Un Upr Cp - Michigan7 2015

UN UPR COUNTERPLAN MICHIGAN ‘15 HJPV

UN UPR Counterplan – HJPV


Notes

This card sums up the counterplan’s mechanismSt. Vincent 5/7/15 – CDT’s Human Rights and Surveillance Fellow, J.D. at the University of Michigan Law School (Sarah, US to Answer for Surveillance Practices on Global Stage, CDT, https://cdt.org/blog/us-to-answer-for-surveillance-practices-on-global-stage/)//JJIt only happens once every four and a half years, but it’s about to happen this month:

the United States will appear before the assembled United Nations Member States to listen and respond to critiques of its human rights record. CDT has been

working hard to ensure that the US’ surveillance practices are at the top of the agenda for this process, which is known as the Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”). We hope

the official comments aired during the session will help to reinforce strong human rights standards around government surveillance and hold the US to account for its abuses.

The UPR is conducted by the UN Human Rights Council, which is tasked with reviewing every UN Member State’s compliance with its obligations under the human rights treaties it has ratified. The process is mandatory for all countries: the May session, for example, will see the US examined just after Bulgaria and Honduras and shortly before Jamaica and Libya. (The US will be in the hot seat on Monday, May 11 from 9:00 am to 12:30 pm Geneva time, so if you live in North America, set your alarm clock early.) If a country recommends that the US discontinue any indiscriminate interception of private communications, the Obama administration will be required to take a public position as to

whether it accepts this recommendation. The US has committed to upholding human rights under several treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), the Convention against Torture, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms

of Racial Discrimination. The ICCPR, in particular, contains rights to privacy and free expression. During the session, every other UN Member State will have the right to ask the US questions about its respect for the human rights enshrined in these treaties and make recommendations as to what the country should do differently in order to comply with its obligations. The US (represented by its Geneva diplomatic mission and other members of the executive branch) will have the opportunity to respond to these points during

the session, and will also need to declare shortly afterward whether it accepts each of the recommendations. In other words, if (for example) a country recommends that the US discontinue any indiscriminate interception of private communications, the Obama administration will be required to take a public position as to whether it accepts this recommendation. The UPR is a relatively recent creation—it was established via a UN General Assembly resolution in 2006—and it continues to evolve as the UN institutions, the Member States, and NGOs such as CDT, decide how it can best be used. For example, unlike during its first review in 2010, the United States will now be encouraged to submit an official “midterm” follow-up report to the Human Rights Council some time after the review session to explain what the government is doing to implement the human rights recommendations that were made. (We expect that the government will indeed engage in such reporting.) Meanwhile, for an organization such as CDT, the review of the US represents a chance to remind the public and the global diplomatic community about serious NSA surveillance abuses, and to strengthen the human rights laws and standards that apply to government


intrusions on privacy and free speech. The latter opportunity arises because countries frame their recommendations using careful legal language that reflects what they

believe human rights law actually requires in practice; these formal articulations can shape the relevant legal tests and ultimately have a long-term impact on what the US and other governments believe they must do in order to fulfill their international commitments. As part of the UPR process, CDT (along with the ACLU) submitted a joint expert report to the Human Rights Council on five particularly egregious global NSA surveillance programs, including MUSCULAR and QUANTUM, and we also contributed

to a second expert report on US surveillance led by our colleagues at the Brennan Center. Additionally, we have been urging the other UN Member States to make surveillance one of their priority issues during the review session. During the UPR session, we will be on the lookout for whether:

Countries with which the US has a positive relationship—particularly those that co-sponsored the

recent groundbreaking resolution creating a new UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy—publicly remind the US government that many of the NSA surveillance programs revealed in the Snowden documents violate human rights and make recommendations as to how those programs should be changed; Countries state that the US must comply with its human rights obligations when conducting surveillance outside its own borders—an assertion that would carry significant weight in a major ongoing legal debate; Emphasis is placed upon the fact that even the initial interception or acquisition of private data interferes with the rights to privacy and free expression; There is a significant embrace of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ conclusion that any interferences with the right to privacy must be necessary and proportionate in order to comply with human rights (again, such statements by countries would help to strengthen a good global legal standard—one the US currently

resists); The burden surveillance places on free expression is explicitly highlighted;

and Countries address specific human rights issues such as meaningful oversight of surveillance programs (for example, by courts or independent bodies) and the need to ensure that anyone who experiences a violation of his/her rights due to surveillance has access to an effective remedy. The Universal Periodic Review is the world’s biggest stage for highlighting human rights violations and working for clearer, stronger standards to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals everywhere. As the US steps into the spotlight, the world will be watching, and so will CDT.


***top-level


1nc – shell

The United States Federal Government should submit <the plan> to a binding United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review.

The counterplan solves the aff and ensures U.S. human rights compliance within UN institutions– the process of the counterplan shapes implementation St. Vincent 5/7/15 – CDT’s Human Rights and Surveillance Fellow, J.D. at the University of Michigan Law School (Sarah, US to Answer for Surveillance Practices on Global Stage, CDT, https://cdt.org/blog/us-to-answer-for-surveillance-practices-on-global-stage/)//JJIt only happens once every four and a half years, but it’s about to happen this month:

the United States will appear before the assembled United Nations Member States to listen and respond to critiques of its human rights record. CDT has been

working hard to ensure that the US’ surveillance practices are at the top of the agenda for this process, which is known as the Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”). We

hope the official comments aired during the session will help to reinforce strong human rights standards around government surveillance and hold the US to account for its abuses. The UPR is conducted by the UN Human Rights Council, which is

tasked with reviewing every UN Member State’s compliance with its obligations under the human rights treaties it has ratified. The process is mandatory for all countries: the May session, for example, will see the US examined just after Bulgaria and Honduras and shortly before Jamaica and Libya. (The US will be in the hot seat on Monday, May 11 from 9:00 am to 12:30 pm Geneva time, so if you live in North America, set your alarm clock early.) If a country recommends that the US discontinue any indiscriminate interception of private communications, the Obama administration will be required to take a

public position as to whether it accepts this recommendation. The US has committed to upholding

human rights under several treaties , including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), the Convention against Torture, and the International Convention on the

Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The ICCPR, in particular, contains rights to privacy and free expression. During the session, every other UN Member State will have the right to ask the US questions about its respect for the human rights enshrined in these treaties and make recommendations as to what the

country should do differently in order to comply with its obligations . The US

(represented by its Geneva diplomatic mission and other members of the executive branch) will have the opportunity to respond to these points during the session, and will also need to declare shortly afterward whether it accepts each of the recommendations. In other words, if (for example) a country recommends that the US discontinue any indiscriminate interception of private communications, the Obama administration will be required to take a

public position as to whether it accepts this recommendation. The UPR is a relatively recent creation—it was

established via a UN General Assembly resolution in 2006—and it continues to evolve as the UN institutions, the Member States, and NGOs such as CDT, decide how it can best be used. For example, unlike during its first review in 2010, the United States will now be encouraged to submit an official “midterm” follow-up report to the Human Rights Council some time after the review session to explain what the government is doing to implement the human rights


recommendations that were made. (We expect that the government will indeed engage in such reporting.)

Meanwhile, for an organization such as CDT, the review of the US represents a chance to remind the public and the global diplomatic community about serious NSA

surveillance abuses , and to strengthen the human rights laws and standards that apply to government intrusions on privacy and free speech. The

latter opportunity arises because countries frame their recommendations using careful legal language that reflects what they believe human rights law actually requires in practice;

these formal articulations can shape the relevant legal tests and

ultimately have a long-term impact on what the US and other governments believe they

must do in order to fulfill their international commitments. As part of the UPR process, CDT (along with the ACLU) submitted a joint expert report to the Human Rights Council on five particularly egregious global NSA surveillance programs, including MUSCULAR and QUANTUM, and we also contributed to a second expert report on US surveillance led by

our colleagues at the Brennan Center. Additionally, we have been urging the other UN Member States to make surveillance one of their priority issues during the review session.

U.S. compliance within UN institutions bolsters UN legitimacyThakur 9 – director, Balsillie School of International Affairs, Distinguished Fellow, Centre for International Governance Innovation and Professor of Political Science, University of Waterloo (Ramesh, LAW, LEGITIMACY AND UNITED NATIONS, Melbourne Journal of International Law Volume 11, 12/7/9, p. 10-21)//JJAll of these elements might be enough to put the ball back in the UN’s court. But its authority, too, has been diminished by the Iraq War. As I have put it elsewhere: ‘[w]hat is to stop other leaders from mimicking the bumper sticker argument about not needing a permission slip from the UN to defend one’s country?’ In other words, repeated US assaults on UN-

centered law governing the international use of force have undermined the norm of a world of laws,

the efficacy of international law and the legitimacy of the UN as the authoritative validator of international behaviour. A norm cannot control the behaviour of those who reject its legitimacy. Norm compliance by those who

