Border Drones Affirmative - Northwestern 2015 6WS

7/25/2019 Border Drones Affirmative - Northwestern 2015 6WS

1/79

2015 NDI 6WS Border

Drones Afrmative


2/79


3/79

borders1ac


4/79

1AC Pan !e"t

Plan The United States federal government should substantially curtail itsdomestic drone surveillance on the Mexico-United States border.


5/79

1ac border #atro nationBorder s$rveiance is ine%ective&&&ne' s$rveiance

#roves(

Michael Pec), 11!"#15, contributing $riter % &oreign Policy, '()S*sborder drones +rove ineective, &ederal Times,htt+$$$.federaltimes.comstorygovernmentdhs+rograms"#1/#1#0dhs-border-drone-cb+"1!/21!

Unmanned aerial vehicles have become a mainstay for surveillance

o+erations by the U.S. military. )o$ever, a ne' a$dit s$**ests t+at ,or border

s$rveiance- t+e. are a /o#( 3ustoms and 4order Patrol drones such as Predator-

4, $hich have been guarding the U.S. border for eight years, have +roven ineective, accordingto a re+ort by ()S*s 56ce of 7ns+ector 8eneral. 9s a result, the 78 suggests the de+artment*sre:uest for additional funding for the +rogram is not $arranted. ;esource ;ead

the ;e+ort


6/79

resulted in large allocations of tax-+ayer dollars being shifted to the(e+artment of )omeland Security F()S K for


7/79

Drone s$rveiance is #redicated on an act$aria ,orm o,

s$rveiance $sed to mana*e #o#$ations and eiminate

t+reats( !+is ,orm o, s$rveiance ,orces +omo*eni3ation-

and red$ces com#e"it. to cate*orica c+aracteristics t+at

4t t+e needs and biases o, o#erators

Wa and ona+an 11 FTyler Iall and Torin Monahan, Tyler Iall is an 9ssistant Professorin the School of Eustice Studies as astern HentucGy University. )e received his Ph.(. in Eustice Studies,Torin Monahan is a Professor of 3ommunication Studies at The University of Corth 3arolina. )is researchfocuses on institutional transformations $ith ne$ technologies, $ith a +articular em+hasis on surveillanceand security +rograms. 'Surveillance and violence from afar The +olitics of drones and liminal security-sca+es, 9ugust "#11, htt+$$$.antoniocasella.eunumeIallOMonahanOdronesO+oliticsO"#11.+dfMSK

Ihile drones a++ear to a6rm the +rimacy of visual modalities of surveillance,their underlying rationalities are more nuanced and +roblematic .9s com+lex

technological systems, drones are bot+ #redicated $#on and #rod$ctive o,

an act$aria ,orm o, s$rveianc e .They are em+loyed to amass data

about risG +robabilities and then mana*e #o#$ations or eiminate

net'or) nodes considered to e"ceed acce#tabe ris) t+res+od s. 7n

+art, drones are forms of surveillance in Gee+ing $ith the +rece+ts ofcategorical sus+icion and social sorting that deDne other contem+orarysurveillance systems F8andy, 1JJ!N MuraGami Iood et al., "##2N Lyon, "##0N Monahan, "#1#K.(rones may +erform +redominately in the discursive register of automated+recision and +ositive identiDcation of Gno$n threats, but in +ractice, these

surveillance systems and their agents actively inter#ret ambi*$o$s

in,ormation t+at contin$o$s. de4es e"act matc+es or cear

res#onses ( 7n the +rocess, U9? systems may ,orce +omo*eni3ation u+on

dierence, thereby red$cin* variation to ,$nctiona cate*ories t+at

corres#ond to t+e needs and biases o, t+e o#erators , not the targets,of surveillance. 9ll surveillance and dataveillance systems are +rone to errorsthat have harsh ramiDcations for the subAects $hose @a$ed data doublesQhaunt themF)aggerty and ricson, "##2K. (rone-based surveillance systems are noexce+tion , as $itnessed by veriDed cases of collateral damageQ caused bydrone striGes F4ergen and Tiedemann, "#1#K.

S+eciDcally, the border is +erceived as a security-sca+eRa setting ofinstability and insecurity detached from everyday life $here the body issubAect to routine hostile surveillance and violence. 9do+tion of these

systems is rooted in myths of technological su+eriority, obAectivity, andcontrol that result in violence and dehumaniBation.

Wa and ona+an 11 FTyler Iall and Torin Monahan, Tyler Iall is an 9ssistant Professorin the School of Eustice Studies as astern HentucGy University. )e received his Ph.(. in Eustice Studies,Torin Monahan is a Professor of 3ommunication Studies at The University of Corth 3arolina. )is researchfocuses on institutional transformations $ith ne$ technologies, $ith a +articular em+hasis on surveillanceand security +rograms. 'Surveillance and violence from afar The +olitics of drones and liminal security-sca+es, 9ugust "#11, htt+$$$.antoniocasella.eunumeIallOMonahanOdronesO+oliticsO"#11.+dfMSK


8/79

(rones also illustrate some )e. d.namics in t+e reations+i# bet'een

s$rveiance and miitari3ation . These devices are $oven u+ in myths of

tec+noo*ica s$#eriorit.- obectivit.- and contro t+at +e# s$##ort

t+eir ado#tion . 4y means of their su++osed accuracy and +recision, drone

systems may encourage the +ostie tar*etin* o, t+reats in miitar.

settin*s $hile further in$rin* #eo#e to invisibe monitorin* in

domestic s#+eres . )o$ever, drones reveal im+ortant dissonances in

militariBation +rocesses. The narrative of rationai3ation is interr$#ted in

telling $aysR by tec+noo*ica and +$man errors t+at )i innocent

#eo#e , by emotiona a%ect e"#erienced b. drone o#erators $ho may

feel closer to their targets than they $ould liGe, b. innovative $ses o,

camo$/a*e and monitorin* of drone feeds by so-called enemies, and by

media broadcasts o, t+ese and ot+er instabiities in drone s.stems.

Thus, although general trends can be discerned in the a++lication of drones across territories, U9?s R

liGe all systems of surveillance and violenceRare neither monolithic norstatic7 t+e. are a'a.s m$ti#e- contin*ent- and ne*otiated . 9s such,

analysis of drone systems re:uires us to acGno$ledge the violent ordehumaniBing +otentials of such technologies, and be sensitive to the activemediation of such logics by +eo+le and organiBations in local contexts . To thatend, in this article $e discuss U9?s as they circulate in combat Bones in 9fghanistan, 7ra:, and PaGistan

and in territorial borderBones and urban areas in the US9. These dierentgeogra+hies can be understood as liminal security-sca+esQ F8usterson, "##> K,$here the +ractices of everyday life are unstable and insecure and $herebodies are subAected to routine surveillance and violence . 4y focusing on thesedierent sites, $e begin to deconstruct the +olitics of drones and to theoriBeactuarial forms of surveillance and social control taGen to the extreme.

Perceivin* t+e immi*rant t+ro$*+ t+e screen- destro.s

#ossibiities o, em#at+. and constr$cts t+e immi*rant as

t+e ot+er o#enin* t+e door ,or e"#oitation(Coec)eber*+ 18FMarG 3oecGelbergh FPh.(., University of 4irminghamK isProfessor of Technology and Social ;es+onsibility at the 3entre for 3om+utingand Social ;es+onsibility, (e Montfort University, UH, (rones, informationtechnology, and distance ma++ing the moral e+istemology of remoteDghting,htt+do$nload.s+ringer.com.turing.library.north$estern.edustatic+df0art"/!91#.1##0"/"&s1#202-#1!-J!1!-2.+dforiginUrlhtt+!9"&"&linG.s+ringer.com"&article"&1#.1##0"&s1#202-#1!-J!1!-2VtoGen"ex+1>!22!>#/Wacl"&static"&+df"&0"&art"/"/!91#.1##0"/"/"&s1#202-#1!-J!1!-2.+df!&originUrl!(htt+"/!9"/"&"/"&linG.s+ringer.com"/"&article"/"&1#.1##0"/"&s1#202-#1!-J!1!2XWhmac/eJ#cfcc1/"db#"!0>a/!J0!Jfe1dJb#a>a0bJ/"2>ab##c0Jf1fb>!d"b!K


9/79

Second, the role of information technology is vital in constructing thisGno$ledge. 7f the other FdisKa++ears as dataQ, as informationQ, as a dot ona screenQ, as an entity $ithin a com+uter game, then it is easier to +ush thebutton. 9t such a distanceR+hysical distance and additional e+istemicdistance created by the s+eciDc technologiesRit a++ears that one Gills theenemyQ, +erha+s, but not human beings $ho are liGe usQ Fin the ex+erienceof the Dghter liGe meK. 7n this Gind of Dghting, the other does not havea face. The screen literally screens o the other as an other that is not totallyother. The other a++ears as an absolute stranger or even as an obAect. Thescreening technologiesY +revent em+athic bridging. The victimQsinformationalisation +recedes and maGes +ossible his extermination.4efore he is +hysically Gilled, he is Drst morally-e+istemically disarmed.+istemologically s+eaGing, he is already Gilled before the missile hitshim. 4eing tagged as a target, he F They K has become a node in a net$orG ofinformation, $hich reveals him as a something-to-be-Gilled. )e does nota++ear as a human being but as a bit that can only have t$o values, and hisvalue is no$ changed from 7 to #. 8ame over for him, and more +oints forthe Dghter $ho Gilled him. Thus, the eect of the technology on the Dghteris not only +sychologicalQ in the sense that it renders em+athic res+onsesdi6cult and thus taGes a$ay a barrier to Gilling, as SharGey and 8rossmansuggestN the technology also changes the $ay the Dghter +erceives and deals$ith those he is ordered to Gill. 7n this sense, the technology does not onlymaGeQ or constructQ someone as a targetN it also maGes and constructs theDghter as a Giller.Y This social-e+istemic and techno-e+istemic o+erationshould not be understood in +sychologicalQ terms alone. The technology doesnot Aust s$itch on or o a +articular facultyQ Fsym+athy or em+athyK or brainregions Fthose regions of the brain that are active $hen $e sym+athiBeKN italso changes the $ay $e thinG and act. Thus, 7 $ish to add a )eideggerian

hermeneutical +oint in addition to the em+irical-+sychological onealready acGno$ledged in the literature. The em+irical-+sychologicalversion of the thesis assumes that there is a human o++onent $hich$e +erceive in a morally neutral, obAective $ay and $hich then can orcannot receive our sym+athy, de+ending on the distance created bythe technology. The )eideggerian assum+tion 7 start from is that thereis no neutral $ay of conceiving of the o++onent, that the o++onent alreadya++ears to us as a target because of the technology, as a standing-to-be-Gilled Fin analogy $ith )eideggerQs term standing-reserveQ, see)eidegger 1J00K. The technology and the distance it creates does not only+roduce a barrier bet$een our em+athic ca+acity and the o++onent, itchanges the very $ay $e +erceive that o++onent. 7n this sense, thetechnology creates a dierent $orld for the Dghter. This has moralconse:uences. Let me further develo+ Fand then nuanceK the)eideggerian argument.


