reasonable

suspicion o their personal involvement in a crime% but simply on an(

)selection term) va"uel( associated ith a tar"et o&

surveillance.

The Gselection termG could be as broad as the "overnment li%es%covering% or e#ample% everyone born in 6awaii% or everyone with the

middle name 6ussein.The argument or this reormthat supporters are

touting is that this is better than the current government practice o

collecting everything with no selection term at all. 5hile that7s true% it

misses the lar"er point. The standard is individuali*ed probable

cause arrants% not hatever is most convenient &or the N+A.


4/38

A standard that can be rede!ned at will is mar"inall( i& at all H

better than having none.

As a terrible coda% the bill7s last section e#tendsout the sunset o crucial

parts o the abusive 0ATD;T Actrom 4+,* all the way throughtill 4+,: .

Apparently% ourteen years o GemergencyG privacy1violating legislationis still not enough to deeat the people who attacked us on ?=,,% and

we need si#teen. Iiven this e#tension%were this billas it currently e#ists to be

signed into law% it would be a net ne"ative &or the Fourth Amendment.

The only merit in the bill having passed is that it provides something with which the /enate7s superior

version o the /A reedom Act can be reconciled in conerence. 5e urge the /enate% and especially the

Budiciary 'ommittee% to !ght hard or the ourth Amendment in the ne#t ew months by advancing as

strong a bill as possible H much stronger than this one. The /A reedom Act% in its original orm% was

popular enough in the 6ouse to have passed unamended% had it been allowed to come to the Joor. Dn the

/enate% the same may well be true% and our ne#t steps on 'apitol 6ill will be to work to make that happen.

5hen we look back in a generation at the era o our out1o1controlsurveillance state% we will wonder why we didn7t ta%e the Fourth

Amendment as seriousl( as our Founders took it. 5e will eel

shame that we were willing to sell our -ill o& i"hts in an attempt to

thwart the same terrorists said to be attacking it. The sooner we

replace this act with actual re&orm% the sooner our out1o1control

surveillance state will !nally be a thin" to loo% bac% on.

+econd, constitutional sa&e"uards a"ainst arrantless

surveillance must be maintained regardless of consequences.0ei"hin" privac( a"ainst securit( nulliesthe Fourth

Amendment.

Cole 2" Kavid 'ole% 0roessor at Ieorgetown niversity @aw 'enter% has litigated many signi!cantconstitutional cases in the /upreme 'ourt% holds a B.K. rom Lale @aw /chool% 4++: (6ow to /kip the

'onstitution% New York Review of Books% &ovember ,>th% Available ;nline at

http=nov=,>=how1to1skip1the1constitution=% Accessed +>14M1

4+,*)

Budge 0osner is not troubled by any o these measures% at least as a constitutional matter. 6is theory o the

'onstitution is at once candid and cavalier. eFecting popular conservative attacks on Fudicial activism%

he argues that in view o the open1ended character o many o the document9s most important terms"reasonable searches and seiEures% due process o law% eNual protection% and even liberty itsel"

it is not obFectionable but inevitable that constitutional law is made by Fudges. 6e dismisses the

constitutional theories o te#tualism and originalism avored by many conservative Fudges and scholars as

canards% arguing that neither the 'onstitution9s te#t nor the history o its raming gives much guidance in

dealing with most o the hard Nuestions o the day. 'onstitutional law% he maintains% is intended to be a

loose garmentC i it binds too tightly% it will not be adaptable to changing circumstances.

2ut 0osnerthen goes on to treat the 'onstitution asessentially a license to

open!ended balancin" o& interests by the political branches and
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2006/nov/16/how-to-skip-the-constitution/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2006/nov/16/how-to-skip-the-constitution/


5/38

the courts. 6is thinking is inormed largely by an economist9s predilection or cost1bene!t analysisand a philosophical enthusiasm or pragmatism. 0osner9s reputation as a scholar rests not on his

contributions to constitutional theory% but on his role as one o the ounding athers o the movement that

applied economic analysis to law. 6is new book might Fust as well have been called An 3conomist @ooks at

the 'onstitution. Dn the end% constitutional interpretation or 0osner is little more

than a balancing act% and when the costs o a catastrophic terrorist

attack are placed on the scale% he almost always eels they outweigh

concerns about individual rights and liberties.