reject the legitimacy of the existing order will be a function of their incapacity to break out, not of voluntary obedience. The de facto position of ‘nuclear might equals right’ is an inducement to join the club of nuclear enforcers. It is curious, to say the least, th at those who worship at the altar of nuclear weapons are the fiercest in denouncing as heretics anyone else wishing to join their sect. In order to enhance their credentials as critics and enforcers of the norm, the N5 need to move more rapidly from deterrence to disarmament. There have been signs that the Obama Administration might well take a lead on this. 43 The logic of non-proliferation is inseparable from that of disarmament. Hence, the axiom of non-prol iferation: as long as any one country has them, others, including terrorist groups, will try their best (or worst) to get them. If they did not exist, nuclear wea pons could not proliferate. Because they do, they will. The pursuit of nuclear non-proliferation is doomed without an accompanying duty to disarm. Paradoxically, counter-proliferation effo rts may well be legitimate even if illegal. The reality of contemporary threat s means that significant gaps exist in the legal and institutional framework to combat them. Within the constraints of the NPT , a non-nuclear country can build the ne cessary infrastructure to be but a screwdriver away from acquiring nuclea r weapons. Non-state actors are outside the jurisdiction and contro l of multilateral agreements. Recognising this, a US-led group of like-minded countries launched the Prolif eration Security Initiative to interdict illi cit air, sea and land cargo li nked to WMDs. Its premise is that the proliferation of such weapons dese rves to be criminalised by the civilised community of nations. The In itiative signals a new determination to overcome an unsatisfactory state of affairs through a br oad partnership of countries that, using their own national laws and resources, will coordinate actions to halt shipments of dangerous technologies and material. V A TROCITY C RIMES AND I NTERNATIONAL I NTERVENTIONS The Proliferation Security Initiative involves a limited use of force by groups of countries acting outside the UN fram ework. The law–legitimacy distinction arose with particular cogency with resp ect to the legal system promulgated and enforced by the apartheid regime in South Africa. If the constitutional system itself was essentially a criminal regime, then could not opposition to it be held up as legitimate even if illegal? That debate had barely faded when the same dilemma flared up in the 1990s with the sp ate of humanitarian atrocities and the role of international indifference, inaction or intervention with respect to these atrocities. Except, this time, the role s of the global North and South were reversed. When NATO launched a ‘human itarian war’ without UN authorisation in Kosovo, it raised a triple policy dilemma: 1 To respect sovereignty all the time is sometimes to be complicit in humanitarian tragedies; 2 To argue that the Secur ity Council must give its consent to international intervention for humanitarian purposes is to risk policy paralysis by handing over the agenda either to th e passivity and apathy of the Council as a whole, or to the mo st obstructionist member of the Council, including any one of the P5 determined to use the veto clause; 3 To use force without UN authorisation is to violate international law and undermine world order. The three propositions together high light a critical law–legitimacy gap between the needs and distress felt in th e real world and the codified instruments and modalities for managing world order. Faced with another Holocaust or Rwanda-type genocide on the one hand and a Security Council veto on the other, what would we do? Doing nothing would progressively de-legitimise the role and undermine the auth ority of the Security Council as the cornerstone of the international law enforcement system . But action without UN authorisation would be illegal and also undermine the la wful authority of th e Security Council. The law–legitimacy distinction was to resu rface four years later over Iraq and leave many Westerners rather less co mfortable than the Kosovo precedent. In making up the rules of intervention ‘on the fly’ in Kosovo, 45 NATO countries put at peril the requirement for a lasting system of world order grounded in the rule of international law. The attempt ‘to limit the reach of the Kosovo precedent did not prevent the advo cates of the Iraq War from invoking it to justify toppling Saddam.’ 46 The Iraq War’s legality and legitimacy will be debated for years to come. The belligerent countries insisted that the war was both legal and legitimate, based on a series of prior UN resolutions and the long and frustrating history of combative-cum-

deceitful defiance of the UN by Saddam Hussein. Others conceded that it may have been illegal but, like Kosovo in 1999, it was nevertheless legitimate in its largely humanitarian outcome. For a third group, the war was both illegal and illegitimate. Similarly, there were three views

on the significance of the war for the UN–US relationship: that it demonstrated the irrelevance, centrality or potential complicity of the UN. 48 First, for the neo-conservatives, because it exists, the UN should be uninvented and there was

therefore no reason to seek UN approval. 49 Under the second view, it was recognized that there was a need ‘to confront Saddam Hussein but [it] ruled out acting without UN

authorization.’ 50 Third, UN authorization of the war was ‘necessary but not sufficient’ with irrelevance preferred to complicity. 51 In the opinion of some, the UN is ‘ now more than ever reduced to the servile function of after-sales

service provider for the United States, on permanent call as the mop-up

brigade . ’ Humanitarianism provides us with a vocabulary and institutional machinery of emancipation. But ‘[f]ar from being a defense of the individual against the state, human rights has become a standard pa rt of the justification for the external use of force by the state

against other states and individuals.’ 53 The use of force may be lawful or unlawful; the decision to use force is a political act; and almost the only channel between legal authority and political legitimacy with regard to the international use of force is the UN. Conceding to any regional organisation the authority to decide when political legitimacy may override legal technicality would make a mockery of the entire basis of strictly limited, and in recent times increasingly constricted, recourse to force for settling international disputes. Conversely, restricting the right solely to NATO is ‘an open argument for law-making by an elite group of Western powers sitting in judgment over their own actions’ 54 — as well as that of all others. In effect, the West’s position vis-a-vis the rest is: we shall hold you to account for your use of force domestically while exempting our internat ional use of force from any external accountability. While the West wants to proscribe the unconstrained use of force to maintain domestic order, developing countries wa nt to proscribe the use of force by outsiders to enforce justice within errant member states. There is also the moral hazard that outside intervention on behalf of groups resisting state authority by force encourages other recalcitrant groups in other places to resort to ever more violent challenges, since that is the trigger to internationalising their power struggle. The tension is both powerful and poignant with respect to moving the globally endorsed responsibility to protect from norm to action (or words to deeds, principle to practice). Here we enter the realm both of normative inconsistency — selective application and enfo rcement of global norms against friends and adversaries, for example dow nplaying the human rights abuses of Central Asian states and Israel while hi ghlighting those of Iraq and Iran — and normative incoherence — when different norms clash with each other — as between human rights requirements and prohi bitions against the use of force. Is it permissible (or legitimate) to violate some aspects of international law in order to enforce respect for human rights laws? Is it still legitimate if some states are more equal than others in facing intern ational pressure and sanctions, including military intervention as the ultimate sanction? Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, advocated invoking the responsibility to pr otect in order to override the junta’s recalcitrance about accepting international assistance after Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2008, 55 but was notably silent about possible Israeli war crimes in Gaza in 2009. Such selectivity will quickly de-legitimise the new norm whose path to global endorsement was quite contentious. 56 In a Security Council debate on the prot ection of civilians in armed conflict on 4 December 2006, Chinese ambassador Liu Zhenmin warned that the 2005 World Summit Outcome 57 was a ‘very cautious representation of the responsibility to protect popul ations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing 54 David Chandler, From Kosovo to Kabul: Human Rights and International Intervention (Pluto Press, 2002) 135. 55 See Seth Mydans, ‘Myanmar Junta, Wary of Outsiders, Is Accused of Delaying Storm Aid’, The New York Times (New York), 8 May 2008, A22. 56 That story is told in three books by three people closely associated with it: Gareth Evans, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All (Brookings Institution Press, 2008); Ramesh Thakur, The United Nations, Peace and Security: From Collective Security to the Responsibility to Protect (Cambridge University Press, 2006); Thomas G Weiss, Humanitarian Intervention (Polity, 2007). 57 2005 World Summit Outcome , GA Res 60/1, UN GAOR, 60 th sess, Agenda Items 46 and 120, UN Doc A/RES/60/1 (24 October 2005). 2010] Law, Legitimacy and United Nations 17 The philosophical antecedents of such beliefs lie in the 18 th –19 th century theory of evolutionary progress through diffusion and acculturation from the West to the rest. The implicit but clear assumption is that when Western and non-Western values diverge, the latter are in the wrong and it is only a matter of working on them with persuasion and pre ssure for the problem to be resolved and progress achieved. 77 The cognitive rigidity is s hown again in the phrase that ‘[p]ressure by Western states and intern ational organizations can greatly increase the vulnerability of norm-violating governments to external influences.’ 78 Self-