10/79

!+is constr$ction o, t+e immi*rant- #aces immi*rants as

docie bodies in t+e #oitica s#+ere( !+is $sti4es mass

e"#oitation and o##ression(Nai 18Fhtt+eA.lib.cbs.dGindex.+h+foucault-studiesarticlevie$!JJ!>!J/, Thomas Cail is a Postdoctoral Lecturer in

uro+ean Philoso+hy at the University of (enver, The 3rossroads of Po$erMichel &oucault and the USMexico 4order IallK

Several common features can also characteriBe the second grou+ of +oliticalstrategies 7 $antYto distinguish detention, surveillance, and the training ofmigratory life. The common features Yof these strategies are the features &oucault uses to deDne theconce+t of disci+linaryY+o$er. Let us thus continue examining this next set of strategies in action. Y Theborder $all is not merely a +hysical barrier on a territory that Gills migrants,althoughYit does do this. The border $all is also +art of a series of behavioraltechnologies $ithinYa $all+rison$orG+lace system designed to create anobedient, docile, +ermanentlyYsurveilled, and 'criminaliBed body . (es+ite the

fact that being in the US $ithout authoriBationYis a civil infraction and not a criminal one, migrantsare surveilled, arrested, +rocessed,Yand detained for long +eriods of time 'asif they $ere criminals and through this are actuallyYcriminaliBed.!2 LegallyunauthoriBed migrants are not criminals, but become so as an eect of Ydisci+linary strategies. This is one of the dierences bet$een sovereign strategies anddisci+linaryYones. The multi+le attem+ts made by migrants to cross the $all are also +art of a +rocess Yof

disci+linary training. The success rate of illegal migration, on the second or third try, isYu+$ardsof J/ +ercent, according to immigration scholar Iayne 3ornelius.!0 The $allthusYcontinues to exist +recisely because it is a vital +art of the +roduction ofthe model migrantY+ersistent, obedient, :uiet, and able to endure hardshi+and danger. 9s 8eorge I. 4ush +ut itY'family values do not sto+ at the ;io 8rande. Latinos enrich ourcountry $ith faith in 8od, aYstrong ethic of $orG, community, and res+onsibility... 7mmigration is not a

+roblem to beYsolved, it is the sign of a successful nation. ! 7mmigration is not a +roblem fordisci+linaryYstrategies it is an o++ortunity for disci+linary strategiesZ 7t is an o++ortunity to traina nation ofYdocile and obedient bodies. The $all $ith its steal and concrete,its miles of barbed $ire, checG +oints, border +atrol, array of @ood lights tomaximiBe visibility, cameras, and sensors for +ermanent and constantsu+ervision, mirror many of the techni:ues of the +rison and migrationdetention center, $hich again mirror the increased security, su+ervision, and+rison-liGe $orG+lace conditions that often em+loy undocumented $orGers. 7tis thus no coincidence that the Secure &ence 9ct, 5+eration 3atch and (etain, and 7mmigration IorG+lacenforcement $ere all +ro+osed to 3ongress at the same time. They are three +rongs of the border $allitself sovereignty, disci+line, and bio+o$er.!J 4uild a $all, disci+line the bodies of those $ho cross, andmaGe a +roDt from de+orting the rest


11/79

!+e drone is t+e #anacea- t+e ima*inar. so$tion- to t+e

contradictions in+erent in t+e reations o, American

miitarism( !+e #eas$re o, t+e 9s+oc) and a'e: doctrine-

o, t+e drone stri)e- contin$e t+is +e*emonic o*ic t+at

circ$mvents et+ica and e*a consideratons( ;ote a% to

#ace t+ese et+ica considerations at t+e ,ore,ront o, t+e

debate(

Michael Sater, J2"#18, +rof. % School of Social Science and Psychology,University of Iestern Sydney, 'Toys for the 4oys (rones, Pleasure andPo+ular 3ulture in the Militarisation of Policing, 3rit 3rim F"#1>K ""12!100

Police and government rhetoric about drones are characterised by unrealisedand unrealistic fantasies of total surveillance and s$ift intervention that aredisru+ted by an absence of su++orting evidence and a tangle oftechnological, legal and +ractical limita- tions. 4enAamin F"#1!K lists a number of incidentsin $hich the ca+abilities of drones have been +ut to good use, such as $hen drones $ere used after the

"#11 earth:uaGe in Ea+an to monitor radiation levels in at the &uGishima nuclear +lant, or $hen crisisservices have used drones to monitor @oods or Dres. )o$ever it has yet to be established through research

or ex+erience that drones have any substantive +lace in crime +revention, detection or intervention. Thebaseless but ongoing claims about the +olicing +otential of drones are

im+ortant marGers of fetishisation, si*naed b. "#ressin* desire ,or

and a##rova o, t+e obect and its ca#acities- ceebratin* t+e obect-

reverin* it- settin* it a#art- dis#a.in* it- e"toin* and e"atin* its

ca#acities- e$o*isin* it =and> ent+$siastic $se o, it? F(ant 1JJ2 /111"K.

)o$ever the dearth of evidence for the usefulness of the drone for +olicingmarGs this as a +articular form of fetishism that, according by 4audrillard

F1J1 !"K accrues to the $seess *ad*et? , c+aracteri3ed b.


12/79

+olice agencies $ho have instead described them as an extension of existing +olice aerial resourcesF8reen$ald "#1!K. )o$ever this is a disingenuous trivialisation of the unavoidable association of the drone

$ith the missile striGes that have terrorised civilian +o+ulations in the Middle ast. 7ndeed , the+otential for $ea+onisation has been a feature of +olice and +oliticaldiscourse on the domestic a++lication of drones . 7n the United States, some +oliceagencies and $ea+ons manufacturers are o+enly s+eculating that la$ enforcement drones may be Dtted

$ith non-lethal $ea+ons such as tasers, bean bagQ guns, tear gas canisters and rubber bullets in thefuture FStanton "#11N 4enAamin "#1!, + 0JK $hile the Senator for HentucGy, ;and Paul, recently suggestedthat it $ould be legitimate for a +olice drone to be used to Gill an armed robber FEohnson "#1!K.7nfamously, 9merican military drones have been used to target and Gill 9merican citiBens overseas F3ole"#1!cK. Mean$hile the drone industry has develo+ed $ea+oniBed drones for domestic a++lication and ismarGeting these assassin bugsQ to +olice agencies and governments F8reen$ald "#1!K. 9t +resent, no+olice drone is armed $ith lethal or non-lethal $ea+onry and any such develo+ment $ould liGely beextremely controversial. Conetheless the fetishisation of an obAect does not re:uire the realisation of its fullca+acities. To the contrary, the fetishisation of the commodity can be signiDed by an excess ca+acityQthat is never utilised F(ant 1JJ2K. (ant F1JJ2K +rovides the exam+le of cars manufactured $ith a ca+acityfor s+eed that $ould be illegal to de+loy on the road. 7t is this excess of ca+acity $ithin the car that acts asa sign of +restige and value. 7n a similar fashion, drones may be a++ealing to +olice at least in +artbecause their excess ca+acityQ for $ea+onisation o+erates as a signiDer of the individual +o$er of the+olice o6cer and collective status of the +olice force. 9s such it accords $ith the increasingly styliseddis+lays of militarised force that have come to characterise contem+orary +olicing, marGing theindeterminant boundaries bet$een militarisation, gendered fantasies of domination, and the masculine+leasures of +laying $arQ. This fusion of fantasy and $ea+on is characteristic of the +roducts of armamentculture/ and generate considerable consumer interest FLucGham 1J>K. (rones are no$ available on theadult toyQ marGet, and the bemusing intersection of $ea+on and toy in the drone became evident in "#1"$hen it emerged that an 9merican +olice agency had +urchased a toy drone although it $ould be illegalfor an o6cer to use it in the Deld FHoebler "#1!K. Little $onder that the 9merican 3ivil Liberties Union hassuggested the +olice interest in drones as case of boys $ith their toys gone $ildQ Fcited in 8ruber "#11K. /7t is interesting to note that Gey exam+les of +olice technology originated in science Dction. Cot only $asthe +olice drone Drst de+icted by 5r$ell Fas +reviously discussedK, but taserQ is an acronym for Tom S$iftand his lectric ;i@eQ, the 1J11 science Dction booG that de+icted the electric ri@eQ that ins+ired the taserF4erenson "##>K and the conce+t of electronic monitoring $as su++osedly ins+ired by a S+iderman comicbooG in $hich a villain +laces an electronic bracelet on the hero to tracG his $hereabouts F3orbett and

Marx 1JJ1K. 1"! Toys for the 4oys 10! 3onclusion The deadly serious tone of counter-terrorism discourse is some$hat undermined by the excesses of armamentculture and the evident but su++ressed child-liGe +leasures that drive +olice

militarisation. )o$ever the fusion of technology, +leasure and militarism

$ithin the drone has +otentially grave im+lications. It si*nas t+at a

cons$mer miitarism driven b. c$t$ra and emotiona in)a*es

bet'een vioence and masc$init. is bein* ind$*ed b. t+e nation

state as #art o, a s.stematic miitarisation o, interna sec$rit. . The

evident ga+ bet$een the fantasy and the reality of the +olicing dronebecomes secondary to its role as a +ro+ $ithin the +erformances ofmilitarised masculinity that are central to $arQ Fon crime drugsterrorK as agoverning strategy. 3ole F"#1!aK notes that much of the controversy over 9merican use of dronesoverseas +ertains to disagreements over the deDnition of $ar, and yet in relation to internal security, a

militarised ideology of crime control is so hegemonic and +ervasive that ithas circ$mvented basic et+ica and e*a debate . )o$ever there is an

obvious similarity bet$een the signature striGesQ of military drones that Gillother$ise unGno$n targets on the basis of a +roDleQ of sus+icious activity F3ole "#1!bK, and themanner in $hich disadvantaged and ethnic minority communities aredierentially im+acted by ne$ surveillance technologies and +aramilitary +olicingstrategies, sometimes to lethal eect Fsee Mc3ulloch and Sentas "##2K. Singer F"#1"K has asGed (odrones undermine democracyQ by reducing the +olitical risGs associated $ith engaging in $ar, but thesame :uestion might be asGed in relation to +olice drones and +layingQ at $ar. Iithin armament culture,


13/79

boys and men are enAoined to seeG simulations of $ar in order to a6rm their relations $ith one anotherand establish their masculine bona DdesN +eace a++ears +ositively boring in com+arison. LiGe othermanifestations of armament culture, drones are a++ealing to +olice because they are embedded $ithin a+ervasive cultural code of military signs and symbols +romising the rush and thrill of masculine con@ictand, ultimately, victory. &or 4audrillard F1J1K the signs $ithin such cultural systems are free-@oating and

entirely interchangeable ho$ever this +a+er has highlighted ho$ miitarism retains its

com#ein* @$aities beca$se it o%ers ima*inar. so$tions to t+e

contradictions in+erent in materia- socia and economic rea& tions .