'onsider% or e#ample% his views on electronic surveillance. The 2ush administrationcurrently aces several doEen lawsuits challenging various aspects o its &/A spying program% which%

according to the administration% involves the warrantless wiretapping o international phone calls and e1

mails where one o the participants is thought to be connected with al1Oaeda or afliated groups. That

program% as D and many other constitutional scholars have argued% violates a provision in the oreign

Dntelligence /urveillance Act (D/A) speciying that it is a crime or ofcials not to seek a warrant rom the

appropriate court beore engaging in such wiretapping., The 2ush administration seeks to Fustiy this

violation o law by invoking an inherent presidential power to ignore congressional legislation% echoing

0resident ichard &i#on9s deense o his own decision to authoriEe warrantless wiretapping during the

Pietnam 5ar< 5hen the president does it% that means that it is not illegal. 0osner not only seesnothing wrong withthe &/AprogramC he would also !nd constitutional a ar

more sweeping measure that subFected every phone call and e1mail in

the nation% domestic as well as international% to initial computer

screening or patterns o suspicious words% and then permitted

intelligence agents to ollow up on all communications that the

computer treated as suspicious.

6ow does 0osner reach the conclusion that the 'onstitution would

permit such an ;rwellian scheme% ar more invasive than the 2ush administration% i it is

to be believed% has been willing to undertake so arQ Dn a word% balancin". Dn 0osner9sview% the costs to personal liberty o such a program are minimal% and

are outweighed by the bene!ts to our security. 6aving a computer analyEe one9s

phone calls is no big deal% he claims% as long as we know it9s only looking or terrorists. 6e admits

that there might be a danger o misuse o the inormation by the

agents who ollow up on the computer9s suspects% but he considers

that risk minimal because he is con!dent that any such abuse would

likely come to light and be widely criticiEed. (6e ails to acknowledge thatwhistleblowing would be ar less likely i he had his way and an ;fcial /ecrets Act were passed making it

a crime to publish leaked government secrets.) As or the bene!ts o such surveillance%

0osner surmises that such a program might sweep up sufcient data topermit intelligence agents to connect the dots and prevent a

catastrophic attack. 3ven i it didn9t% he writes% it would at least have

the salutary eRect o discouraging terrorists rom communicating by

telephone and e1mail.


6/38

Ever( aspect o& 3osner4s anal(sis is open to 5uestion. 6e

ignores that privacy is essential to political &reedom< i everyone

knows that their every electronic communication is subFect to

government monitoring % even by a computer% it would likely have a

substantial chillin" e6ect on communications that the government

might conceivably !nd obFectionable% not Fust terrorist planning% and

not Fust criminal conduct. $oreover% 0osner ignores the myriad ways in

which the government can harass people without its ill intent ever

coming to light. or e#ample% the government can selectivel(

prosecute minor in&ractions o& the la% launch arbitrar( tax

investi"ations% and en"a"e in blac%mail% all methods perected by

2D Kirector B. 3dgar 6oover . 'ontrary to 0osner9s claims% one cannot% as the 2D9s

abuses showed% trust public scrutiny to orestall such tactics% even in the absence o

an ;fcial /ecrets Act. inally% it is ar rom clear that such a program would be

eRective"the sheer volume o dots generated would makeconnecting them virtually impossible. Dn any case% computer programs

would be relatively easy to evade through the use o code words.

The real answer to 0osner9s notion o balance% however% is not to show that

a diRerent balance can be struck% but to return to established Fourth

Amendment 7urisprudence% which has long reNuired that searches

must generally be Fusti!ed by a showing o ob7ective, speci8c

suspicion approved by a Fudge who is willing to issue a speci8c

arrant. The reNuirements that a warrant be issued and that it be

based on probable cause are designed to protect privac( unlessthere are airly strong grounds or ofcial intrusion.The principal evil

that the ourth Amendment was drated to avoid was the general

warrant% which permitted government ofcials to search anyone9s

home % without suspicion o speci!c individuals. 0osner9s program is

nothing less than a tent(!8rst!centur( version o exactl( hat

the Fourth Amendment as desi"ned to &orbid. Through an open1

ended and inevitably subFective balancing o privacy and security% he

has managed to turn the Fourth Amendment on its head.