evidently, only non-Western governme nts can be norm vi olators; Western governments can only be norm-setters and enforcers. The rejection of the ICC by Washington highlights the irony that the US ‘is prepared to bomb in the name of human rights but not to join institutions to enforce them.’ 79 Even if we agree on universal huma n rights, they still have to be constructed, articulated and embedded in international conve ntions. The question remains of the agency and procedure for determining what they are, how they apply in specific circumstances and cases, what the proper remedies might be to breaches, who decides on these breaches and what rules of procedure and evidence they should follow. Under presen t conditions of world realities, the political calculus — relations based on military might, economic power and media and NGO dominance — cannot be taken out. The resilience of the opposition to the internationalis ation of the human conscien ce lies in the fear that the lofty rhetoric of universal human rights claims merely masks the more mundane and familiar pursuit of nati onal interests by different means. VII T HE U NITED N ATIONS S ECURITY C OUNCIL Almost all the above examples relate to the Security Council as the core of the international law enforcement system. General Rupert Smith argues that in Bosnia, ‘[t]he existence and actions of the Security Council negatively affected events ... The consequence of this failing was the destruction of the credibility of the UN.’ 80 He concludes that ‘[i]f the Security Council ... is to change so as to wield force for good, then structural a nd organizational chan ges are necessary.’ 81 An unreformed Security Council has been experiencing a steady erosion of international legitimacy, which helps to explain the growing willingness of many state and non-state actors to defy its edicts openly. That is, the increasing 77 Many in developing countries watched bemusedly from the sidelines when the same attitudinal divide opened up across the Atlantic in 2003 with respect to the US threat of war on Iraq and the stiff resistan ce from European citizens. Th e dominant view in Washington seemed once again to be that the European people could not possibly be right. The task was to show them the error of their ways or, fa iling that, to make sure that the European governments listened to the US Administration rather than to their own people. That the Administration could be wrong was a priori beyond the realm of possibility. 78 Thomas Risse and Stephen C Ropp, ‘International Human Rights Norms and Domestic Change: Conclusions’ in Thomas Risse, Stephen C Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink (eds), The Power of Human Rights (Cambridge University Press, 1999) 234, 277. 79 Christine Chinkin, ‘Kosovo: A “Good” or “Bad” War?’ (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law 841, 846. 80 Rupert Smith, ‘The Security Council and the Bosnian Conflict: A Practitioner’s View’ in Vaughan Lowe et al (eds), The United Nations Security Council and War: The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945 (Oxford University Press, 2008) 442, 451. 81 Ibid. 18 Melbourne Journal of International Law [Vol 11 divergence of Security C ouncil-sourced law from le gitimacy dramatically reduces the efficacy of the UN in regula ting the international behaviour of a growing number of actors. For legality a nd legitimacy to come together again in the Security Council, its composition and procedures must be changed urgently to reflect today’s military and ideational realities. The legitimacy of the Security Counc il as the authorita tive validator of international security action suffers from a quadruple legitimacy deficit: performance, representati onal, procedural and account ability. Its performance legitimacy suffers from two strikes: an uneven and a selective record. It is unrepresentative from almost any point of view. 82 Its procedural legitimacy is suspect on grounds of a lack of democratisati on and transparency in decision-making. And it is not answerable to the General Assembly, the World Court, the nations or the peoples of the world. Western countries often fret at the in effectual performance legitimacy of the Council. Their desire to resist the Counc il’s role as the sole validator of the international use of force is the product of this dissa tisfaction at its perceived sorry record. But the moral authority of collective judgments does depend in part on the moral quality of the process of making those judgments. 83 Michael Ignatieff writes that ‘[w]hen democrats di sagree on substance, they need to agree on process.’ 84 The collective nature of the decision-making process of the Security Council is suspect because of the skewed dist ribution of political power and resources among its members. If th e Security Council were to become increasingly activist, interventionist and effective, the erosion of representational and procedural legitimacy and the abse nce of any accountability mechanisms would lead many countries to question th e authority of the Council even more forcefully. There is a logical slippage between normative idealism and Realpolitik in picking and choosing which elements of th e existing order are to be challenged and which retained. If ethical imperati ves and calculations of justice are to inform, underpin and justify international interventions, then there is a powerful case for reforming the composition of the Security Council a nd eliminating the veto clause with respect to humanitarian operations. To self-censor such calls for major reform on the grounds that they are unacceptable to the major powers and therefore unrealistic, is to argue in e ffect that the motive for intervention is humanitarian, not strategic; yet, the agency and procedure for deciding on intervention must remain locked in the strategic logic of Realpolitik. The UN is usually attacked for doing t oo little, too late. Has the Security Council been doing too much and too soon? In recent times the Council has been coopting functions that belong properly to legislative and judicial spheres. It has taken on a legislative role in resolutions on terrorism and non-proliferation. This is intruding into the realm of state prerogatives as negotiated in international conferences and conventions . Security Council deci sions are binding, so 192 82 See Ramesh Thakur, ‘UN Electoral Grou pings Reform’ in Ramesh Thakur (ed), What is Equitable Geographic Representation in the Twenty-First Century? (United Nations University Press, 1999) 2–3. 83 Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement (Belknap Press, 1996) 4. 84 Michael Ignatieff, The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror (Edinburgh University Press, 2004) viii. 2010] Law, Legitimacy and United Nations 19 legislatures are denied their right of review over international treaties. The Security Council imposed sanctions on Li bya for its failure to extradite two citizens accused of being the brains behind the Lockerbie bombing. That is, without a trial and conviction, the Secu rity Council was bent on compelling one sovereign state to hand over it s citizens to another sove reign state on the basis of allegations from the latter — which had itself, just a few years earlier, defied the World Court’s verdict in a case brought against it by Nicaragua. In September 2004, the Council approved a US-backed resolution 85 demanding the immediate withdrawal of a ll foreign forces from Lebanon — at a time when more than 100 000 US troops were occupying Iraq. No-one held their breath over any possible UN i nvestigation of the tens — or is it hundreds — of thousands killed in Iraq since 2003. On 31 May 2007, a sharply divided Security Council voted 10:0:5 to estab lish an internati onal criminal tribunal to prosecute the perpetrators of the suicide-assassin ation of Lebanon’s Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri, and 22 others in February 2005, which put the organisation ‘in the business of stigmatizing and punishing individuals for a political crime’. 86 The five abstainers — China, Indonesia, Qata r, Russia and South Africa — explained that the resolution ‘bypassed the Lebanese parliament’s constitutional role in approving international agreements’. 87 Hezbollah issued a statement denouncing the Security Council resolution as ‘illegal and illegitimate at the national and international level’. 88 It is easy to understand why Iranians might have come to the same conclusion about the Security Council afte r their bitter war with Iraq. For eight long years, despite clear evidence of aggression by Saddam Hussein (who during this time was the West’s useful idiot) and his use of chemical weapons, the Council’s standard response was to suggest that ‘bot h belligerents were equally at fault’. 89 If and when the UN Charter is reformed, one item on the agenda should be the introduction of curbs on untrammelled authority in the Security Council, which is presently subject to no count ervailing political check or judicial review. 90 The idea that the P5 should fuse legislative, executive and judicial 85 SC Res 1559, UN SCOR, 59 th sess, 5028 th mtg, UN Doc S/RES/1559 (2 September 2004). 86 Gary J Bass, ‘Does the UN Understand What It’s Getting Itself Into?’, The Washington Post (Washington DC), 30 October 2005, B03. 87 Colum Lynch and Ellen Knickmeyer, ‘UN Council Backs Tribunal for Lebanon: Beirut Braces for Unrest after Vote to Purs ue Assassins of Former Premier’, The Washington Post (Washington DC), 31 May 2007, A01. 88 Hezbollah Condemns Hariri Court (31 May 2007) BBC News <http://news.bbc.co.uk>. 89 Charles Tripp, ‘The Security Council and the Iran–Iraq War,’ in Vaughan Lowe et al (eds), The United Nations Security Council and War: The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945 (Oxford University Press, 2008) 368, 374. 90 In Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) (Advisory Opinion) [1971] ICJ Rep 16; Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aeri al Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v UK) (Preliminary Objections) [1998] ICJ Rep 9; and Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v US) (Preliminary Objections) [1998] ICJ Rep 115, the ICJ cast doubts on the blanket immunity of the Security Council from judicial scrutiny but did not go so far as to enunciate a doctrine of judicial review. See Jose E Alvarez, ‘Judging the Security Council’ (1996) 90 American Journal of International Law 1; Thomas M Franck, ‘The “Powers of Appreciation”: Who Is the Ultimate Guardian of UN Legality?’ (1992) 86 American Journal of International Law 519. 20 Melbourne Journal of International Law [Vol 11 powers to themselves violates elementary notions of due process. Imagine if abuser regimes, and only they, had perm anent membership and veto powers in the new Human Rights Council. Western commentators seem to point r outinely to China and Russia as the veto-wielding problem members of the P 5. In fact, since the end of the Cold War, the country to have cast the veto mo st frequently is the US. The UK and the US have been among the most heavily i nvolved in warfare and armed conflict over the last century, and if we limit the period to that starti ng after the Second World War, a third country in the list would be Israel. Not the least, because of the veto power in the Security Council, there is no prospect of anyone from any of these three countries being placed in the ICC dock in the foreseeable future. Little wonder that the precedent-setting in dictment of the President of Sudan by the ICC in March 2009 drew protests fr om the majority of the African Union, 91 the Arab League 92 and the Non-Aligned Movement 93 (the world’s most representative general pur pose body after the UN itself) about the selective justice being meted out by the ICC. Until such time as Washington (and London) are prepared to lead the campaign for th e abolition of the veto clause, it is difficult to see how the expect ation, threat or use of ve to by others can legitimise any US or UK action that circumvents the veto. Those who live by the veto cannot rightfully complain about having to

die by the veto. VIII THE UNITED NATIONS –UNITED STATES DUALISM The push for

democratization in the world has been led by the three Western members of the P5 (UK, France and the US ). Yet the three have been the most fiercely resistant to bringing

democracy and transparency to the workings of the Council itself. In some respects, it is more accurate to speak these days of the ‘ P1’ rather than the ‘P5’ . Authority is the right to make policy and rules, while power is the capacity to implement the policy

and enforce the rules. The UN has global reach and authority but no power . It symbolizes global governance but lacks the attributes of international government. While lawful authority remains vested in the UN, power has become increasingly concentrated in the US which has global grasp and

power but not international authority. The exercise of power is rendered less effective and generates its own resistance if divorced from authority. The latter in turn is corroded when challenges to it go unanswered by the necessary force. Lack of capacity to be the chief enforcer acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter means that the UN remains an incomplete organization , one that practices only part s of its Charter. That being the case, Edward

Luck asks, ‘[i]s it tenable for the UN to say that it only wants to walk on the soft side of the street but nevertheless wants to

have some degree of control over what happens on the other side as well?’ Until the First World War, war was an accepted and normal part of the state system with distinctive rules, norms and etiquette. In that Hobbesian world, the only protection against aggression was countervailing power, which increased both the cost of victory and the risk of failure. Since

1945, the UN has spawned a corpus of law to stigmatize aggression and create a robust norm against it. The UN exists to check the predatory instincts of the powerful towards the weak — one of the most enduring but not endearing lessons

of history. Since 11 September 2001, a US that was already over-armed has militarized its foreign policy still more. Might the US irritation at the UN owe as much to its effectiveness in constraining imperial US behavior as alleged UN

ineffectiveness against others? The Bush Administration rejected Harry Truman’s counsel that the US must deny itself the license to do as it pleases, ignored John F Kennedy’s wisdom that the US is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and rode

roughshod over four decades of tradition of en lightened self-interest and liberal internationalism as the guiding normative template of US foreign policy. Paul Heinbecker, Canada’s former UN ambassador, comments that ‘[t]he distance between delusion and hubris is short and the Bush Administration covered it in a sprint.’

UN legitimacy solves extinctionGoldberg 13 – citing Chuck Hagel, former U.S. Secretary of Defense and Senator from Nebraska (Mark Leon, Why Chuck Hagel Supports the United Nations, UN Dispatch, 1/7/13, http://www.undispatch.com/why-chuck-hagel-supports-the-united-nations/)//JJThe United Nations can play a central and critical role in forging connections. The

global challenges of terrorism , proliferation of weapons of mass

destruction , hunger , disease , and poverty require multilateral

responses and initiatives . The United States should therefore take every


opportunity to help strengthen global institutions and alliances,

including the UN . Like all institutions, the United Nations has its limitations and problems. It needs reform. Too often, the UN,

especially the General Assembly, succumbs to the worst forms of political posturing. Nevertheless, the United Nations has played an essential role throughout the world in postconflict transitions, supervising elections, providing humanitarian programs and assistance, 22

peacekeeping, and offering international legitimacy and expertise of the kind that have helped

stabilize Korea, Haiti, Liberia, East Timor, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and a number of other regions. Helping bring security

to those troubled areas required an immense international effort. Although many of these hot spots are still troubled today, each is more stable than it was, reducing the risk of further violence and regional escalation. More importantly, each has some hope for a peaceful future—although

it may take years before that hope is realized. No international conflict is simple or easy to deal with, but each requires attention and the United Nations is the only

international organization that can help bring the consensus that is

indispensable in finding solutions and resolving crises. Critics have suggested that McCain’s

League of Democracies could diminish the role of the United Nations. When I mentioned this to Hagel, he said, “What is the point of the United Nations? The whole point, as anyone who has taken any history knows, was to bring all nations of the world together in some kind of imperfect body, a forum that allows all governments of the world, regardless of what kinds of government, to work through their problems –versus attacking each other and going to war. Now, in John’s League of Democracies, does that mean Saudi Arabia is out? Does that mean our friend King Abdullah in Jordan is out? It would be only democracies. Well, we’ve got a lot of allies and relationships that are pretty important to us, and to our interests, who would be out of that club.