9s such, it retains its linGages to the realQ even as it +enetrates and obscures it,reconstituting gendered anxieties into internal and external threatsQ $hoseneutralisation legitimises self-rene$al through violence. 4ehind the+rerogatives of the +leasure and thrill of the drones is an emerging mode ofgovernmentality that does not recognise the social and economicdeterminants of crime. 7nstead it vie$s criminals as +otential targets for a$ea+onised engagement through $hich militarised masculinity can be

rene$ed for the aggrandisement of +olice, as individuals and as a grou+, b$t

aso ,or t+e neoibera state( 9necdotal re+orts of female drone +ilots are maGing their

$ay into the mass media Fe.g. 9be "#1"K but the linGage bet$een femininity andmilitarism is not a straightfor$ard story of em+o$erment but rather itcontinues to be characteriBed by o6cial eorts to maintain the sorts ofmasculinity that enhance militarismQ Fnloe "### "01K. The +redominance of men in+aramilitary units, and the overt reconstruction of an aggressive masculinity $ithin the +aramilitary ethosmore generally, suggests that the militariBation of crime control is a mode by $hich threatened formations

of masculine values and +ractice are +reserved $ithin a changing social and cultural landsca+e. 3entralto this dynamic are the feelings of +leasure and excitement that intersect inthe drone, and hence the integration of such technology into +olicing

symbolises a dual obfuscation Crime as


14/79

1ac sovenc.ecent DS re#ort ,o$nd CBP drone s$rveiance #ro*ram

is cost. and ine%ective

PatricG 8. Eddin*ton, 1""#15, Policy analyst in )omeland Security and

3ivil Liberties at the 3ato 7nstitute, and an assistant +rofessor in the SecurityStudies Program at 8eorgeto$n University, '4order Surveillance &ollies,39T5 7nstitute, htt+$$$.cato.org+ublicationscommentaryborder-surveillance-follies

&or more than a decade, the (e+artment of )omeland Security has em+loyedsome of the same Ginds of drones used by our military. The ostensible+ur+ose of having unarmed Predator drones $as to give U.S. 3ustoms and4order Protection additional aerial surveillance ca+abilities along theSouthern border. )omeland Security o6cials argued the drones $ere cost-eective and needed. 9s a cost-savings measure, the 5bama administration+ro+osed maAor cuts to the ()S drone +rogram in "#1#, but )ouse9++ro+riations 3ommittee leaders, $ho su++orted the +rogram and felt the

ex+ansion should continue, shot that +ro+osal do$n. !+e. s+o$d?ve

t+o$*+t t+ro$*+ t+at decision ,ar more care,$.( 5n 3hristmas ve

"#1>, the ()SQs ins+ector general released a re+ort on the de+artmentQsdrone surveillance +rogram, and it is an indictment of the +rogram. ' The()SQs ins+ector general released a re+ort on the de+artmentQs dronesurveillance +rogram, and it is an indictment of the +rogram. The ()S 78found that ' \ after years, 34P cannot +rove that the +rogram is eective.Iorse, the 34P lo$-balled the +er-hour cost of o+erating its drones. 7nsteadof the claimed =",>2 +er @ight hour, the ()S 78 found the cost $as =1","//

+er hour R nearly Dve times as much as 34P o6cials have claimed. 9lmostno illegal border crossing a++rehensions could be attributed to informationfrom the drones, and the 34P could not sho$ the drones actually reduced thecost of border surveillance. (es+ite these Dndings, the 34P has notabandoned +lans to s+end nearly half a billion dollars more to ex+and its

drone +rogram. !+ese are t+e )ind o, a$dit res$ts t+at s+o$d s#$r

Con*ress to terminate a 'aste,$- ine%ective *overnment #ro*ram(

Instead- t+is 'ee) Con*ress is #oised to #ass e*isation t+at 'o$d

direct t+e DS to do$be&do'n on t+e $se o, drones ,or border

s$rveiance( The so-called Secure 5ur 4orders &irst 9ct F); !JJK,

s+onsored by the )ouse )omeland Security 3hairman Michael Mc3aul, ;-Texas, directs on virtually a sector-by-sector basis the em+loyment of dronesfor aerial surveillance R either the larger drones liGe Predator for 'maritimesurveillance or man-+ortable drones for more overland aerial surveillance.7tQs $orth noting that the Gind of man-+ortable drones Mc3aul is instructingthe ()S to use have vastly shorter aerial loiter times than the larger Predatordrone, and cannot carry the full range of the most so+histicated, ca+ablesurveillance technologies available to the U.S. government R the verytechnologies that the ()S 78 has found to be virtually useless for detecting or


15/79

deterring illegal crossings even $hen em+loyed by Predator drones. (irectinga federal agency that has already s:uandered hundreds of millions oftax+ayer dollars on failed surveillance technologies and +olicies to engage in

more of the same reinforces the ima*e o, Con*ress bein* a

d.s,$nctiona instit$tion( 5ver the +ast decade, 3ongress has $asted

hundreds of millions of dollars on other useless ()S +roAects, including$orthless air+ort body scanners and ex+losive detection e:ui+ment that doesnot $orG. Program audits by federal $atch dogs liGe the ()S 78 are

commissioned for a reason to +revent $aste, fraud and abuse. !+e

omeand Sec$rit. and A##ro#riations committees s+o$d +eed t+e

4ndin*s o, t+e DS IF and sto# 'astin* sti more ,edera ta" doars

on drones(


16/79

1ac ,ramin*Goc$s on $nder.in* str$ct$res #rod$cin* vioence

o$t'ei*+s a one s+ot inear ca$se ,or con/ictHendrick 9 (Diane, University of Bradford, Dept of Peace Studies, Complexity Theory and ConflictTransformation: n !xploration of Potential and "mplications#, Centre for Conflict $esolution, %une&%ohn Paul 'ederach, drain) on *heatley, has found the notion of +processstructures to -e of value in understandin) this notion of chan)e and sta-ility.

*heatley uses other terms than /aturana and 0arela : 1thin)s that maintain form over time yet have no ri)idity of structure.1 (*heatley, 2334 p. 54&

(emphasis added&. 'ederach is concerned to sho a com-ination of linearity and circularity in thedynamics of conflicts.6is representation of complexity concepts is filtered -ut has, therefore, the advanta)e that it is not a direct translation ofterms from one realm to another ith the inherent dan)ers mentioned a-ove. 6e stresses connection -ut it is important for him to understand this in social

systems as +relationship. "n the circular chan)e process he descri-es there are nonlinear relationshipsin terms of unpredicta-ility and disproportionality (no linear pro)ress in this sense& at thesame time , hoever, the system is movin) in a certain direction (time irreversi-ility&.6eunderstands system properties as the context of relationships out of hich conflict episodesemer)e. 6e reco)nises the importance of discoverin) the underlyin) patterns in the systemthat are producin) the conflicts. s 'ederach notes a systemic approach re7uires a reorientation froma focus on events and specific outcomes to the reco)nition of patterns that emer)e over time,and here he echoes the advice of Peter Sen)e hen he refers to the human tendency to a+fixation on events: +*e are conditioned to see life as a series of events , and for every event,

e thin8 there is one o-vious cause...such explanationsmay -e true as far as they )o, -ut they distract us fromseein) the lon)erterm patterns of chan)e that lie -ehind the events and from understandin)the causes of those patterns1. (Sen)e, 5993 2334 p. 2&

Predictions o, +i*+ ma*nit$de con/icts are im#ossibe

and a'a.s serve to disco$nt on*oin* vioence m$ti#e

st$dies #rove t+e im#act o, t+e a% o$t'ei*+s an. DA

as$r H]Eonathan, 4igelo$ &ello$ and Lecturer in La$, University of3hicago La$ School, 'Probability Thresholds, J" 7o$a L. ;ev. 1"J!^

(eference to the executive has becomea Audicial shibboleth and, in most cases,

a++ro+riately so n1/0 - the executive is +eculiarly ca+able of ]X1!"J^ assessing and evaluating national-security threats. n1/ 4ut $hen courts aord this deference, in@ation of the threatened harmis one of the natural conse:uences . 9s the subAect matter moves further outside of the courts* com+etence - in other $ords, as the +robability of anevent dro+s and it becomes less susce+tible to Audicial evaluation - that eect increases, and deference becomes an ever more decisive factor in the $eighing of costs and beneDts. n1/J Moreover, lo$-+robability, high-magnitude harms are +articularly susce+tible togovernmental in@ation. The lo$est-+robability harms involve es+ecially acute informationalasymmetries bet$een the government and the court Fand the o++osing +artyK. The less liGely anevent is to occur - and the more dramatic the threat - the less liGely it is thatbacGground information relating to the event*s +otential causes orantecedents $ill have see+ed into the +ublic domain. The ex+lanation echoes in thenature of both lo$-+robability events and high-magnitude harms. &irst, a +otential harm of great

magnitude n12# can assume only a fe$ forms Fremember that this must also be a harmcatalyBed by s+eechK. 9 $ar. 9 riot. 9 revolution. 9n act of terrorism or violence, necessarily $ith asubstantially destructive $ea+on. 9 signiDcant combat loss, such as the sinGing of a troo+ trans+ort.