Third, constitutional privac( protections are the &oundation o&

&reedom. #ass surveillance is inherentl( repressive because it

exposes individuals to inescapable, oppressive scrutin(.

9reenald 1$" Ilenn Ireenwald% Fournalist who received the 4+,- 0ulitEer 0riEe or 0ublic/ervice or his work with 3dward /nowden to report on &/A surveillance% ounding 3ditor o The Intercept%


7/38

ormer 'olumnist or the Guardianand Salon% recipient o the 0ark 'enter D.. /tone Award or Dndependent

Bournalism% the ;nline Bournalism Award or investigative work on the abusive detention conditions o

'helsea $anning% the Ieorge 0olk Award or &ational /ecurity eporting% the Iannett oundation Award

or investigative Fournalism% the Iannett oundation 5atchdog Bournalism Award% the 3sso 0remio or

3#cellence in Dnvestigative eporting in 2raEil% and the 3lectronic rontier oundation9s 0ioneer Award%

holds a B.K. rom &ew Lork niversity /chool o @aw% 4+,- (The 6arm o /urveillance% No Place To Hide:

dward Snowden! the NS"! and the #$S$ Surveillance State% 0ublished by $etropolitan 2ooks% D/2&

?:M,>4::?+:-% p. ,:1,:-)

0rivacy is essential to human &reedom and happiness or reasons

that arerarely discussed but instinctively understoodby most people% as evidenced by the

lengths to which they go to protect their own. To begin with% people radically change their

behavior when they know they are being watched . They will strive to

do that which is e#pected o them. They want to avoid shame and

condemnation. They do so by adhering tightly to accepted social

practices% by staying within imposed boundaries% avoiding action that

might be seen as deviant or abnormal.

The range o choices people consider when they believe that others

are watching is thereore ar more limited than what they might do

when acting in a private realm. A denial o privacy operates to

severel( restrict one4s &reedom o& choice.

/everal years ago% D attended the bat mitEvah o my best riend9s daughter. Kuring the ceremony% the rabbi

emphasiEed that the central lesson or the girl to learn was that she was always being watched and

Fudged. 6e told her that Iod always knew what she was doing% every choice% every action% and even

every thought% no matter how private. Lou are never alone% he said% which meant that she should always

adhere to Iod9s will.

The rabbi9s point was clear even though in the long term we are likely to

suRer as a result% so we know collectively that in the short term we are

likely to empower government to suppress unpopular speech% invade

the privacy o GdangerousG minorities% and abuse suspected criminals%

even thou"h in the lon" term such actions undermine the values o


9/38

ree speech% eNuality% and privacy that are necessary to democrac(

and human ;ourishin". D we were always capable o rationally

assessing the costs and bene!ts in such a way as to ma#imiEe our

collective well1being% short1term and long1term% we might not need a

'onstitution. 2ut knowing that societies% like individuals% will be tempted to

act in ways that undermine their on best interests% we have

precommitted to a set o constitutional constraints on pragmatic

balancing . 0osner7s view that the 'onstitution must bend to the point

o authoriEing virtually any initiative that seems pragmaticto him reduces

the 'onstitution to a precommitment to balance costs and bene!ts%

and that is no precommitment at all.

'onstitutional theory demands more than ad hoc balancing. n4: 5hile thenature o competing interests means that at some level o generality% a balance must be struck%

constitutional analysis is not an invitation to the &reeheelin"% all!

thin"s!considered balance o the economist. Dnstead% it reNuires aneRort% guided by te#t% precedent% and history% to identiy the higher principles that

guide us as a society % principles so important that they trump

democracy itsel(not to mention efciency). The Fudge7s constitutional duty was perhaps bestcaptured by Bustice Bohn $arshall 6arlan% writing about the due process clause? 2randenburg ruling% which stipulated that speech

advocating violence or other criminal conduct cannot constitutionally be suppressed unless it is directed

to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

Although Budge 0osner writes that in the present circumstances the enactment o laws orbidding radical

Dslamist e#pression would be needlessly provocative% he ominously adds that the situation may change

and that he believes the incitement=threat category could be e#panded to include generaliEed advocacy

o violence against the nited /tates.