And the way John would probably see China and Russia, they wouldn’t be in it, either. So it would be an interesting Book-of-the-Month Club. “But in order to solve problems you’ve got to have all the players at the table,” Hagel went

on, his voice rising. “How are you going to fix the problems in Pakistan , Afghanistan –the

problems we’ve got with poverty, proliferation, terrorism, wars –when the largest segments of society in the world today are not at the table?” He

paused, then added, more calmly, “The United Nations, as I’ve said many times, is imperfect.

We’ve got NATO, multilateral institutions, multilateral-development banks, the World Trade Organization–all have flaws, that’s true. But if you didn’t have them what would you have? A world completely out of

control , with no structure , no order , no boundaries .”


***solvency


2nc – xt: solvency

Universal Periodic Review solves the aff and ensures human right complianceCDT 5/11/15 – global non-profit organization championing global online civil liberties and human rights, driving policy outcomes that keep the Internet open, innovative, and free, *citing Sarah Vincent; J.D. at the University of Michigan Law School (Center for Democracy and Technology, UN Human Rights Council Highlights US Surveillance Abuses, https://cdt.org/press/un-human-rights-council-highlights-us-surveillance-abuses/)//JJToday, the United Nations Human Rights Council conducted its second Universal Periodic Review of the United States’ human rights

practices . During this process, UN Members States have the opportunity

to raise concerns about a country’s human rights record, highlighting particular concerns or areas for clarification. The human rights implications of large-scale government surveillance were a prominent topic of criticism by more than a dozen countries. The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) and the ACLU submitted a shadow report on five particularly egregious US surveillance programs in advance of the review, and CDT previewed the process last week.

“The global community has said firmly that the US must address its

surveillance-related human rights abuses . The US cannot continue to ignore these calls for action,” said Sarah St. Vincent, Human Rights and Surveillance Legal fellow at CDT. The UN Human Rights Council review comes just days before surveillance

reform legislation is to be taken up in Congress and follows last week’s ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that the NSA bulk collection is not legal under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. “The Council’s proceedings have put additional pressure on the US to reform its

surveillance practices not just in the US, but around the world ,” St. Vincent added.

“They’ve highlighted the need to ensure that all surveillance programs respect the rights to privacy and free expression for everyone, at all times.” At least 17 nations questioned the US on its surveillance practices, raising issues related to the interception of private data, transparency, redress for violations, and the rights of individuals being monitored outside of the US’ borders. CDT will provide additional analysis of the proceedings later this week.

Solves the affSt. Vincent 5/15/15 – CDT’s Human Rights and Surveillance Fellow, J.D. at the University of Michigan Law School (Sarah, UN Member States Call for US Surveillance Reforms, CDT, https://cdt.org/blog/un-member-states-call-for-us-surveillance-reforms/)//JJOn Monday, US officials went before the gathered United Nations Member States in Geneva and were greeted with a

message that was loud and clear: all surveillance, no matter where it takes place or whose data it involves, must comply with human rights law. As


Congress and the Executive Branch continue to face urgent demands from the American public to reform

surveillance, they would do well to heed this global call for change as well. In particular, the Administration should give immediate and serious consideration to countries’ recommendations to recognize that human rights apply to all surveillance; that any surveillance program must be subject to adequate judicial, congressional, and independent oversight; and that anyone whose fundamental rights are violated by surveillance activities must have access to effective redress. NSA surveillance remains a matter of strong and detailed concern to the global community. As CDT explained last week, the UN Human Rights Council conducted the Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”) of the United States, which occurs once every four and a half

years and entails a public review of the country’s compliance with all of its obligations under human rights law. Every UN Member State had the right to participate in the US’ review, and Monday’s session demonstrated a remarkable cohesiveness among the serious issues that were raised—and showed that NSA surveillance remains a matter of strong and detailed concern to the global community. Among the 17 countries that commented on US

surveillance (or privacy rights more broadly), several emphasized something the Administration has thus far refused to acknowledge: namely, that the US must respect human rights whenever it conducts surveillance operations, including surveillance of people who are outside the United States and are not Americans. As CDT and the ACLU observed in a report to the Human Rights Council prior to the session, the Snowden documents indicate that the NSA has been intercepting the private data of hundreds of millions of people around the world every

day, and the Administration’s failure to recognize that these activities give rise to human rights obligations remains a conspicuous and grave one. In addition to this general critique, several countries specifically indicated that the US must adopt better judicial, legislative, and independent oversight of its surveillance programs. Such oversight is an essential element of the right to privacy, and is a basic safeguard that CDT has been working hard to promote both within the US and internationally. A number of countries also highlighted the fact that US surveillance places a burden on individual rights from the moment the NSA acquires private data, regardless of whether analysts later view or use it—a point that echoes a similar finding by a US Second Circuit Court of Appeals last week in a case concerning the agency’s bulk collection of records of phone calls to, from, and within the US. Next month, the

US is expected to state publicly whether it accepts these and other surveillance-related recommendations. We believe the Administration should accept the following obligations, among others, as a matter of official policy: Respect and protect the human rights of all people when conducting surveillance: “ Ensure that all surveillance policies and measures

comply with international human rights law, particularly the right to privacy, regardless of the nationality or location of those affected, including through the development of effective safeguards against abuses” (recommendation made

by Brazil). Do the same when requiring companies to disclose users’ data: “Respect international human rights obligations regarding the right to privacy when intercepting digital communications of individuals, collecting personal data or requiring disclosure of personal data from third parties” (recommendation made by Germany). Conduct surveillance only on the basis of clear , comprehensive, non- discriminatory laws, and review existing laws accordingly: Review US federal laws and policies

“in order to ensure that all surveillance of digital communications is consistent with its international human rights obligations and is conducted on the basis of a legal framework which is publicly accessible, clear, precise, comprehensive and non-discriminatory” (recommendation made by Liechtenstein). Restrict large-scale global surveillance, ensure sufficient oversight, and provide redress for violations: “Take all necessary measures to ensure an independent and effective oversight by all Government branches of the overseas surveillance operations of the National Security Agency, especially those carried out under Executive Order 12333, and guarantee access to effective judicial and other remedies for people whose right to privacy would have been violated by the surveillance activities of the United States” (recommendation made by Switzerland; similar recommendation made by Hungary). Take proactive measure to prevent abuses: “Take adequate and effective steps to guarantee against arbitrary and unlawful acquisition of [private] data” (recommendation made by Kenya; similar recommendation made by Costa Rica). It is to the Administration’s credit that (as several participating countries noted) it has taken the Human Rights Council’s review of its human rights record with evident seriousness thus far. US Ambassador Keith Harper remarked before the assembled delegates that “every nation benefits from having a mirror held before it,” and the US’ decision to send a high-level delegation representing a range of federal


agencies reflects the sincerity of that view. In the case of surveillance, however, there’s no escaping the fact that the mirror has revealed profound

flaws. It is imperative for the Executive Branch to take action accordingly by formally declaring that it will accept and uphold the positions described above.


2nc – at: U.S. says no

U.S. will implement the recommendations – council and member state’s authority St. Vincent 5/7/15 – CDT’s Human Rights and Surveillance Fellow, J.D. at the University of Michigan Law School (Sarah, US to Answer for Surveillance Practices on Global Stage, CDT, https://cdt.org/blog/us-to-answer-for-surveillance-practices-on-global-stage/)//JJDuring the UPR session, we will be on the lookout for whether: Countries with which the US has a positive relationship—particularly those that co-sponsored the recent

groundbreaking resolution creating a new UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy—publicly remind the US government that many of the NSA surveillance programs revealed in the Snowden documents violate human rights and make recommendations as

to how those programs should be changed ; Countries state that the US

must comply with its human rights obligations when conducting

surveillance outside its own borders—an assertion that would carry

significant weight in a major ongoing legal debate ; Emphasis is placed upon the fact that

even the initial interception or acquisition of private data interferes with the rights to privacy and free expression; There is a significant embrace of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ conclusion that any interferences with the right to privacy must be necessary and proportionate in order to comply with human rights (again, such statements by countries would help to strengthen a

good global legal standard—one the US currently resists); The burden surveillance places on free expression is explicitly highlighted; and Countries address specific human rights issues such as meaningful oversight of surveillance programs (for example,

by courts or independent bodies) and the need to ensure that anyone who experiences a violation of his/her rights due to surveillance has access to an effective remedy. The Universal Periodic Review is the world’s biggest stage for highlighting human rights violations and working for clearer, stronger standards to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals everywhere. As the US steps into the spotlight, the world will be watching, and so will CDT.

U.S. will implement – empirics flow negDS 2/6/15 – U.S. Department of State (UPR Report of the United States of America, Department of State Diplomacy in Action, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/upr/2015/237250.htm)//JJIn our first UPR in 2010, the United States supported in whole or in part 173 of 228 recommendations. We have divided these recommendations into ten thematic areas and have

structured Section III of this report accordingly. Working groups comprising experts from relevant federal agencies addressed each of the thematic areas, meeting

periodically , assessing progress on the recommendations , and consulting with

civil society to share updates and receive feedback.