These categories deDne nearly the entire universe of relevant high-magnitude s+eech harms. Such harms share one essential, salientcharacteristic they all concern to+ics that are es+ecially - if not exclusively - $ithinthe ex+ertise of the executive branch. n121 5nly the ]X1!!#^ executive can Gno$ if the +ublication of a shi+*s schedule $ill lead to the sinGing of atrans+ort because only the executive Gno$s $hen the trans+orts sail or ho$ much submarine activity they are liGely to encounter. n12" 5nly the executive can Gno$ $hether the +ublication of +artial +lans for thehydrogen bomb $ill actually maGe it more liGely that some terrorist or rogue nation could ac:uire the bomb, since only the executive Gno$s $hat other information is yet to be +ublished or ho$ di6cult it is to obtain+lutonium and tritium on the $orld marGet. n12! 9nd only the executive can Gno$ $hether o+ening the de+ortation hearing of a +otential terrorist to the ne$s media $ill give other terrorists valuable information

about 9merican anti-terrorism methods because only the executive Gno$s $hat those methods are or ho$ they relate to $hat the hearing might divulge. n12> )igh-magnitude


17/79

harms are national-security-im+licating harms, and national-security-im+licating harms are the +rovince of the executive. Second, and in concomitantfashion, lo$-+robability harms rarely involve sim+le causal relationshi+s - if 9,then 4, but only $ith small +robability. More fre:uently they re:uire a seriesof only loosely de+endent +robable occurrences, the interaction of dis+arate

+arties, or fortuitous conAunctions of unrelated events .The greater the number of moving +arts and the more com+lex

the relationshi+s that a +articular s+eech act must catalyBe in order for a harm to occur, the more di6cult and costly it is for a court to maGe an inde+endent assessment of that harm*s liGelihood. The linG is $ith

4randenburg*s 7n the +resence of small +robabilities, individualsfunctioned as +oor cost-beneDt balancers. 4ut $hat should not be overlooGed is the fact that these in@ated cost-of-life values resulted from+eo+les* $illingness to +ay a++roximately e:uivalent amounts of money to eliminate all


18/79

and only thatN the statistically enormous dierences bet$een them did noteven register. 9s one commentator suggests, it is liGely that for risGs in these domains - and a +henomenon that ta+s into both rational and extrarational centers $ill

undoubtedly +roduce some ty+e of heightened eect. Ihat is striGing is the degree to $hich emotional a++eals can +enetrate $hat


19/79

ought to be +urely rational decision-maGing +rocesses and the extent to $hich theycan sGe$ the outcomes of those endeavors. ]X1!!J^ x+eriments have demonstrated thatindividuals are $illing to +ay substantial +remiums to avoid emotionally ladendangers above and beyond $hat they $ould s+end to eliminate banal risGs ofthe same magnitude and +robability. 7n one study, subAects $ere $illing to +ay as much as >/ more to avoid a risG that had been described to themin emotional terms than they $ere $illing to +ay to avoid the same risG - a risG of death $ith the same +robability - $hen they had been oered the risG in emotion-neutral terms. n"#/ 9nother study obtained

similar results by looGing at res+onses to threats of electric shocG. n"#2 These exam+les, alongside many others, n"#0 reveal a more +articular trend individ$as 'ires#ond more stron*. to dread,$ or catastro#+ic dan*ers and

to dan*ers t+at t+e. cannot contro t+an t+e. 'i to t.#ica-

ever.da. +arms. n"# The eect can become extremely +ronounced in thecontext of im+robable threats, as individuals


20/79

inade:uate Aob of +olicing the community. n""> The only factor is ho$ easily a decision-maGer can summon an instance of the event in :uestion to mind. 7t is $orth noting also that the evidence and theory behindthe availability heuristic $ould seem to con@ict to some degree $ith the observation - oered by the same commentators $ho have recorded the enhanced +ublic reaction to +articularly dreadful or frightful events -

that individuals res+ond more strongly to


21/79

the defence of the lesser evil. &aced $ith a humanitarian 9-bomb , one might$onder $hat , in fact, might come under the deDnition of a greater evil. Perha+sit is time for the dier- ential accounting of the lesser evil to re+lace themechanical bureaucy of the banality of evilQ as the idiom to describe themost extreme manifestations of violence. 7ndeed, it is through this use of the

lesser evil that societies that see themselves as democratic can maintainregimes of occu+ation and neo-coloniBation. 4eyond state agents, those +ractitioners oflesser evils, as this booG claims, must also include the members of inde+endent nongovernmental

organiBations that maGe u+ the ecology of contem+orary $ar and crisis Bones. The lesser evil is theargument of the humanitarian agent that seeGs military +ermission to +rovidemedicines and aid in +laces $here it is in fact the duty of the occu+ying military +o$er to do so, thussaving the military limited resources. The lesser evil is often the AustiDcation of themilitary o6cer $ho attem+ts to administer life Fand deathK in an enlight-enedQ mannerN it is sometimes, too, the brief of the security contractor $hointroduces ne$ and more e6cient $ea+ons and s+atio-technological means ofdomination, and advertises them as humanitarian technologyQ. 7n these cases thelogic of the lesser evil o+ens u+ a thicG +olitical Deld of +artici+ation bringing

together other$ise o++osing Delds of action, to the extent that it mightobscure the fundamental moral dierences bet$een these various grou+s. 4ut,even according to the terms of an economy of losses and gains, the conce+t of the lesser evilrisGs becoming counter+ro- ductive less brutal measures are also those thatmay be more easily naturaliBed, acce+ted and toerated and +ence more,re@$ent. $sed- 'it+ t+e res$t t+at a *reater evi ma. be reac+ed

c$m$ative. ( Such observations amongst other +aradoxes are un+acGed in one of the most+o$erful challenges to ideas such as 7gnatieQs 9di 5+hirQs +hiloso+hical essay The 5rder of vils. 7n thisbooG 5+hir develo+ed an ethical system that is similarly not grounded in a search for the goodQ but ratherin minimiBing the harms that he refers to as evilsQ. 5+hir un+acGs the systemic logic of an economy of

violence the +ossibility of a lesser means and the risG of more damage but insists that :uestions ofviolence are forever un+redictable and $ill al$ays esca+e the ca+acity tocalculate them. 7nherent in 5+hirQs insistence on the necessity of calculating is, he +osits, the im+ossibility of doing so. The demands of his ethics are groundedin this im+ossibility.10 PanglossQs La$ The diuse body of customs and conventions that maGe u+Aus in bello, the la$s of $ar other$ise Gno$n as international humanitarian la$F7)LK, havesince the end of the 3old Iar increasingly become the frame $ithin $hich thecalculation and a++lication of military violence taGes +lace . 7n recent decades 7)Lhas also become an im+ortant +art of global +olitical culture. (ebates aboutcon@icts and occu+ations from Hosovo to 9fghanistan to 7ra: tend to use theterminology of 7)L. The Auridical categories of necessityQ and +ro+ortionalityQ seem to be amongthe most +o+ular terms em+loyed in designing and monitoring state violence. This a++lies also to theanti$ar movements it is no$ not uncommon to see demonstrators carrying banners $ith slogans bearingreferences to these clauses in the la$ Fas in the oft-invoGed recrimination of $ar crimesQK or to s+eciDclegal +rinci+les such as +ro+ortionality Fdis+ro+ortional attacGQK. Those +rotesting in the name of the la$

must remember, though, that 7)L does not seeG to end $ars but rather to regulateQand sha+eQ the $ay militaries $age themN and that $estern militaries, increasingly boggeddo$n by a raft of urban insurgencies in various global arenas, are also Geen to change the $ay they Dght

$ars and to minimiBe civilian casualties. Iestern militaries tend to believe that bymoderating the violence they +er+etrate, they might be able to govern+o+ulations more e6ciently and even Dnally $in over the hearts and minds that havecontinuously eluded them since the 4ritish Malayan counterinsergency and the ?ietnam Iar. Iithin


22/79

the frame of international humanitarian la$ the clearest mani- festation of thelesser evil +rinci+le is the +rinci+le of +ro+ortionality. This is, of course,embedded in almost every civil legal code. (ierent versions of it have been used todescribe dierent ty+es of balancing acts, most often in situations $here some rights contradict others, or$hen individual rights are $eighed against +ublic interests, or against administrative or economic

+olicies.1 Iithin the context of 7)L, ho$ever, +ro+ortionality is a moderating +rinci+le that seeGs to

constrain the use of force.1J The +rinci+le $as im+licit in most international conventions on the use offorce but $as formally codiDed only in 1J00, in Protocol 7 of the 8eneva3onventions. The +rotocolQs $ording +rohibits an attacG $hich may be ex+ected to cause incidentalloss of civilian life, inAury to civilians, damage to civilian obAects, or a combination thereof, $hich $ould beexcessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage antici+atedQ Fmy em+hasisK."#

Pro+ortionalitythus demands the establishment of a +ro+er relationQ bet$eenunavoidable meansQ and necessary endsQ. Ihile consid- ering the choice ofmilitary means, the +rinci+le calls for a balance to be established bet$eenmilitary obAectives and antici+ated damage to civilian life and +ro+erty.Pro+ortionality is thus not about clear lines of +rohibi- tion but rather aboutcalculating and determining balances and degrees. 7n incessantly calculating for theleast of all means +ossible, it embodies something of PanglossQs +rinci+le. The +ur+ose of +ro+ortionality is

not to striGe a +erfect balance, but rather to ensure that there is no excessive imbalance. Cevertheless it isabout the too muchQ but ho$ much is too much 9lthough violence is in constantneed of measurement, the +rinci+le of +ro+ortionality +rovides no scale, noformulas and no numerical thresholds. 7nstead, it demands assessment on a case-by-casebasis, $ithin +arameters that are al$ays relative, situational and immanent . 7tdemands the estimation of aims, im+acts and side eects, intended andunintended conse:uences $hich is also to say, the measurement of lesserand greater evils, their exchange and sometimes even transfer in an economy of a realor imaginary $orst-case scenarioQ and in an attem+t to Gee+ the overalllevel of violence to the minimum necessary. 4y o+ening a Deld ofe:uivalence , in $hich dierent forms of +otential and actual violence, risG,

and damage become exchangeable,+ro+ortionality a++roximates an algorithmic logic of

com+utation although, still, in +ractice, it is rarely com+uted. Military la$yers and ex+erts ininternational humanitarian la$ are the Drst to acce+t the fact that the +redictions re:uired for+ro+ortionality analysis are a'a.s contin*ent- immanent and #rone tos$bective inter& #retations. 3ontem+orary military debates about 7)L concern+recisely the im+ossibility of bringing together in +ractice the legal demandthat violence be measured, and the im+ossibility of doing so . LiGe the Dnances+ecialists $ho acGno$ledge the im+ossibility of +rediction but do little elsethan calculate , the economists of violence are incessantly $eighing theiro+tions and hedging their risGs under the assum+tion of un+redict- ability anduncertainty. It is t+e ver. act o, cac$ation t+e ver. ,act cac$ationtoo) #ace t+at $sti4es t+eir action. 7ndeterminacy, the very +rinci+le thatmaGes the economies of liberal ca+italism generate +roDt, or burst after a se:uence of failures, is alsocentral to the conduct and +otential outcomes of the contem+orary $ars. 4utalong $ith the gro$ing ca+acity of technological means the incalculability oftheir conse:uences also gro$s . Some military la$yers thinG that indeterminacy $ill al$ays $orG in their favour. 5thers, allergic to the idea of vagueness, see intechnology an o++ortunity to dis+el inherent uncertainties and incalculability. (aniel ;eisner, former head of the 7nternational La$ (ivision in the 7sraeli military, is of the latter Gind. 7n a conversation he described tome the +roblems of calculating the economy of violence on the +ro+ortionality +rinci+le, and later his attem+t tried to dis+el something of the ethicallegal fog surrounding the :uestion Pro+ortionality is a com+lexlogic $ith many variables but ho$ do you com+are these There is no choice but to asG the :uestion, com+are and calculate. Pro+ortionality does not tell us $hat to include in the calculation, $hat is the e:uationand $hat is the exchange rate. Should a man of combatant age be counted as a c ivilian 7f so, does he count for more or for less )o$ do you count $omen in relation to men )o$ do you count the death ofchildren (oes one dead child e:ual one dead gro$nu+, or does he e:ual Dve gro$nu+s 9s a la$yer 7 need numbers to $orG $ith. 7 need thresholds in order to instruct the soldiers. 9ny number could become a

useful benchmarG. 4ut $hen the ground of the la$ is shaGing 7 am also unstable. The legal deDnition of civilian does not , of course,involve any distinc- tions by gender and age N civilian life is civilian life and