Dn his opinion% he says% to tell 'ongress and the president that they can do nothing to prevent orms o

advocacy likely to multiply the number o uture terrorists makes no more sense than telling them that

they cannot prevent the publication o recipes or bioweapons because it would probably take years to getrom the recipe to the actual manuacture% let alone use% o the weapons.

Budge 0osner believes that additional counterterrorist measures% in particular in the related areas o

electronic surveillance and computeriEed data mining% could be taken without violating the 'onstitution

(even i there were a clear constitutional right to inormational privacy)% especially i the eRect on privacy

is minimiEed by a strict rule against using inormation obtained through such means or any purpose other

than to protect national security. And he writes that coercive interrogation up to and including torture

might survive constitutional challenge as long as the ruits o such interrogation were not used in a

criminal prosecution.

/o is there anything Budge 0osner thinks the 'onstitution orbidsQ 6e writes< 2ut there is no handle in the

constitutional te#t or the unilateral assumption o dictatorial powers by the president% no matter how

desperate the circumstances. 5e don9t want the 'onstitution to be Fust an old piece o parchment.

That snarkily delivered Fust% along with the use o the adFective unilateral to modiy assumption o

dictatorial powers% says it all< this book suggests thatBudge 0osner does regard the

'onstitution as an old piece o parchment" a piece o parchment withcertain

rules% but rules that are made to be bro%en by a president during

an emergency% no matter how long that emergency may last.


17/38

The( +a(= 3osner 3rivac( >rrelevant

3osner4s anti!privac( ar"ument breeds con&ormit( and

passivit(.

9reenald 1$" Ilenn Ireenwald% Fournalist who received the 4+,- 0ulitEer 0riEe or 0ublic/ervice or his work with 3dward /nowden to report on &/A surveillance% ounding 3ditor o The Intercept%

ormer 'olumnist or the Guardianand Salon% recipient o the 0ark 'enter D.. /tone Award or Dndependent

Bournalism% the ;nline Bournalism Award or investigative work on the abusive detention conditions o

'helsea $anning% the Ieorge 0olk Award or &ational /ecurity eporting% the Iannett oundation Award

or investigative Fournalism% the Iannett oundation 5atchdog Bournalism Award% the 3sso 0remio or

3#cellence in Dnvestigative eporting in 2raEil% and the 3lectronic rontier oundation9s 0ioneer Award%

holds a B.K. rom &ew Lork niversity /chool o @aw% 4+,- (5hat 2ad% /hameul% Kirty 2ehavior is ./.

Budge ichard 0osner 6idingQ Kemand to Vnow.% The Intercept% Kecember Mth% Available ;nline at

https14M14+,*)

ichard 0osner has been a ederal appellate Fudge or - years% having been nominated by 0resident

eagan in ,?M,. At a conerence last week in 5ashington% 0osner saidthe &/A should have

the unlimited ability to collect whatever communications and other

inormation it wants< D the &/A wants to vacuum all the trillions o bits o inormation that are

crawling through the electronic worldwide networks% D think that9s !ne. The &/A should have

carte blanche to collect what it wants becauseprivacy interests

shouldreally have very little weight when you9re talking about national

security.

6is rationaleQ D think privacy is actually overvalued% thedistinguishedFurist

pronounced. 0rivacy% he e#plained% is something people crave in order to prevent others romlearning about the shameul and !lthy things they dompacts @utei"h

Constitution

nconstitutional policies should be re7ected on!&ace it is a

7urisdictional issue.

Carter B:" /teven 'arter% 0roessor o @aw at Lale niversity% ,?M: (rom /ick 'hicken to /ynar o those


30/38

stakeholders with little or no bargaining ability. n,,, or e#ample% in an eRort toappease the city7s political leadership and the public to which the politicians were accountable% the high1

level police ofcials implemented a strategy to increase the absolute number o arrestsC in essence% they

manuactured the impression that they were making a dent in city crime. n,,4 Although the number o

arrests did increase% the arrests were o minor users and oRendersC as such% police resources were drawn

away rom in!ltrating the primary sources o the city7s drug and related crime problems. n,, 3ven when

the police urnished statistics that supported the suggestion that they were successul in addressing crime%

in actuality the drug camp was unaEed and the public remained vulnerable to widespread drug trafcking

and associated criminal activities. n,,- The campaign% though successul on its ace% was in truth

ineRective and counterproductive.