Here’s specific ev to surveillanceISHR 5/18/15 – independent, non-governmental organization dedicated to promoting and protecting human rights, developed the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (International Service For Human Rights, United States: Implement UPR recommendations to establish national

human rights institution and review national security laws, http://www.ishr.ch/news/united-states-implement-upr-recommendations-establish-national-human-rights-institution-and)//JJ

The United States of America (US) was reviewed last week on Monday, 11 May for the second time, as part of

the 22nd session of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Late last year, ISHR prepared a Briefing Paper

on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the US to assist States and other stakeholders to formulate questions and recommendations regarding the protection of human rights defenders (HRDs) during the US’ second

UPR. In the briefing paper, ISHR called on the US Congress to reform national security legislation and ensure accountability surrounding the unwarranted surveillance of human rights defenders and journalists; enact specific legislation that protects HRDs from reprisals and intimidation; and to build and endorse human rights mechanisms necessary for consistent and effective oversight of human rights in the US. Encouragingly, many of these recommendations were taken up by States in last week’s review.

http://www.ishr.ch/news/united-states-implement-upr-recommendations-establish-national-human-rights-institution-and)//JJ

http://www.ishr.ch/news/united-states-implement-upr-recommendations-establish-national-human-rights-institution-and)//JJ


2nc – at: U.S. lies

Irrelevant – rights groups, institutions, and NGOs solveOHCHR 15 – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (Basic facts about the UPR, United Nations Human Rights, 2015, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/BasicFacts.aspx)//JJThe documents on which the reviews are based are: 1) information provided by the State

under review, which can take the form of a “national report”; 2) information contained in the reports of independent human rights experts and groups , known as the Special

Procedures, human rights treaty bodies , and other UN entities ; 3)

information from other stakeholders including national human rights

institutions and non-governmental organizations .


2nc – at: every 4 years

Fiat solves – their interpretation justifies no affs or politics or counterplans during Congressional recess –


2nc – at: delay

UPR is grease lightning – OHCHR 15 – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (Basic facts about the UPR, United Nations Human Rights, 2015, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/BasicFacts.aspx)//JJDuring the Working Group session half an hour is allocated to adopt each of the “outcome reports” for the States reviewed that session. These take place no sooner than 48 hours after the country review. The reviewed State has the

opportunity to make preliminary comments on the recommendations choosing to either accept or note them. Both accepted and

noted recommendations are included in the report. After the report has been adopted, editorial modifications can be made to the report by States on their own statements within the following two weeks . The report then has to be adopted at a plenary session of the Human

Rights Council. During the plenary session, the State under review can reply to questions and issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the Working Group and respond to recommendations that were raised by States during the review. Time is also allotted to member and observer States who may wish to express their opinion on the outcome of the review and for NHRIs, NGOs and other stakeholders to make general comments.


2nc – at: surv compliance now

Extend St. Vincent (and 2nc solvency ev) – most recent UPR proves U.S. surveillance violates international human rights

They’re wrong – HRW 6/29/15 – international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on human rights, Peabody Award winner (Human Rights Watch, World Report 2015: United States, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/united-states)//JJDocuments leaked to journalists by former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden continued to reveal new details about US surveillance programs. In the last year, reports based on the Snowden documents show that the US may be collecting millions of text messages worldwide each day and intercepting all phone calls and metadata in the Bahamas and Afghanistan, and gathering all phone metadata in Mexico, Kenya, and the Philippines. A July news story said several prominent American Muslim leaders, including the head of a Muslim civil liberties group, were targeted with electronic surveillance. On January 17, 2014, President Obama announced additional measures to restrict the use, retention, and

dissemination of personal data gathered by intelligence services in Presidential Policy Directive 28. However, these measures fell short of ensuring that interference with privacy was limited to what was necessary and proportionate, and they left open the possibility of large-scale collection. Also, while the measures purported to bring rules on surveillance of non-US persons (foreigners abroad) closer to those governing

data collected on US persons, the rules are vague and create no justiciable rights . In

March, the UN Human Rights Committee called on the US to ensure

that its surveillance activities respect privacy rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, regardless of the nationality or location of individuals being monitored. It also expressed concern over the lack of transparency in US laws and court rulings governing surveillance. In July, Human Rights Watch released a report documenting how large-scale US surveillance is hampering journalists and lawyers in their work, making it more difficult to protect sources, and leading journalists to go to extreme lengths to avoid detection: from using encryption to burner phones, to ceasing all electronic communication. As a result, far less information about matters of public concern may be seeing the light of day.

Also in July, Senator Patrick Leahy introduced a new version of the USA Freedom Act that would have limited

some forms of domestic surveillance, while doing almost nothing to safeguard the privacy of foreigners abroad. However, it failed to move forward in the Senate.


2nc – cdt prodict

CDT is baller – here’s the quals of the editorCDT 15 – global non-profit organization championing global online civil liberties and human rights, driving policy outcomes that keep the Internet open, innovative, and free (Center for Democracy and Technology, Nuala O’Connor, 2015, https://cdt.org/staff/nuala-o%E2%80%99connor/)//JJ

Nuala O’Connor is the President & CEO of the Center for Democracy & Technology. She is an internationally recognized expert in Internet and technology policy, particularly in the areas of privacy and information governance. Nuala is passionate about the ways technology and the Internet can be instruments of global free expression and individual

freedom, and is committed to finding policy solutions that affect real people. Nuala has experience in both the public and private sectors. She was the Global Privacy Leader at General Electric (GE), where she was responsible for privacy policy

and practices across GE’s numerous divisions. Prior to joining CDT, she worked at Amazon.com as Vice President of Compliance & Consumer Trust and Associate General Counsel for Data & Privacy Protection. Nuala’s time in the technology sector began at DoubleClick, where she was part of a team of professionals brought in to address public outcry over the advertising giant’s proposal to merge on- and offline data sets. She managed numerous class actions, a multistate settlement with state attorneys general, and an FTC investigation before going on to help found the privacy compliance

department, which served as an influential model for companies in the technology sector and beyond. Later, Nuala served as Deputy Director of the Office of Policy & Strategic Planning, Chief Privacy Officer and as the Chief Counsel for Technology at the US Department of Commerce, where she worked on global technology policy including Internet governance and industry best practices. She became the first statutorily appointed Chief Privacy Officer in federal service when she was named as the first Chief Privacy Officer at the Department of Homeland Security. At DHS she was responsible for groundbreaking policy creation and implementation regarding the use of personal information in national security and law enforcement. Under her leadership, the DHS Privacy Office issued a seminal report criticizing the use of

private-sector data in national security efforts. She serves on numerous nonprofit boards, and is the recipient of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) Vanguard Award, the Executive Women’s Forum’s Woman of Influence award, and was named to the Federal 100, and “Geek of the Week” by the Minority Media & Telecom Council in May 2013. She also served as the Chairman of the Board of IAPP.

Born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, Nuala grew up in and around New York City. She holds an AB from Princeton ,

an M.Ed. from Harvard , and a JD from Georgetown University Law

Center . She lives in the Washington, DC, area with her three school-aged children.

https://cdt.org/staff/nuala-o%E2%80%99connor/)//JJ


2nc – health aff

Solvency advocate against Health Surveillance affsDixon 14 – executive director of the World Privacy Forum, formerly a research fellow with the Privacy Foundation at Denver University’s Sturm School of Law, former author (Pam, WPF Universal Periodic Review Comments — The Right to Health Privacy: Human Rights and the Surveillance and Interception of Medical and Health Records by Security Agencies, World Privacy Forum, 10/7/14, https://www.worldprivacyforum.org/2014/10/wpf-universal-periodic-review-comments-the-right-to-health-privacy-human-rights-and-the-surveillance-and-interception-of-medical-and-health-records-by-security-agencies/)//JJ

The World Privacy Forum respectfully submits these comments to the Civil Society Consultation on the Universal Periodic Review Recommendations on National Security supported in whole or in part by the U.S. The World Privacy Forum is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit public interest research group based in the United States. We focus exclusively on privacy and security issues and have substantive expertise in health privacy. 1. Our comments focus on the issue of the U.S. National Security Agency’s (NSA) interception of, acquisition of, and access to the health (including physical and mental health) records held by health care providers, health insurers, and health care clearinghouses located in the United States or otherwise subject to U.S. health privacy law .

2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in Article 12 and 25, provides that individuals should be free to seek health care without intrusion by their government. The United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 68/167 in December 2013, which expresses concern regarding the negative impact that surveillance and interception of communications may have on human rights. The United States in the 2010 UPR supported the right to privacy, and the goal of legislation or regulations that would work to prevent the violations of individual privacy, including “constant intrusion,” by its intelligence and security organizations. Specifically, the U.S. supported in part: § 59: Legislate appropriate regulations to prevent the violations of individual privacy, constant intrusion in and control of cyberspace as well as eavesdropping of communications, by its intelligence and security organizations. §187: Guarantee the right to privacy and stop spying on its citizens without judicial authorization. 3. The World Privacy Forum

acknowledges that there are lawful reasons for access to health records for investigations. 4. We are, however, most concerned that non-transparent access to patient health files by national security agencies occurs in two circumstances: 1.) When the files are held by health care providers, and 2.) When the files are in transmission between providers, insurers, and other lawful users. In these comments, we discuss the issue of a lack of transparency and oversight regarding the acquisition and use of health records by federal agencies with national security functions and, in

particular, by the NSA. I. The lack of transparency regarding U.S. security agency acquisition of health records when held by health care

providers and other entities covered under health privacy legislation. 5. There are no meaningful procedures or protections established by federal law governing the the acquisition or interception of patient health records by national security agencies from a health care provider, insurer, or clearinghouse. 6. U.S. health care providers are regulated under the

federal health privacy rule. Federal law includes a broad national security exemption that offers no effective restrictions on the disclosure of health records by health care providers for national security and intelligence activities. The exemption [45 CFR 164.512(k)(2)] states: (2) National security and intelligence activities.A covered entity may disclose protected health information to authorized federal officials for the conduct of lawful intelligence, counter-intelligence, and other national security activities authorized by the National Security Act (50 U.S.C. 401, et seq.) and implementing authority (e.g., Executive Order 12333). [45 CFR 164.512(k)(2)]. 7. Because of the breadth of this exemption, it is lawful for health care providers and other entities covered by the law to disclose health records to national security agencies without any procedural standards, any formal judicial request, any showing of relevance or importance, any probable cause, or any reasonable cause. The law does not require a written — or indeed any — request for it to be lawful for a covered entity to hand over patient health files. Further, there are no adequate procedures under which a record keeper or record subject can challenge a request for the records as unlawful, inappropriate, or as not in accordance with statutory

https://www.worldprivacyforum.org/2014/10/wpf-universal-periodic-review-comments-the-right-to-health-privacy-human-rights-and-the-surveillance-and-interception-of-medical-and-health-records-by-security-agencies/)//JJ




procedures. II. The lack of transparency regarding the U.S. security agency acquisition of health records in transmission outside of the health care provider context 8. Events since 2010 have better informed the public and the world about health record privacy and national security investigation