23/79

children are legally considered e:ual to adults. 4ut la$yersQ insistence on the Dne details of a necro-economy, and the conversion rates bet$een +eo+le of dierent genders and ages, is ex+lained by the fact

that +ro+ortionality has become a means to an end measuring the +ubliclegitimacy of an act of violence. 7n this arena there is indeed a dierent meaning attached tothe Gilling of children or $omen. LacGing any other criterion for measurement, death ratio is one of thegruesome $ays in $hich +ro+ortionality is calculated and managed in +ractice. 7t has its macabre side

eects, too. 7n a "##" meeting of a team of ex+erts on la$ and military ethics , ;eisner challenged his colleagues to an ex+eriment . )e asGed each of them$hat ratio of collateral civilian deathQ ho$ many civilians Gilled theyconsidered to be legitimate in the context of a s+eciDc scenario that he recounted,of an armed militant about to be Gilled by the 7sraeli military. ach of his colleagues $rote do$n a numberof civilian deaths theyQd acce+t as legitimate under the +rinci+le of +ro+ortionality. The numbers $ere then

counted and collated, and an average $as calculated. 7t $as !.1> very a++roximately the math- ematicalconstant ` $hose value is the ratio of a circleQs circumference relative to its diameter in uclidean s+ace. 9nother instance of calculation,$hile not referring directly to +ro+ortionality, embodies this grotes:ue logic of necro-economy in +ractice. 7n "##", $hile still a general in the7sraeli military, 7tBhaG 4en 7srael, no$ a +rofessor of +hysics at the Tel 9viv University and chairman of 7sraelQs s+ace agency, $as in charge ofthe $ea+ons and technological infrastructure research and develo+- ment directorateQ. There he develo+ed an e:uation based on systemstheory in order to +redict the necessary number of +eo+le the 7sraeli military must eliminate from a militant organiBation by arrest ortargeted assassinations in order to defeat it. The formula $as 1F: ln : 1: ln 1:K. 7n this e:uation, $hich seeGs to a++ly the entro+icbehaviour of molecules in a gaseous state to military and +olitical matters, stands for the +robability that the organiBation $ill colla+se and: is the +ercentage of militants you Gill. To +ut it sim+ly, if you Gill For neutraliBe in other $aysK "#"/ +er cent of the members of anorganiBation any organiBa- tion there is an / +er cent liGelihood that the confusion and Gno$ledge loss generated $ill lead to its colla+se.7f you Gill /# +er cent, the formula has it, the result converges on a 1## +er cent +robability that it $ill colla+se."1 Pro+ortionalityQs system of

calculations a++roximates models a++lied in the insurance industry to assess risG. ;isG analysis develo+ed indeed as a means of determining

the +robabilities of bad things occurring, their +otential for damage and their s+atial or systemic distribution . &or the military,risG is the means of determining the +robability of destruction and inAury to+ersonnel and e:ui+ment and their +otential severity . The conce+tion of risGis central to the calculation of +ro+ortionality, es+e- cially $hen attem+ts tominimiBe civilian casualties is measured against +otential harm to soldiers. The trade oQ of risG means that reducing risG to the attacGing military tendsto increase the risG to civilians . 5ne of the clearest exam+les for this risGtransfer $arQ $as C9T5Qs bombing of Hosovo and 4elgrade in 1JJJ. This $asmainly due to the decision to conduct high altitude aerial attacGs that reduced the danger toC9T5 air force, but dramatically increased it for the civilians on the ground.

The result no combat fatalities among C9T5 forces com+ared $ith Dvehundred civilians Gilled by the bombardment $as understood by many international la$scholars as an indication of a breach of the +ro+ortionality +rinci+le. This case also demonstrated that thebalance ex+ected in +ro+ortionality has a territorial dimension. (ierent calculations, formu- las, balancesand death ratios are deemed a++ro+riate to state militaries in dierent Bones of action and across dierentborders.""

es#onsibiit. to t+er is a #rere@$isite to ma)in* ot+er

mora s.stems +$mane( Gai$re to *ro$nd ot+er et+ica or

ontoo*ica t+eories in t+is enco$nter ma)es *enocide

inevitabe

Frob KK Leonard 8rob, Professor of Philoso+hy at &arleigh (icGinson

University, JJ, thics 9fter the )olocaust, +. -11MerB

This face-to-face encounter is thus no cognitive event. 9s $e have seen, 7 cannotGno$ the 5ther as 5ther $ithout diminishing his or her otherness. 7 can,ho$ever, encounter that 5ther in $hat Levinas terms an ethical event . 7ndeed,it is only $ith the rending of the ontological schema that ethics Drst becomes+ossible. Prior to my meeting $ith the 5ther, there is no ethics as such. Iithin the totality of being, 7am limited in my egoist ambition only by a lacG of +o$er. The 5ther $ho meets me face-to-


24/79

face challenges my very right to exercise +o$er. 7n so doing, ethics is born. 3ognition no longer re+resents the highest activity of $hich a human is ca+ableN it is re+laced by


25/79

criti:ue of the events of the )olocaust +ossible $ithin the terms of +hiloso+hy-as-ontology, but, as 7 have

noted above, it can be argued that the mode of a++ro+riative thinGing of +hiloso+hersin our Iestern tradition has contributed to the creation of a climate in $hichgenocide can @ourish. 7f, in ontological terms, individual beings are said to havetheir meaning solely $ithin the totality in $hich they Dnd themselves,totaliBing thinGing may $ell become totalitarian. Ee$s and other victims of CaBio++ression $ere dehumaniBed +recisely by being vie$ed in terms of racial categories a++lied to them as a

$hole. 7f +hiloso+hy is a mere egology, as Levinas claims, the totaliBingcognitive subAect can, at the far end of a continuum, be seen to +ass overinto the autocratic


26/79


27/79

2ac e"tensions


28/79

2acsec$rit. adv e"tns


29/79

2acsec$rit. advanta*e e"tns!+e $se o, drones contrib$tes to t+e on*oin* American

'ar ,etis+

(evon PeMa, J"#"#12, +rof. 9meircan thnic Studies, 9nthro+ology, and

nvironmental Studies % University of Iashington, '(rone FunKethics on theUS-Mexico border, MexMigration,htt+mexmigration.blogs+ot.com"#1"#drone-unethics-on-border.html

There is a saying, '9llQs fair in love and $ar, that taGes on ne' meanin*

$ith the increasing use of Uninhabited 9erial ?ehicles FU9?sK or drones.Q There is aDerce +olitical and ethical debate surrounding the use of drones by the U.S.military and in +articular the de+loyment of this technology as an assassination $ea+on in

the so-called 'Iar on Terror. Less concern has been ex+ressed over the

de+loyment of drones as a border control and surveillance technology alongthe "### miles of the U.S.-Mexico international boundary. Ie can discern

much about the state of exce+tion in the U.S. by analyBing the striGingconvergence bet$een $hat +hiloso+hers are saying about the ethics of theuse of drones in PaGistan tribal areas and other locales subAect to thisassassination +rogram and $hat +artisans are touting in the context of the

+olitics of immigration and the U.S.-Mexico border , understood as a di%erent

)ind o, 'ar 3one . 7 $ill start $ith a :uote from a recent article by an ethics +rofessor from theUniversity of 3onnecticut $ith the revealing title, 'Moral +redators The duty to em+loy uninhabited aerialvehicles, in $hich the author rebuGes those $ho obAect to the use of these facelessQ death machines \$e have a duty to +rotect an agent engaged in a AustiDed act from harm to the greatest extent +ossible, aslong as that +rotection does not interfere $ith the agentQs ability to act Austly\Therefore, $e are obligatedto em+loy U9? ]drone^ $ea+on systems\The +oint\is\that there is nothing $rong in +rinci+le $ith usinga U9? and that, other things being e:ual, using such technology is, in fact, obligatory. 4radley. E. Stra$ser,

Eournal of Military thics F"#1#K 7 am one of those that thinGs miitar. intei*ence and

miitar. et+ics are contradictions in termsN they Aust do not belong together. 4ut, the

+hiloso+hers have s+oGen and the $ord is (rones are an ethical means for the conductof $ar, even if they involve faceless Gilling, collateral damage, and theremoval of the customary constraints against going to $ar because thetechnology lo$ers the Aus ad bellum threshold it maGes it too easy to getbelligerent since the aggressor faces no +ros+ect of casualties. ;emote $arthrough these technologies is said to maGe going to $ar, or engaging in acts of violence, much

easier. 4ut I do not t+in) t+e J(S( +as ever +ad a #robem abo$t *oin*

to 'ar or $sin* 'ea#ons to sette dis#$tes N t+is is +o' t+e co$ntr.