Bust as inormation could be GFukedG to support a sel1ul!lling outcome

in The 5ire%legal commentators recogniEe that the constitutional eNuation

suggested by 0osner is not ob7ectivel( calibrated% but instead will

yield onl( one pre!determined anser< 'ivil liberties must deer to

security programs or policies. Kavid 'oleo the Ieorgetown niversity @aw 'enter

observed thatGconstitutional interpretation or 0osner is little more

than an all1things1considered balancing act"and when the potential

costs o a catastrophic terrorist attack are placed on the scale% the

concerns o constitutional rights and civil liberties are almost

inevitabl( outei"hed.G n,,* Two others criticiEe 0osner7s law and economics approach to

security issues because hisGmethod works largely through a cost1bene!t

analysis where eNuality and antisubordination never Nuite measure up

to the concerns against SU*: which they are being measured.G n,,> /imilarly%another commentator writes that 0osner7s Gmethod ... tilts in the avor o security more oten than not.G

n,,:

Dn proposing that post1?=,, constitutional Nuestions implicatingthe

securityo the nation be reduced to a balancing opurportedly competinginterests% 0osner oRers a mechanism that is not only aulty in design%

as both security and liberty can be simultaneously managed% butalso

troublesome in its application% as security invariably subFugates other

constitutional interests% speci!cally individual rights. Accordingly% 0osner7s

recommendation is consistent with the GriggingG e#hibited and

discredited in The 0ire"giving the impression o& an ob7ective

approach to produce a pre!determined outcome% but in essence

depriving the people o a le"itimate debate on the proper

relationship between national security and individual rights.


31/38

The( +a(= >saac H

>saac is wrong he4s demandin" an all!out 0ar on Terror.

Io4s that "oin"

+te"er " $anred 2. /teger% Associate 0roessor o 0olitics Y Iovernment at Dllinois /tateniversity% holds a 0h.K. in 0olitical /cience rom utgers niversity% 4++4 (3nds% $eans% and the 0olitics

o Kissent< eply to BeRrey '. Dsaac% /issent% Polume -?% Dssue 4% /pring% Available ;nline to /ubscribing

Dnstitutions via 32/';host% p. :-1:*)

DdealiEing ealist 0olitics

Another reason orthe systemic distortion and marginaliEation othe campus

let9s paci!sm is the widespread idealiEation o so1called realist politics.

Throughout his article% Dsaac adopts the 5uestionable metaph(sical

assumptions that underlie the realist paradigm < Dn the best o all

imaginable worlds% it might be possible to deeat al1Oaeda withoutusing orce and without dealing with corrupt regimes and political

orces like the &orthern Alliance. 2utSend page :- in this world it is not

possible. And this% alas% is the only world that e#ists. &ote how Dsaac

claims or himsel the same omniscient vantage point that he so

dislikes in the campus let. This arro"ant spirit o ontological

absolutism pervades his essay. 6ere is another e#ample< To

accomplish anything in the political world% one must attend to the

means that are necessary to bring it about.; course% having de!ned

what counts as the political world% Dsaac employs the term

necessary to imply war1like activities. Dn short% the only way to !ght

terrorism is to declare a large1scale war on it% thus !ghting violence

with greater violence. Anybody challenging Dsaac 9s conclusions or his

underlying realist metaphysics is naJve% unpra"matic% va"ue%

irrational% an accomplice o& terrorism% and"this is my avorite charge"out

o& touchwith the preoccupations and opinions o the vast maFority o Americans. Dsaac9s

cheap rhetorical appeal to common sense% is% indeed% an

embarrassin" move or an intellectualdescendent o the gadJy /ocrates whocontributes regularly to a progressive magaEine titled Kissent.

The idealiEation o realism isvery much part o the dominant ideolo"(o& violence. ;nce people accept that large1scale war constitutes the

only realistic response to /eptember ,,% then its many ailings are

easily shrugged oR as unavoidable byproducts or collateral

damage% while its oten meager achievements are blown out o

proportion to maintain the public9s aith in the eRectiveness o

violence. A truly realistic evaluation o the retaliatory violence


32/38

employed by the nited /tates and its allies in the war on terrorism

reveals the remar%able ine6ectiveness o the violent method.