activities, including interception of health records in bulk collections. We are most concerned about examples regarding the NSA’s activities. The NSA has broken the encryption that in the past has protected health records. (NewYork Times, Top Secret NSA Program Cracks Most Internet Encryption Tools, Sept. 05, 2013.) While this does not prove that the NSA is deliberately intercepting health records, it does indicate that traditional means of making health files private are no longer reliable against

intrusion, particularly during transmission, even when the security meets the requirements set out in the federal health security rule. We certainly have no confidence that standard encryption protocols protect health records against NSA capabilities. 10. Health records of individuals, including non-targeted individuals, have been routinely intercepted by the NSA. A reporter at the Washington Post who received copies of intercepted files from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden documented this issue, noting the presence of health files. He wrote: “About 16,000 of the data files contained the text of intercepted conversations. The rest were photographs or documents such as medical records, travel vouchers, school transcripts and marriage contracts.” (Barton Gellman, The Washington Post, How 160,000 intercepted communications led to our latest NSA story, July 11, 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/your-questions-answered-about-the-posts-recent-investigation-of-nsa-surveillance/2014/07/11/43d743e6-0908-11e4-8a6a-19355c7e870a_story.html>. 11. The U.S. Executive Branch acknowledged in 2013 that the business records provision of the USA PATRIOT ACT had been re-interpreted to allow the U.S. government to collect the private records of large numbers of ordinary Americans via bulk collection. A bi-partisan group of U.S. Senators wrote to the Director of National Intelligence on June 27, 2013 requesting answers to issues regarding interception of health records: “We are troubled by the possibility of this bulk collection authority being applied to other categories of records. The bulk collection authority could potentially be used to supersede bans on maintaining gun owner databases, or laws protecting the privacy of medical records, financial records, and records of book and movie purchases. These other types of bulk collection could clearly have a significant impact on Americans’ privacy and civil liberties as well.” <http://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=87b45794-0fa4-4b1a-b3a6-e659a91a5042&download=1>. 12. No existing legal mechanisms provide appropriate standards, transparency, or oversight in the use of health records for national security investigations. III. The importance of health privacy as a human right and value worth protecting 13. We are concerned that individuals may be chilled from seeking necessary and even life-saving health treatment due to legitimate privacy concerns regarding their health records. As health records become increasingly digitized, routine access to patients’ electronic health records by U.S. intelligence and security agencies becomes more likely. We include remote electronic access to this assessment. 14. The goals of UPR § 59 are that countries “Legislate appropriate regulations to prevent the violations of individual privacy, constant intrusion in and control of cyberspace as well as eavesdropping of communications, by its intelligence and security organizations. These goals are not being met in the United States with respect to disclosure and interception of health records by national security agencies. IV. Recommendations The World Privacy Forum recommends the following steps be taken: Recommendation 1. Change U.S. law so there are more accountability and better procedures for national security requests, demands, and interceptions. Specifically, we recommend the following changes to U.S. law with respect to access by or disclosure of health records to U.S. national security agencies: Health information should only be disclosed for national security purposes pursuant to a judicial warrant. There must be procedures under which record keepers can challenge national security demands for health records that are unlawful or inappropriate. If there is no requirement for a judicial warrant, then we offer these further recommendations: Requests for health information by all national security agencies must meet standards of reasonable or probable cause. Formal requests by all national security agencies for health records should be subject to the supervision of the federal courts. Recommendation 2. The U.S. should accept the letter and spirit of §59 and §187 and should

take immediate corrective action. The lack of sufficient human rights protections for

health privacy and health records in the U.S. erodes the values expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in Article 12 and 25.


***theory/perms


2nc – theory – top-level

It’s a core topic question – St. Vincent and Hall 14 – CDT’s Human Rights and Surveillance Fellow, J.D. at the University of Michigan Law School AND **Chief Technologist for CDT, Ph.D. in information systems from UC Berkley (Sarah and Joseph Lorenzo, Five US Surveillance Programs Undermining Global Human Rights, CDT, 9/18/14, https://cdt.org/blog/five-us-surveillance-programs-undermining-global-human-rights/)//JJThose of us in the United States often like to think—rightly or wrongly—that our overall human-rights record is in pretty good order. However, even those who view the US as a global human-rights leader have had to take a deep breath when considering the past year of Big Brother-

like surveillance revelations . A major UN body highlighted these revelations—along with a decidedly sobering array of other US human-rights issues—in a set of recommendations back in April. In order to keep drawing attention to

these surveillance-related problems, CDT and the ACLU submitted comments this past Monday to the United Nations describing five particularly egregious surveillance programs that have

had a grievous impact on human rights around the world. Every four years, the UN

Human Rights Council (HRC) evaluates all of a country’s human-rights commitments during a process called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). During the UPR, the UN HRC examines the promises a country has made—i.e., in human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—and evaluates to what extent that country is living up to its obligations. We make it crystal clear that on a daily basis, US authorities are intercepting the private communications and other personal electronic data of hundreds of millions of people across the globe, the vast majority of whom are not suspected of any wrongdoing. In anticipation of next year’s UPR of the United States, CDT and the ACLU sought to do something unique: after wading into the sea of NSA-related surveillance revelations that have emerged during this past year, we highlighted (and used our technical expertise to explain) five specific surveillance programs that have a particularly outrageous and broad impact on the human rights—including privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly—of people around the world. We aimed to provide an accessible technical description of the five programs and explain the impact these programs have on millions of people throughout the world, regardless of any

suspicion of wrongdoing and without any judicial oversight. The five programs we analyzed include: DISHFIRE, an initiative through which the US collects hundreds of millions of private text messages worldwide every day; CO-TRAVELER, through which the US captures billions of location updates daily from mobile phones around the world; MUSCULAR , which entails the US’ interception of all data transmitted between certain data centers operated by Yahoo! and Google outside of US territory; MYSTIC , a US program that collects all telephone call details in five sovereign countries other than the US, as well as the full content of all phone calls in two of those countries; and QUANTUM, a US program that listens in real-time to traffic on the Internet’s most fundamental infrastructure and can respond based on certain triggering information with active attacks, including the delivery of malicious software to the end-user’s device. In our submission we make it crystal clear that on a daily basis, US authorities are intercepting the private communications and other personal electronic data of hundreds of millions of people across the globe, the vast majority of whom are not suspected of any wrongdoing. The intercepted data includes information about where those hundreds of millions of people are, with whom they correspond, and what they say in their correspondence. At the end of our submission, we make a number of recommendations to the US about how it can improve its respect for human rights in this context. The recommendations focus on halting the US’ indiscriminate interception of individuals’ private communications data, getting greater (or, to be more accurate, any) Congressional and judicial oversight for these programs, stopping the attacks under QUANTUM, and ensuring that the relevant orders and regulations are brought into line with human-rights law.


2nc – at: process cp theory

Process counterplans are good –

a) topic education – this counterplan is specifically core to this topic – learning about the process is just as important as learning about the productSt. Vincent and Hall 14 – CDT’s Human Rights and Surveillance Fellow, J.D. at the University of Michigan Law School AND **Chief Technologist for CDT, Ph.D. in information systems from UC Berkley (Sarah and Joseph Lorenzo, Five US Surveillance Programs Undermining Global Human Rights, CDT, 9/18/14, https://cdt.org/blog/five-us-surveillance-programs-undermining-global-human-rights/)//JJThose of us in the United States often like to think—rightly or wrongly—that our overall human-rights record is in pretty good order. However, even those who view the US as a global human-rights leader have had to take a deep breath when considering the past year of Big Brother-

like surveillance revelations . A major UN body highlighted these revelations—along with a decidedly sobering array of other US human-rights issues—in a set of recommendations back in April. In order to keep drawing attention to

these surveillance-related problems, CDT and the ACLU submitted comments this past Monday to the United Nations describing five particularly egregious surveillance programs that have

had a grievous impact on human rights around the world. Every four years, the UN

Human Rights Council (HRC) evaluates all of a country’s human-rights commitments during a process called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). During the UPR, the UN HRC examines the promises a country has made—i.e., in human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—and evaluates to what extent that country is living up to its obligations. We make it crystal clear that on a daily basis, US authorities are intercepting the private communications and other personal electronic data of hundreds of millions of people across the globe, the vast majority of whom are not suspected of any wrongdoing. In anticipation of next year’s UPR of the United States, CDT and the ACLU sought to do something unique: after wading into the sea of NSA-related surveillance revelations that have emerged during this past year, we highlighted (and used our technical expertise to explain) five specific surveillance programs that have a particularly outrageous and broad impact on the human rights—including privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly—of people around the world. We aimed to provide an accessible technical description of the five programs and explain the impact these programs have on millions of people throughout the world, regardless of any

suspicion of wrongdoing and without any judicial oversight. The five programs we analyzed include: DISHFIRE, an initiative through which the US collects hundreds of millions of private text messages worldwide every day; CO-TRAVELER, through which the US captures billions of location updates daily from mobile phones around the world; MUSCULAR , which entails the US’ interception of all data transmitted between certain data centers operated by Yahoo! and Google outside of US territory; MYSTIC , a US program that collects all telephone call details in five sovereign countries other than the US, as well as the full content of all phone calls in two of those countries; and QUANTUM, a US program that listens in real-time to traffic on the Internet’s most fundamental infrastructure and can respond based on certain triggering information with active attacks, including the delivery of malicious software to the end-user’s device. In our submission we make it crystal clear that on a daily basis, US authorities are intercepting the private communications and other personal electronic data of hundreds of millions of people across the globe, the vast majority of whom are not suspected of any wrongdoing. The intercepted data includes information about where those hundreds of millions of people are, with whom they correspond, and what they say in their correspondence. At the end of our submission, we make a number of recommendations to the US about how it can improve its respect for human rights


in this context. The recommendations focus on halting the US’ indiscriminate interception of individuals’ private communications data, getting greater (or, to be more accurate, any) Congressional and judicial oversight for these programs, stopping the attacks under QUANTUM, and ensuring that the relevant orders and regulations are brought into line with human-rights law.

b) fairness – there is no neg ground on this topic – process counterplans are necessary to make up for the atrocity of DA ground

c) research – voting us down on theory discourages good research practices – process counterplans fosters in-depth and analytical research for tricky mechanisms

d) reciprocal – the aff can get advantages based on the process of implementation

Reject the argument not the team


2nc – at: perm do both

Links to the net-benefit – unilateral U.S. action is perceived as bypassing the UPR recommendations

UN legitimacy is uniquely key to binding human rights compliance – U.S. involvement in the process tarnishes credibility – Tasioulas 13 – inaugural Yeoh Professor of Politics, Philosophy and Law at The Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London, doctorate from philosophy at Oxford (John, Human Rights, Legitimacy, and International Law, American Journal of Jurisprudence, 2013m http://ajj.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/1/1.full#sec-2)//JJThat, of course, is a very general objection to any attempt to render the concept of a human right parasitic on the concept of a particular kind of institutional structure or geopolitical

configuration. But let me proceed now to one broad manifestation of the political view of human rights, that according to which human rights are essentially

benchmarks of political legitimacy . By the legitimacy of a political institution, I mean the right of a political institution, such as the state, to rule over its purported subjects. And by ruling, I mean the issuing of directives that purport to be morally binding —that purport to impose obligations of obedience —on those subjects. Moreover, these are obligations that are claimed to exist independently of the content of any particular directive, simply in virtue of

the institution’s say-so . It follows from this that a law may be morally binding ,

because enacted by a body that enjoys legitimacy , while being in some

sense unjust in terms of its content or the process whereby it was enacted.