'as setted and stoen ,rom Native #eo#es . There is seldom any

hesitation and so I @$estion t+e +and&'rin*in* o, t+e iberas '+obemoan t+e advent o, remote&controed @$a o.stic)O 'ar

mac+ines( The U.S. is the most belligerent hegemonic +o$er in the history

of the +lanet. 4ut critics are correct to obAect and +oint that this is not even close to beingabout $ar, Aust or other$ise. 7t is about the use of faceless violence to +ro+agate an assassination+rogram $ith high levels of so-called collateral damage or civilian casualtiesN some estimates hold that !"+ercent of casualties are unarmed civilians. 7t is also about the colla+se of our civil liberties as U9?technologies are de+loyed by +olice and other la$ enforcement agencies in the domestic theater ]sic^N a


30/79

$arning +un intended. Ihat does this matter of assassination $arfare have to do$ith the de+loyment of drones along the U.S.-Mexico border Surely, $e arenot using drones to Gill undocumented immigrants as they cross the borderIe must Drst understand that +oliticos have +ulled a masterful +ro+agandatricG convincing a maAority of U.S. citiBens that there is not Aust a Iar on

Terror, but an endess itan. o, di%erent )inds o, 'ars N ergo, The Iar on(rugsN Iar on ?oter &raudN Iar on 5besityN Iar on 3hristianity and3hristmasN Iar on 7nsect PestsN and of course the Iar on ]$hite male^&reedom ]dominance^ and Iar on Iestern 3iviliBation, $hich lead to the Iaron thnic StudiesN Dnally, $e have the grand old Iar on 7llegal 9liens ]sic^and the 4order Iars. Ie are a++arently addicted to Iar or at least to $ar and

belligerency as +erfect tro+es for the 9merican $ay of life ]sic^ or deat+ . These are

more than meta+hors invoGed by over-Bealous Aournalists or the symbols of right-$ing +artisans. U.S.$hite settler society has been $aging 4order Iars for at least a hundred and

Dfty years. Ie need only recall the intense border con/a*rations against

Cative 9mericans memorialiBed in comic booGs and second-rate history

booGs, including the 1J1" dooBy, 4order Iars of Texas Fsee belo$K. The author of that trium+halist booG,Eames T. (eShields, $as able to relish in the glo$ of the $hite imaginary of Manifest (estinyand sodedicated his treatise on 9rmy violence against Cative 9mericans and Mexicans toThe Sons and (aughters of Those Coble Pioneer &athers and Mothers $ho . . . battled so bravely forsu+remacy and . . . made +ossible all the glorious blessings that have follo$ed\]The original dust AacGetdescribes the booG as a testament to^\the early battles of those advancing +ioneers as they relentingly]sic^ encroached across the borders of the territories $hich the 7ndians believed to be theirs\madeinvaluable by his extensive use of other +rimary source material such as his numerous turn-of-the-centuryintervie$s and corres+ondence $ith early Texas ;angers and frontiersmen $ho $ere yet living. Many of hisaccounts are found no$here else in +ublications of Texas history and thus +rovide fresh insights into thehistory of TexasQ $ars against the 7ndians. ]bracGets added^ 9t least this dedication is com+letely honest

and clear These 4order Iars $ereare totally about attaining $hite su+remacyN

t+is s$re beats t+e +e o$t o, a t+e #ost&modernist ambi*$it. t+at

ends $# rationai3in* domination or de#oitici3in* t+e #ossibiit. o,resistance '+ie #retendin* 'e are a above t+e vioence beca$se

'e can sa,e. ceebrate di%erence no' and become transborder

s$bects . ;ight. Try telling that to the immigrants getting shot at by Minutemen militia members,

$hile the drones stalG them from invisible heights. Ihile there $ill not liGely be any armeddrones conducting border +atrol duty any time soon, there are +lenty of anti-immigrant nativists $ho harbor serious fantasies of violence against the'invading bro$n tides and are rooted in this legacy of $hite fantasies of border $ars andcon:uests. )o$ever, 7 advise my readers to not +lace this +ast the realm of the +ossibleN at least not yet. 7recall $hen 7 $as in EureB-l Paso in 1J0J $orGing on my dissertation that a controversial made-for-T?movie on a nuclear $ar bet$een the U.S. and the Soviets came outN this $as before the fall of the 4erlinIall. The Dlm $as titled 'The (ay 9fter and it largely focused on the survivorsQ eorts to live after the

atomic holocaust. 3redit M8M )ome ?ideo The regional chief administrator of the 4orderPatrol $as intervie$ed after the screening of the movie and asGed to ex+lainthe +olicy of the U.S. to$ard border control in the event of a nuclear $ar. Theagent ex+lained that there $ere Dghter Aets on alert from )olloman 9ir &orce4ase and that the air forces $ere under orders to strafe the border $ith liverounds and missiles to +revent Mexicans from +ouring over the border intothe United States. 7 remind readers that )olloman 9&4 is the +rimary o+erations base for 9ir &orce@ights of Predator and ;ea+er drones. 7 $as, of course, astounded by this res+onseN the


31/79

racism $as striGing but all the more so because 7 Ge+t $ondering Ihy $ouldMexicans cross over into a nuclear-devastated country Iould it not be +eo+le in theU.S. @eeing to cross into Mexico to get a$ay from the radiation fallout 7t made +erfect sense though

We a'a.s t+in) t+at as soon as o$r co$ntr. is 'ea)ened or 'e et

o$r 9*$ard: do'n- t+e 9'etbac)s: 'i invade . 7t $as a revelatory moment andits +rofundity $as sadly missed by most and the comment +assed $ithout +rotest or further analysis.

More than thirty years later, $e are doing a lot more than harboring +lans tobomb the border in the event of a national security emergency . Ie arealready in a state of emergency $hile actively +ursuing a +olicy ofmilitariBation and encam+ment i.e., maGing our country not so much a fortress as aconcentration cam+ Dlling detention centers $ith disa++earing bodies. 9long the $ay, the Iar onTerror and the Iar on 7llegal 7mmigration got con@ated, +roducing an es+ecially+ernicious and lethal combination on the ground. There is no doubt that the telluric +artisans on theextreme right those $ho $ant to de+ort all immigrants and electrify the southern border love the ideaof drone technology. 9s the +rice of the technology +lummets $e can be sure that the militias, Minutemen,

and other border vigilantes $ill de+loy these as $ell. 4order control. 3redit &ernando Llera Hillerdrones are no$ +art of the symbolic +olitics that +ermeate the entire hate-and-fear iconogra+hy of the so-called Iar on 7llegal 9liens ]sic^. 9 recent +oliticalcartoon Fsho$n to the rightK, $hich $as originally intended for Mexican ne$s+a+ers, has gone viral acrossthe right-$ing blogos+here. 7t de+icts a smiling drone chasing a stereoty+ical Mexican in a large sombrerohel+lessly @eeing from a missile bearing do$n on his bacG. The Minutemen ProAect $hich no$ uses thetag-line, '9 multi-ethnic immigration enforcement advocacy grou+, to maGe itself sound more civil,diverse, and +alatable is celebrating the de+loyment of multi+le surveillance drones along the U.S.-

Mexico border $ith this declaration FThe ;e+ublicK - 9 ne$ unmanned aircraft has arrived in9riBona and $ill be the fourth in the stateQs @eet to +atrol the U.S.-Mexicoborder. The 9riBona (aily Star re+orts Fhtt+bit.lysv!EfBK that the aircraft, also Gno$n as a drone,arrived Tuesday. 7n all, six drones +atrol the border from 3alifornia to Texas, doingthings most manned aircraft canQt. Their cameras can determine from as faras 1# miles a$ay if a ground sensor $as set o by drug smugglers or co$s .They also can collect intelligence on sus+icious behavior at houses $ithout anyone Gno$ing because they@y so high and are :uieter than other aircraft. The drone costs about =2 million, $hile the antennas, radar,

maintenance and other o+erational costs total =1./ million +er drone. Ihatever the cause orfuture of drone technology, it should go $ithout saying that the use of U9?sby the 4order Patrol and other federal and local +olice agencies clearlyre+resent a ready-made threat to our civil liberties. To a++ease us, the industry and thePentagon have already develo+ed a (rone 3ode of 3onduct. Promises not to accidentally s+y on us arebeing made and the (e+artment of )omeland Security and la$ enforcement agencies are asserting thatno one $ill Gee+ or use the results of 'innocent eavesdro++ing on untargeted civilians Fand their

conversations or movementsK. (onQt $e all feel better alreadyZ U9? technology also re+resentsa threat to the lives of undocumented immigrants $ho are being driven intoever more isolated and dangerous terrain during their Aourneys to the U.S. insearch of Aobs or families, but no one in government or right-$ing freedom-

loving grou+s seems overly concerned $ith the ethics of a border +olicy thatis resulting in thousands of deaths. This is the nature of drone ethics Ihat goes by the nameof AusticeQ is often merely the violence and thievery +racticed by those holding the reins of +o$er.

Drones are neoibera

(evon PeMa, 11""#18, +rof. 9meircan thnic Studies, 9nthro+ology, andnvironmental Studies % University of Iashington, '(rones rQ us ;emote-


32/79

controlling the militariBation of the border, MexMigration,htt+mexmigration.blogs+ot.com"#1"#drone-unethics-on-border.html

The same ty+e of+erverse militariBation is visible in mission obAectives,organiBational ideology, and training manuals of the 3ustoms and 4orderProtectionF 34PK. This seems es+ecially a++arent in the de+loyment of drones

to the border, an activity $e have been tracGing in this blog. 7n a Aust +ublished booG byMedea 4enAamin, a founder of the anti-$ar activist grou+, 3ode PinG, theauthor maGes the connection bet$een Dnance ca+italism and the USmilitaryQs shift to the use of drones and other robotic technologies . This $ases+ecially evident after the J11 attacGs \it $as the J11 Iorld Trade 3enter attacGs thatled to an ex+losion in the US militaryQs use of drones and a host of otherrobotic $ea+ons. The hundreds of billions of dollars that 3ongress allocatedfor the $ars in 9fghanistan and 7ra: made the Pentagon @ush $ith funds tobuy u+ all manner of robotic $ea+ons that military contractors from 8eneral9tomics to Corthro+ 8rumman had been develo+ing\The various branches ofthe military Dlled their sho++ing carts $ith every robot they could Dnd\The

snatched u+ every ty+e of drone on the +roduction lines and commissionedne$ ones. Fno +age numberK (es+ite the "##0-# Dnancial crisis the Pentagon $ent on asho++ing s+ree and $as :uicGly follo$ed by the 379 and the (e+artment of)omeland Security F()SK, home to 34P . So, it $as Aust a matter of timebefore the +rocurement o6cers in the 379 and ()S3P4 $ent straight for thedronesN and they did so $ith a fury of s+ending. )o$ever, according to Cational (efense MagaBine, the Dscal crisis haschilled the ac:uisitions budget for drones by civilian national security and border control agencies. The 34P $asauthoriBed to ac:uire "> U9?s Funinhabited aerial vehiclesK but as of "#1" had only+urchased 1# systems. ach Predator or 8uardian drone, the ty+e used by 34P, costs about ="# millionmaGing the ac:uisition +rogram to date rather costly at =" billion. 9ccording to Dgures ()S +rovided to the 8overnment9ccountability 56ce in "#1#, it costs =!,"!> +er hour to @y a Predator 4, almost double the militaryQs cost to @y its 9ir&orce and 9rmy e:uivalents. '34P has not achieved its scheduled nor desired levels of @ight hours of its unmanned

aircraft, the 78 concluded. Photo credit I7;( MagaBine So, $hile the border +atrolling U9? @eet is grounded, the()S and 34P continue to amaBe $ith their sentimentai3in* r+etoric on

t+e virt$es o, t+e co$nterins$r*enc. #+ioso#+. . 7t is as if the ex-

military sta hired as +atrol o6cers by ()S are so nosta*ic ,or t+e

t+eatre o, 'ar t+e. +ave to ,antasi3e t+at t+ere is a con/a*ration

aon* t+e entire en*t+ o, t+e JS&e"ico border7 only there is not, and this

ideology +uts civilians on both sides of the border at greater risG from harm by

overBealous governmental em+loyees. 8iven the interface bet$een +rivate industry and the military it is not at all

sur+rising to us that the integration of military technologies and tacticalmethods have cre+t into the +olicing of the border . 5nly it is not $orGing.