0hat has actuall( been achieved

5e toppled the Talibanregime% butthe !ghting in Aghanistan hasn9t come

to an end. 5e killedbetween a thousand and thirty1seven hundred Aghancivilians. The oppressive situation or Aghan women has improved only marginally.The e#ample

o a large1scale war on terrorism has been copied by various regimes

to Fustiy aggressive action against subversives. Take% or e#ample%

conJicts in Dsrael=0alestine% Dndia=0akistan% 'olombia% 'entral Asian

republics% and so on. Although the war on terrorism costs ./. ta#payers billions o dollars% our

government has steadily e#panded it to other parts o the world.The nited /tates has struck

Nuestionable alliances with groups and nations that are prooundly

undemocratic and have long records o human rights abuses. Civil

ri"hts and liberties in our country are being undermined in the name

o national security"think o the4++, 0atriot Act. inally% ;sama bin @aden% Aymanal1 Zawahiri% $ullah ;mar% and other leading Taliban and al1Oaeda members have not been captured. This

is by no means a great scorecard or the violent method% but because large1scale war is

supposedly the only realistic course o action% most Americans

tolerate the ailures o our military response.

@et me emphasiEe% !nally% that D agree with Dsaac9s assertion that !nding a proper

relationship between means and ends is the most difcult challenge or

both political thinkers and activists. 'ontrary to his account%however% D

believe that the paci!st campus let has played a constructive role by

counterin" realist mainstream ar"uments that avor an all!out

ar on terrorism. This overreliance on military means has only pulled

us urther into the apocalyptic scenario o terrorist strikes%

counterstrikes% and deepening misery. Dt has also contributed to the

rapid buildup o a national security regime that threatens our

liberties and democratic arran"ements. Dsaac9s pigeonholing o

the paci!st campus let is ron"C on balance% its members have

e#pressed morall( nuanced opinions and oRered pra"matic

alternative strate"ies.

The 0ar on Terror has %illed more than !." million people.

0il%ins 1K" 2rett 5ilkins% 3ditor1at1@arge or ./. &ews at /i(ital +ournal% 4+,* (Koctors7 groupsays ,. million killed in ./. 75ar on Terror7% /i(ital +ournal% $arch 4*th% Available ;nline at

http14,14+,*)
http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/study-1-3-million-killed-in-usa-war-on-terror/article/429180http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/study-1-3-million-killed-in-usa-war-on-terror/article/429180


33/38

A group o international physicians7 organiEations has published a

study concluding /1led wars in DraN% Aghanistan and 0akistan have

killed more than 1.G million people.

The &obel 0riEe1winning Dnternational 0hysicians or the 0revention o

&uclear 5ar% along with 0hysicians or /ocial esponsibility and0hysicians or Ilobal /urvival have released a reporttitled G2ody 'ount Dt has since

been clari!ed% however% that the institution is a violation o& the

utilitarian paradi"m that each ought to receive what he or she Fustly

deserves. $ill writes%The entire history o social improvement has

been a series o transitions by which one custom or institution ater

another% rom being asupposed primary necessity o social e#istence% has

passed into the rank o a universall( sti"mati*ed in7ustice and

t(rann(.:

Dndeed% history will show that the mass surveillance programs othe &/A

and I'6O ollowed the dictates o expedience rather than ethics. Thisact is evident in a remark by the head o a 2ritish intelligence agency< There9s nothing in it or us in being

more open about what we do.M This ofcial is clearly more concerned about the efciency o his

organiEation than the good o 2ritish citiEens. Dndeed% althoughthe &/Aand I'6O appeal toutilitarianism in attempting to Fustiy their practices% when these

practices (i.e., their conse5uences) are critiNued accordin" to the

utilitarian &rameor%,it becomes clear that these practices are consistent

with e


38/38

organiEations are not ully inormed as to the pleasuresSend page ? and

pains involved% and% hence% their ethical calculus is s%eed. Dn actuality%

the negative conseNuences o these programs outei"h the positive

ones. As a result% these programs can be said to be expedient rather

than ethical% and the( ou"ht to be terminated.

Date post:	28-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	michael-tang
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Constitution Advantage - HSS 2015

Documents