^The permutation is driven by national security interests and won’t receive UN recommendationsTharoor 3 – UN Undersecretary-General for Communications and Public Information and the author of eight books (Shashi, Why America Still Needs the United Nations, Foreign Affairs, September 2003, https://www.foreignaffairs.org/articles/2003-09-01/why-america-still-needs-united-nations)//JJThat Washington has often used force on behalf of such principles makes good political sense. After all, acting in the name of international law is always preferable to acting in the name of national security. Everyone has a stake in the former, and so couching U.S. action in terms of international law universalizes American interests and comforts potential allies. When American actions seem driven by U.S. national

security imperatives alone , partners can prove hard to find -- as became clear when, in

marked contrast to the first Gulf War, only a small "coalition of the willing" joined Washington the second time around in Iraq. Working within the UN allows the United States to maximize what Joseph Nye calls its "soft power" -- the ability to


attract and persuade others to adopt the American agenda -- rather than relying purely on the dissuasive or coercive "hard power" of military force.

Legitimacy key to binding precedent – the permutation rubber stamps the UNTharoor 3 – UN Undersecretary-General for Communications and Public Information and the author of eight books (Shashi, Why America Still Needs the United Nations, Foreign Affairs, September 2003, https://www.foreignaffairs.org/articles/2003-09-01/why-america-still-needs-united-nations)//JJEqually important, however, is the need for legitimacy , and here again the UN has proven

invaluable . The organization's role in legitimizing state action has been

both its most cherished function and, in the United States, its most controversial. As the world's preeminent international organization, the UN embodies world opinion, or at least the opinion of the world's

legally constituted states. When the UN Security Council passes a resolution, it is seen as speaking for (and in the interests of) humanity as a whole, and in so doing it confers a legitimacy that is respected by the world's governments, and usually by their publics. When the resolution in question

is passed under Chapter VII of the charter -- that document's enforcement provisions -- it becomes legally binding on all member states. The composition of the council that passes a particular resolution is no more relevant to its legitimacy than that of a national parliament that passes a law; congressional legislation, by the same logic, is not less binding on Americans if the majority that votes for it

comes overwhelmingly from small states. The legitimacy of the UN inheres in its universality and not in its structural details, which have long been subject to the clamor for reform. Some Americans have scorned the status and conduct of many of the Security Council members that failed to support the United States on Iraq. But this unseemly sneering over the right of Angola, Cameroon, or Guinea to pass judgment in the council overlooks the valuable contribution their presence makes. The election of small countries to the council bolsters its legitimacy by enhancing its role as a repository of world opinion.

Universality of membership also allows the world to view the UN as something more than the sum of its parts, as an entity that transcends the interests of any one member state. The UN guards the vital principles entrenched in its charter, notably the sovereign equality of states and the inadmissibility of interference in their internal affairs. It is precisely because the UN is the chief guardian of both these sacrosanct principles that it alone is allowed to approve derogations from them. Thus when the UN, in particular the Security Council, legislates an intervention in a sovereign state, it is still seen as upholding the basic principles even while approving a departure from them.

When an individual state acts in defiance of the UN, on the other hand, it merely violates these principles. This is why so many countries, including the most powerful ones, take care to embed their actions within the framework of the principles and purposes of the UN Charter. For examples of this, one need only peruse a random selection of speeches by countries explaining their votes on the Security Council, especially those concerning military action. The value of internationally recognized principles resonates across the globe and has been reified through 58 years of repetition -- including last March, when the council debated Iraq. To suggest -- as did some critics of the UN during the Iraq crisis -- that the organization has become irrelevant overlooks the message President George W. Bush himself sent when he appeared before the General Assembly in September 2002. In calling on the Security Council to take action, Bush framed the problem of Iraq as a question not of what the United States (unilaterally) wanted, but of how to implement Security Council resolutions. Indeed, these resolutions were at the heart of the U.S. case. Had the Security Council been able to agree that force was warranted, it would have provided unique (and incontestable)

legitimacy for U.S. military action. The fact that the council did not ultimately agree, however, strengthens, rather than dilutes, the rationale for approaching it in such situations. The council's refusal to serve as a rubber stamp for Washington will give any future support it lends to the United States greater credibility.


Independent UN action is key to credibility – the perm positions the UN on the sidelineShariati 9 – PhD, Professor of Economics and Sociology and KCKCC (Medhi, UNITED NATIONS AND THE CRISIS OF LEGITIMACY: The Anatomy of One of the Organs of Hegemonic Powers, Payvand Iran News, 2/23/09, http://www.payvand.com/news/09/feb/1277.html)//JJThe world is desperately in need of a solution to the crises of socio-economic and political violence, lack of direction, and utter disregard for the declining moral and ethical standards.

The reality points to a very frightening prospect and to a world that is not governed by any moral codes, ethical values, international law and the absence of credible enforcing institutions . As the behavior of certain permanent members even in the formative years of the United Nations reveals, the current dysfunctionality of the UN is neither a recent problem nor it is a matter of bureaucratic

inefficiency . Rather it is built into the hegemonic structure itself and the need for an alternative system with a philosophy and mission statement suitable for a

sustainable global social, political and economic system is becoming increasingly urgent. As long as the world is managed by those very few so called "fit" who pursue their own selfish interest at the

expense of the great majority, they are given the right to codify rules, regulations, morality and ethics and to write history. Are we to assume that the world is ruled by the fittest of

the human species? If so then the results suggest that there is a cancer on the body of humanity and unless the world reverses its course and changes the culture of violence, the cancer will destroy it. Recently at Davos we heard calls for more deregulation, more free market, more capital inflow/outflow, more speculations, more free trade and much more free this and free that. Angela Merkel of Germany and Gordon Brown of Britain suggested the creation of a Security Council Economic Commission for more policing of the World economy. This however is not in opposition to the neoliberalism that Davos has been promoting. It simply means for control of the World economy by a few-a few that control Security

Council itself. There is a hopeful sign that there is a growing awareness regarding the very oligarchic

structure of global institutions and the various mechanisms of transfer of wealth from the poorest to richest. The developing world is

displaying an advanced degree of awareness that often dwarfs that of their counterparts in the advanced industrial and capitalist countries. As their awareness advances inexorably, the hope for a better world must be sustained. It is not the hoarding and the wasteful consumption of resources --the foundation of uni-polar and bi-polar hegemonic system that has

ruled the world. It is a world free of hegemonic tendencies, respect for the rules that everyone can live by. As long as hegemonic

powers control the structure and set policies , the structure will

remain detrimental to the health of the "real" international community. No

one should believe that United Nations ought to solve the World's pressing problems, but no one expects the United Nations to be one of the causes of the problems. It is time for the United Nations and all of its agencies to renounce past practices on the

part of some of its agencies, adopt a new paradigm, and join the voices speaking on behalf of the under-privilege at the World Social forum rather than as a cheer leader on the sideline for the voices of greed and failure at the World Economic Forum at Davos.

The margin for error is tinyThakur 9 – director, Balsillie School of International Affairs, Distinguished Fellow, Centre for International Governance Innovation and Professor of Political Science, University of Waterloo (Ramesh, LAW, LEGITIMACY AND UNITED NATIONS, Melbourne Journal of International Law Volume 11, 12/7/9, p. 12)//JJSimilarly, there were three views on the significance of the war for the UN–US relationship: that it

demonstrated the irrelevance, centrality or potential complicity of the UN. 48 First, for the neo-conservatives, because it exists, the UN should be uninvented and there was therefore no reason to seek UN approval. 49 Under the second view, it was recognized that there was a need ‘to confront Saddam Hussein but [it] ruled out acting without UN authorization.’ 50 Third, UN authorization of the war was

‘necessary but not sufficient’ with irrelevance preferred to complicity. 51 In the opinion of some, the UN is ‘ now more

than ever reduced to the servile function of after-sales service


provider for the United States, on permanent call as the mop-up

brigade . ’


2nc – at: perm do the cp

Makes the plan extra-topical – the UPR recommendations are not limited to surveillance and are international actionsOHCHR 15 – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (Basic facts about the UPR, United Nations Human Rights, 2015, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/BasicFacts.aspx)//JJThe ultimate goal of UPR is the improvement of the human rights situation in every country with significant consequences for people around the globe. The UPR is designed to prompt, support, and expand the promotion and protection of human rights on

the ground. To achieve this, the UPR involves assessing States’ human rights

records and addressing human rights violations wherever they occur .

The UPR also aims to provide technical assistance to States and

enhance their capacity to deal effectively with human rights challenges

and to share best practices in the field of human rights among States and other stakeholders.