Drones di%erentia. im#act disadvanta*ed

comm$nities&&&t+e. trans#ose 'ar on terror tactics onto

t+e border(



33/79

The (rone &etish 5ne of the most recent develo+ments in the militariBation of+olicing has been the attem+ts of la$ enforcement agencies to secure +ublicfunds to +urchase drones. (es+ite the international controversy over the use of drones overseas,domestic la$ enforcement agencies have been +ursuing the case for the use of drone technology in

+olicing FMc4ride "##JK. Their interest has been $hetted by $ea+ons

manufacturers, aeros+ace com+anies and industry grou+s )een to o#en $#

ne' domestic mar)ets in the $aGe of the Iestern $ithdra$al from the

Middle ast F8reen$ald "#11, "#1!N Singer "##JK. These grou+s are directly marGetingdrones to +olice agencies and lobbying governments alongside ex+ansiveclaims about the inex+ensiveness, safety and usefulness of drones for la$enforcementF8reen$ald "#1!K. 7n the United States, the &ederal 9viation 9uthority $as ordered by3ongress in "#1" to integrate drones into national airs+ace by "#1/ ho$ever there remains considerableuncertainty over the +rivacy, social and legal im+lications of drones FLevin "#1"K. 7n res+onse, the9merican 3ivil Liberties Union has re+orted an un+recedented surge of activityQ by state legislaturesseeGing to restrict or ban drone use, $ith legislation +ro+osed in >" states, enacted in 2 states, and stillactive in " statesQ Fsee 4ohm "#1!K. 5ther Aurisdictions have develo+ed more com+rehensive droneregulation frame$orGs, such as in uro+e and the United Hingdom, $here licenses and +ermits arere:uired for all drones, $ith heavier drones and surveillance drones attracting closer scrutiny F)o+Gins"#1!K. 7n some countries, such as Mexico and 4raBil, there are no restrictions on the use of drones for

civilian, commercial or state +ur+oses. (es+ite the ethical and legal ambiguities, select 9merican+olice agencies have been able to use drones for la$ enforcement since"##/>and some 4ritish +olice forces have been using drone technology since "##. Police agenciesconvened a conference in 9us- tralia in "#1" to discuss the use of drones in local la$ enforcement FSte$art"#1"K $ith the South 9ustralian +olice recently announcing +lans to use drones in the Deld F3rouch and >The United States 3ongress only authorised the use of drones for customs and border +rotection in "##/but +olice almost immediately began borro$ingQ drones for domestic +olice $orG F4enAamin "#1!, ++. 000K. 1"! 10# M. Salter )unt "#1!K. 9t the time, the South 9ustralian Police Minister, Michael 5Q4rien,claimed that drones have become internationallyrecognised as useful la$ enforcement tools The:uadco+ters are also ideal for :uicG ins+ections of to$ers, buildings, or +remises $hen +olice aresearching for ex+losive devices, or after a Dre or an ex+losion. 9nd, the U9?s have excellent ca+ability foruse in areas of rugged terrain, es+ecially during searches for missing +eo+le or for illicit drug cro+s.F:uoted in 3rouch and )unt "#1!K This invocation of dramatic Falthough usually rareK scenarios is ty+ical ofthe manner in $hich +olice interest in drones has been legitimiBed. &re:uently named situations include

terrorist attacGs, hostage situations, the +ursuit of armed oenders, riots and +rotests. This is at timessu++lemented by references to the su++osed utility of drones for more mundane +olicing activities. 7n theUnited States, Missouri Police 3hief 3a+tain Sam (otson recently a++lied to the &ederal 9viation 9uthorityfor a license to @y a drone, telling the media it $ould be used for monitoring +ublic s+acesQ such as fairsand baseball games as $ell as for terrorists, sus+icious activityQ F;ush "#1!K. 9n article +ublished in the&47 La$ nforcement 4ulletin in "## imagined a future scenario in $hich a drone $ould be launched toscan city blocGs for any Gno$n felons, +rostitutes or drug dealersQ that might be loiteringQ in the area

F;eed Er. "## 12K. This suggests that, liGe other exam+les of +olice militarisation,drones are liGely to dierentially im+act on disadvantaged grou+s andcommunities FMeeGs "##/K, situating drones Drmly $ithin the +olitics ofsurveillance and risG minimisation FLyon and 4auman "#1!K.


34/79

!+e drone is t+e #anacea- t+e ima*inar. so$tion- to t+e

contradictions in+erent in t+e reations o, American

miitarism( !+e #eas$re o, t+e 9s+oc) and a'e: doctrine-

o, t+e drone stri)e- contin$e t+is +e*emonic o*ic t+at

circ$mvents et+ica and e*a consideratons( ;ote a% to

#ace t+ese et+ica considerations at t+e ,ore,ront o, t+e

debate(


Police and government rhetoric about drones are characterised by unrealisedand unrealistic fantasies of total surveillance and s$ift intervention that aredisru+ted by an absence of su++orting evidence and a tangle oftechnological, legal and +ractical limita- tions. 4enAamin F"#1!K lists a number of incidentsin $hich the ca+abilities of drones have been +ut to good use, such as $hen drones $ere used after the

"#11 earth:uaGe in Ea+an to monitor radiation levels in at the &uGishima nuclear +lant, or $hen crisisservices have used drones to monitor @oods or Dres. )o$ever it has yet to be established through research

or ex+erience that drones have any substantive +lace in crime +revention, detection or intervention. Thebaseless but ongoing claims about the +olicing +otential of drones are

im+ortant marGers of fetishisation, si*naed b. "#ressin* desire ,or

and a##rova o, t+e obect and its ca#acities- ceebratin* t+e obect-

reverin* it- settin* it a#art- dis#a.in* it- e"toin* and e"atin* its

ca#acities- e$o*isin* it =and> ent+$siastic $se o, it? F(ant 1JJ2 /111"K.

)o$ever the dearth of evidence for the usefulness of the drone for +olicingmarGs this as a +articular form of fetishism that, according by 4audrillard

F1J1 !"K accrues to the $seess *ad*et? , c+aracteri3ed b.


35/79

+olice agencies $ho have instead described them as an extension of existing +olice aerial resourcesF8reen$ald "#1!K. )o$ever this is a disingenuous trivialisation of the unavoidable association of the drone

$ith the missile striGes that have terrorised civilian +o+ulations in the Middle ast. 7ndeed , the+otential for $ea+onisation has been a feature of +olice and +oliticaldiscourse on the domestic a++lication of drones . 7n the United States, some +oliceagencies and $ea+ons manufacturers are o+enly s+eculating that la$ enforcement drones may be Dtted

$ith non-lethal $ea+ons such as tasers, bean bagQ guns, tear gas canisters and rubber bullets in thefuture FStanton "#11N 4enAamin "#1!, + 0JK $hile the Senator for HentucGy, ;and Paul, recently suggestedthat it $ould be legitimate for a +olice drone to be used to Gill an armed robber FEohnson "#1!K.7nfamously, 9merican military drones have been used to target and Gill 9merican citiBens overseas F3ole"#1!cK. Mean$hile the drone industry has develo+ed $ea+oniBed drones for domestic a++lication and ismarGeting these assassin bugsQ to +olice agencies and governments F8reen$ald "#1!K. 9t +resent, no+olice drone is armed $ith lethal or non-lethal $ea+onry and any such develo+ment $ould liGely beextremely controversial. Conetheless the fetishisation of an obAect does not re:uire the realisation of its fullca+acities. To the contrary, the fetishisation of the commodity can be signiDed by an excess ca+acityQthat is never utilised F(ant 1JJ2K. (ant F1JJ2K +rovides the exam+le of cars manufactured $ith a ca+acityfor s+eed that $ould be illegal to de+loy on the road. 7t is this excess of ca+acity $ithin the car that acts asa sign of +restige and value. 7n a similar fashion, drones may be a++ealing to +olice at least in +artbecause their excess ca+acityQ for $ea+onisation o+erates as a signiDer of the individual +o$er of the+olice o6cer and collective status of the +olice force. 9s such it accords $ith the increasingly styliseddis+lays of militarised force that have come to characterise contem+orary +olicing, marGing theindeterminant boundaries bet$een militarisation, gendered fantasies of domination, and the masculine+leasures of +laying $arQ. This fusion of fantasy and $ea+on is characteristic of the +roducts of armamentculture/ and generate considerable consumer interest FLucGham 1J>K. (rones are no$ available on theadult toyQ marGet, and the bemusing intersection of $ea+on and toy in the drone became evident in "#1"$hen it emerged that an 9merican +olice agency had +urchased a toy drone although it $ould be illegalfor an o6cer to use it in the Deld FHoebler "#1!K. Little $onder that the 9merican 3ivil Liberties Union hassuggested the +olice interest in drones as case of boys $ith their toys gone $ildQ Fcited in 8ruber "#11K. /7t is interesting to note that Gey exam+les of +olice technology originated in science Dction. Cot only $asthe +olice drone Drst de+icted by 5r$ell Fas +reviously discussedK, but taserQ is an acronym for Tom S$iftand his lectric ;i@eQ, the 1J11 science Dction booG that de+icted the electric ri@eQ that ins+ired the taserF4erenson "##>K and the conce+t of electronic monitoring $as su++osedly ins+ired by a S+iderman comicbooG in $hich a villain +laces an electronic bracelet on the hero to tracG his $hereabouts F3orbett and

Marx 1JJ1K. 1"! Toys for the 4oys 10! 3onclusion The deadly serious tone of counter-terrorism discourse is some$hat undermined by the excesses of armamentculture and the evident but su++ressed child-liGe +leasures that drive +olice

militarisation. )o$ever the fusion of technology, +leasure and militarism

$ithin the drone has +otentially grave im+lications. It si*nas t+at a

cons$mer miitarism driven b. c$t$ra and emotiona in)a*es

bet'een vioence and masc$init. is bein* ind$*ed b. t+e nation

state as #art o, a s.stematic miitarisation o, interna sec$rit. . The

evident ga+ bet$een the fantasy and the reality of the +olicing dronebecomes secondary to its role as a +ro+ $ithin the +erformances ofmilitarised masculinity that are central to $arQ Fon crime drugsterrorK as agoverning strategy. 3ole F"#1!aK notes that much of the controversy over 9merican use of dronesoverseas +ertains to disagreements over the deDnition of $ar, and yet in relation to internal security, a

militarised ideology of crime control is so hegemonic and +ervasive that ithas circ$mvented basic et+ica and e*a debate . )o$ever there is an

obvious similarity bet$een the signature striGesQ of military drones that Gillother$ise unGno$n targets on the basis of a +roDleQ of sus+icious activity F3ole "#1!bK, and themanner in $hich disadvantaged and ethnic minority communities aredierentially im+acted by ne$ surveillance technologies and +aramilitary +olicingstrategies, sometimes to lethal eect Fsee Mc3ulloch and Sentas "##2K. Singer F"#1"K has asGed (odrones undermine democracyQ by reducing the +olitical risGs associated $ith engaging in $ar, but thesame :uestion might be asGed in relation to +olice drones and +layingQ at $ar. Iithin armament culture,


36/79

boys and men are enAoined to seeG simulations of $ar in order to a6rm their relations $ith one anotherand establish their masculine bona DdesN +eace a++ears +ositively boring in com+arison. LiGe othermanifestations of armament culture, drones are a++ealing to +olice because they are embedded $ithin a+ervasive cultural code of military signs and symbols +romising the rush and thrill of masculine con@ictand, ultimately, victory. &or 4audrillard F1J1K the signs $ithin such cultural systems are free-@oating and

entirely interchangeable ho$ever this +a+er has highlighted ho$ miitarism retains its

com#ein* @$aities beca$se it o%ers ima*inar. so$tions to t+e

contradictions in+erent in materia- socia and economic rea& tions .

9s such, it retains its linGages to the realQ even as it +enetrates and obscures it,reconstituting gendered anxieties into internal and external threatsQ $hoseneutralisation legitimises self-rene$al through violence. 4ehind the+rerogatives of the +leasure and thrill of the drones is an emerging mode ofgovernmentality that does not recognise the social and economicdeterminants of crime. 7nstead it vie$s criminals as +otential targets for a$ea+onised engagement through $hich militarised masculinity can be

rene$ed for the aggrandisement of +olice, as individuals and as a grou+, b$t

aso ,or t+e neoibera state( 9necdotal re+orts of female drone +ilots are maGing their

$ay into the mass media Fe.g. 9be "#1"K but the linGage bet$een femininity andmilitarism is not a straightfor$ard story of em+o$erment but rather itcontinues to be characteriBed by o6cial eorts to maintain the sorts ofmasculinity that enhance militarismQ Fnloe "### "01K. The +redominance of men in+aramilitary units, and the overt reconstruction of an aggressive masculinity $ithin the +aramilitary ethosmore generally, suggests that the militariBation of crime control is a mode by $hich threatened formations

of masculine values and +ractice are +reserved $ithin a changing social and cultural landsca+e. 3entralto this dynamic are the feelings of +leasure and excitement that intersect inthe drone, and hence the integration of such technology into +olicing

symbolises a dual obfuscation Crime as


37/79

2ac cb# drones ,ai

CBP drones ,ai

W+itoc) 15 re+orter for the Iashington Post FEanuary "#1/,

3raig, 'U.S. surveillance drones largely ineective along border,re+ort says, 1#21/,htt+s$$$.$ashington+ost.com$orldnational-securityus-surveillance-drones-largely-ineective-along-border-re+ort-says"#1/#1#2/">!abea-J/bc-11e>-aabd-d#bJ!21!d/Ostory.htmlKU.S. drones de+loyed along the borders are grounded most of the time, costfar more than initially estimated and hel+ to a++rehend only a tiny number of+eo+le trying to cross illegally, according to a federal audit released Tuesday.7n a re+ort that could undermine +olitical su++ort for using more drones to secure the nationQs borders, the

(e+artment of )omeland SecurityQs ins+ector general found 'little or noevidence that the @eet had met ex+ectations or $as eective in conductingsurveillance.7n an audit of the @eetQs o+erations during Dscal "#1!, the ins+ector general calculated that it cost =1","//+er @ight hour to o+erate the drones, Dve times as much as 3ustoms and 4order Protection had estimated.

9lthough the agency +lanned to @y four drone +atrols a day R each for anaverage of 12 hours R the aircraft $ere in the air for less than a :uarter ofthat time, the audit sho$ed. 4ad $eather and a lacG of +ersonnel and s+are+arts hindered o+erations, it concluded.'The unmanned aircraft are not meeting @ight hour goals, the auditors $rote,adding more broadly that C$stoms and Border Protection 9cannot

demonstrate +o' m$c+ t+e #ro*ram +as im#roved border sec$rit.(:

9s evidence, the re+ort cited statistics sho$ing that of the 1"#,J!J illegal border crossersa++rehended in 9riBona during "#1!, ,e'er t+an 2 #ercent 'ere ca$*+t'it+ t+e +e# o, drones #rovidin* aeria s$rveiance(

7n Texas and the ;io 8rande ?alley, ess t+an one&tent+ o, 1 #ercent o, border&

crossin* a##re+ensions 'ere attrib$ted to drone detection(


38/79

2ac terror add&on

#an )is terrorism

Sanc+e3 and cibben 15 - htt+$$$.coha.org$orst-case-scenario-the-

criminal-use-of-drones

4ased u+on the tactical +racticality of drones to execute terrorist and illicit o+erations, the+roliferation of U9? use by such organiBations should be regarded as arealistic +ossibility in the near future. 9dditionally, given the iicit 'eat+ and#oitica ca#ita Fthrough corru+tionK that these grou+s can mobiliBe, asigniDcant risG is manifested in their ability to sur+ass the technology of earlyrudimentary designs and models. This is +articularly true in regards to the Latin 9mericandrug trade, a +roDt-maximiBing environment, in $hich the (T5s have a history of gainingexorbitant $ealth, allo$ing them to +enetrate all levels of governmentFincluding security agenciesK $ith relative ease.The Mexican (T5s have already invested in and utiliBed drones in order to smuggle drugs, and these U9?s

could +otentially be utiliBed to conduct surveillance. 7t is liGely that the &9;3 could develo+ similar

ca+abilities. These entities certainly have the funds to ac:uire them, asexem+liDed by the construction of miniature narco-submarines, costingaround =/ million US(, $hich have been utiliBed to trans+ort hundreds of Gilograms of drugs u+the 3aribbean coast.]xi^ 7f nothing else, the existence of narco-subs exem+liDes the interest of drug cartelsin ne$ technologies to avoid detection $hile smuggling drugs.

5n the +otential for terror drones, it is certain. aarmin* and s+o$d notbe dismissed. ;adical movements liGe Shining Path and the &9;3 have a history of utiliBingex+losive devices to carry out terror attacGs. &or exam+le, Shining PathQs use of 'car bombs in the 1J#sand early 1JJ#s during PeruQs civil $ar FliGe the car bomb that ex+loded in Tarata Street in do$nto$n Limain 1JJ", Gilling "/ and inAuring over "##K.]xii^ Thus, there is certainly no lacG of +recedent of these grou+s

utiliBing technology to carry out attacGs. Thus, it is not unthinGable that these, or ne$

grou+s, could attem+t to construct a 'terror drone.Cevertheless, as +reviously

mentioned, Shining Path is currently a defunct For at least dyingK entity, so it is unliGely that the Peruvianinsurgents have the ex+ertise to fabricate a 'terror drone.9t the time of this $riting, there have been no re+orts of U9?s being utiliBed to commit violence. Still, this

analysis $ould argue that if any Latin 9merican criminal organiBation could attem+tto build a terror drone in the near future, it $ould be the Mexican (T5s or the&9;3. Mexican (T5s o+erate in a deteriorating security environment in $hichviolence has become common+lace, and for the &9;3, in the event of failed+eace negotiations, terror drones could be useful to a revival of their goals.;evolutionary and organiBed crime grou+s are common+lace throughout Latin 9merican countries, and it$ould be unreasonable not to consider the +otential for ne$ grou+s toemerge. )o$ever, grou+s that are linGed to state s+onsorshi+ or can +enetrate state-based

develo+ment +rograms have the highest +otential for technology to transfer to them. The use ofU9?s by illicit and non-state actors is already occurring, and $ill liGely ex+andin the near future to aid in drug smuggling, intelligence gathering, orcommitting violence. Terror drones and U9?s used for more conventionalillegal +ur+oses may +rove to be a ne$ security threat in the future , and soonerrather than later, they may @y over Latin 9merican airs+ace.


39/79

2ac,ramin* adv e"tns


40/79

#redictions ,aiPredictions o, #oitica catastro#+e ,ai 'e can?t

ade@$ate. ma# o$t actions or res#onses!etoc) Fardner 11 ]Phili+ TetlocG is a +rofessor of organiBational

behavior at the )aas 4usiness School at the University of 3alifornia-4erGeley, 9C( (an 8ardner is a columnist and senior $riter for the5tta$a 3itiBen and the author of The Science of &ear, receivednumerous a$ards for his $riting, including the Michener 9$ard, M.9.)istory from _orG,


41/79

some 2-000 #redictions ( Time +assed, the veracity of the +redictions$as determined, the data analyBed, and the average ex+ertQs forecasts

$ere revealed to be on. si*+t. more acc$rate t+an random

*$essin*Ror, to +ut more harshly, on. a bit better t+an t+e #roverbia

dart&t+ro'in* c+im#an3ee. And t+e avera*e e"#ert #er,ormed

si*+t. 'orse t+an a sti more mindess com#etition sim+leextra+olation algorithms that automatically +redicted more of the same.

Gorecastin* ,ais& 8 reasons

!etoc) and Fardner 11?

Phili+ TetlocG and (an 8ardner, !-10-"

Border Drones Affirmative - Northwestern 2015 6WS

Documents

Transcript of Border Drones Affirmative - Northwestern 2015 6WS