Voter for jursidiciton –

Severs the plan – no portion mentions the UN or the UPR – 5 programs prove the counterplan is a distinct form of actionSt. Vincent and Hall 14 – CDT’s Human Rights and Surveillance Fellow, J.D. at the University of Michigan Law School AND **Chief Technologist for CDT, Ph.D. in information systems from UC Berkley (Sarah and Joseph Lorenzo, Five US Surveillance Programs Undermining Global Human Rights, CDT, 9/18/14, https://cdt.org/blog/five-us-surveillance-programs-undermining-global-human-rights/)//JJThose of us in the United States often like to think—rightly or wrongly—that our overall human-rights record is in pretty good order. However, even those who view the US as a global human-rights leader have had to take a deep breath when considering the past year of Big Brother-like surveillance revelations. A major UN body highlighted these revelations—along with a decidedly sobering array of other US human-rights issues—in a set of recommendations back in April. In order to keep drawing attention to these surveillance-related problems,

CDT and the ACLU submitted comments this past Monday to the United Nations describing five particularly egregious surveillance programs that have had a grievous impact on human rights around the world. Every four years, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) evaluates all of a country’s human-rights commitments during a process called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). During the UPR, the UN HRC examines the promises a country has made—i.e., in human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—and evaluates to what extent that country is living up to its obligations. We make it crystal clear that on a daily basis, US authorities are intercepting the private communications and other personal electronic data of hundreds of millions of people across the globe, the vast majority of whom are not suspected of any wrongdoing. In anticipation of next year’s UPR of the United States, CDT and the ACLU sought to do something unique: after wading into the sea of NSA-related surveillance revelations that have emerged during this past year, we highlighted (and used our technical expertise to explain) five specific surveillance programs that have a particularly outrageous and broad impact on the human rights—including privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly—of people around the world. We aimed to provide an accessible technical description of the five programs and explain the impact these programs have on millions of people throughout the world, regardless of any suspicion of

wrongdoing and without any judicial oversight. The five programs we analyzed include: DISHFIRE, an initiative through which the US collects hundreds of millions of private text messages worldwide every day; CO-TRAVELER, through which the US captures billions of location updates daily from mobile phones around the world;


MUSCULAR, which entails the US’ interception of all data transmitted between certain data centers operated by Yahoo! and Google outside of US territory; MYSTIC, a US program that collects all telephone call details in five sovereign countries other than the US, as well as the full content of all phone calls in two of those countries; and QUANTUM, a US program that listens in real-time to traffic on the Internet’s most fundamental infrastructure and can respond based on certain triggering information with active attacks, including the delivery of malicious software to the end-user’s device. In our submission we make it crystal clear that on a daily basis, US authorities are intercepting the private communications and other personal electronic data of hundreds of millions of people across the globe, the vast majority of whom are not suspected of any wrongdoing. The intercepted data includes information about where those hundreds of millions of people are, with whom they correspond, and what they say in their correspondence. At the end of our submission, we make a number of recommendations to the US about how it can improve its respect for human rights in this context. The recommendations focus on halting the US’ indiscriminate interception of individuals’ private communications data, getting greater (or, to be more accurate, any) Congressional and judicial oversight for these programs, stopping the attacks under QUANTUM, and ensuring that the relevant orders and regulations are brought into line with human-rights law.

Should is certain and immediateNieto 9 – Judge Henry Nieto, Colorado Court of Appeals, 8-20-2009 People v. Munoz, 240 P.3d 311 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009)"S hould" is "used . . . to express duty, obligation , propriety, or expediency." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2104 (2002). Courts [**15] interpreting the word in various contexts have drawn conflicting

conclusions, although the weight of authority appears to favor interpreting "should" in an

imperative, obligatory sense . HN7A number of courts, confronted with the question of whether

using the word "should" in jury instructions conforms with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections governing the reasonable doubt standard, have upheld instructions using the word. In the courts of other states in which a defendant has argued that the word "should" in the reasonable doubt instruction does not sufficiently inform the jury that it is bound to find the defendant not guilty if insufficient proof is submitted at trial, the courts have squarely rejected the argument. They reasoned that the word "conveys a sense of duty and obligation and could not be misunderstood by a jury." See State v. McCloud, 257 Kan. 1, 891 P.2d 324, 335 (Kan. 1995); see also Tyson v. State, 217 Ga. App. 428, 457 S.E.2d 690, 691-92 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (finding argument that "should" is directional but not instructional to be without merit); Commonwealth v. Hammond, 350 Pa. Super. 477, 504 A.2d 940, 941-42 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986). Notably, courts interpreting the word "should" in other types of jury instructions [**16] have also found that the word conveys to the jury a sense of duty or obligation and not discretion. In Little v. State, 261 Ark. 859, 554 S.W.2d 312, 324 (Ark. 1977), the Arkansas Supreme Court interpreted the word " should" in an instruction on circumstantial evidence as synonymous with the word

"must" and rejected the defendant's argument that the jury may have been misled by the court's use of the

word in the instruction. Similarly, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected a defendant's argument that the court erred by not using the word " should" in an instruction on witness credibility which used the word "must" because

the two words have the same meaning . State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958). [*318] In

applying a child support statute, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a legislature's or commission's use

of the word "should" is meant to convey duty or obligation . McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 49 P.3d

300, 306 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (finding a statute stating that child support expenditures "should" be allocated for the purpose of parents' federal tax exemption to be mandatory).

Severance – the counterplan’s recommendations and method of implementation are uncertain and occur later

‘Resolved’ denotes legislation Words and Phrases 64 Permanent Edition Definition of the word “resolve,” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as ‘it was resolved by the legislature;” It is of similar force to the word “enact,” which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”.


Severance – the recommendations are not implemented through legislative means, but rather internal reforms, etc.

Severance is a voter – allows the aff to spike out of all links and makes it a moving target – wrecks neg ground


2nc – at: perm lie

U.S. binding commitment is key – genuine or not, the perm will be perceived as a form of American exceptionalismMorrison 6 – Director of Communications for the United Nations Development Program (Dave, The U.S. Relationship with the United Nations, Yale Journal of International Affairs, spring 2006, http://www.yale.edu/yjia/articles/Vol_1_Iss_2_Spring2006/unroundtable223.pdf)//JJSo at its core, the UN is deeply tied to this country and to American values. But there is another strand in American foreign policy, which is American “exceptionalism .” The most well-known

example of this is the United States’ position on the International Criminal Court, where the United States is really way out on its own. I think we have to accept that there are

issues where the U.S. simply sees itself as different from the rest of the world

and that in such cases the U.S. position is likely to diverge from that of the wider UN.


***net-benefit


2nc – at: case solves

Only UN legitimacy can solveSachs and Jeremic 14 – UN Secretary-General's Special Advisor on the Millennium Development Goals, is the director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet professor of sustainable development, and professor of health policy and management at Columbia University AND ** president of the Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development (CIRSD), former Serbia's foreign minister, former president of the 67th Session of the United Nations General Assembly (Jeffrey and Vuk, Global Cooperation in the Age of Sustainable Development, Huffington post, 3/7/14, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vuk-jeremic/global-cooperation_b_4890371.html)//JJ

Achieving sustainable development will be the overriding strategic challenge of this generation. Throughout most of history, the tasks of integrating economic development, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability were local or regional. In the 21st century, however,

they are indisputably global. Only through global cooperation can individual nations overcome the interconnected global-scale crises of extreme poverty, economic instability, social inequality, and environmental degradation. The crises of sustainable development have already become crises of national and global security. Every country faces increasingly complex challenges of energy, food, and water security. Every country faces the crisis of rising frequency and intensity of natural disasters, with a soaring number of floods, droughts, heat waves, extreme storms, and forest fires. Many countries face the unsolved problem of creating jobs for their young people, and many poor countries have populations growing too fast to meet their respective education

and employment needs. Many of the today's conflicts -- in the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, Syria, and Western Asia -- are being stoked by droughts, famines, mass migration, and other manifestations of economic, social, and environmental unsustainability. This is

no time for despair, but for resolve. The United Nations must become the functional center of the global sustainable development effort, one that draws on every stakeholder through the UN's unique convening power and universally-recognized legitimacy. Sustainable development must become the daily work of UN Member States, private businesses, non-governmental organizations, universities and research centers, international financial institutions, and the UN organs themselves.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vuk-jeremic/global-cooperation_b_4890371.html)//JJ


2nc – at: U.S. commitment now

It’s on the brink – any support is mere rhetoricMcDonald and Patrick 10 – former international affairs fellow in residence at the Council on Foreign Relations and a Foreign Service officer with the U.S. Department of State, fromer director for United Nations and international operations at the National Security Council, AND **Senior Fellow and Director of the International Institutions and Global Governance Program at the Council on Foreign Relations (Kara and Stewart, UN Security Council Enlargement and U.S. Interests, Council on Foreign Relations, December 2010, p. 13-14)//JJCURRENT U.S. POLICY Despite its rhetorical commitment to updating international institutions, the Obama administration, like administrations before it, has shied from leadership on UNSC reform. Rather than advance a particular

proposal, U.S. officials have offered broad statements in support of a limited expansion of both permanent and nonpermanent members within five parameters. These statements include: — enlargement cannot diminish the UNSC's effectiveness or efficiency; — any proposal to expand permanent membership must name specific countries (ruling out so-called framework proposals); 21 — candidates for permanent membership must be judged on their ability to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security; there should be no changes to the current veto structure; and — expansion proposals must accommodate charter requirements for ratification, including

approval by two-thirds of the U S. Senate. The Obama administration's stance presents only

two modest changes to that of its predecessor . First, it no longer conditions movement on

UNSC expansion to progress on broader UN management and budgetary reform. Second, whereas the Bush administration supported only Japan's candidacy, the Obama administration has announced support for India as an additional permanent member, leaving other potetial configurations open for discussion. Beyond these parameters, the Obama administration has not proposed any specific reforms, clarified the acceptable limits of any expansion, or endorsed any candidates.24 President Obama has not launched an interagency review ofthe matter, and aspirant countries have not yet pressed him vigorously on it. Whether the time has come to alter the UNSC's composition—and, if so, how it should be altered—remain subjects of fierce debate.


2nc – xt: HR cred

The counterplan is the last chance to maintain U.S. global human rights commitment Sanchez-Moreno 5/11/15 – co-director of the U.S program at Human Rights Watch, J.D. from NYU Law School (Maria McFarland, Hold the US accountable on human rights, Aljazeera America, http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/5/holding-the-us-accountable-on-human-rights.html)//JJThe U.S. has put a lot of effort into strengthening the U.N. Human Rights Council and making the UPR a useful process when it comes to dealing with other countries. It has also made a point of setting a good example , by engaging in extensive consultation with nongovernmental organizations and other stakeholders in the run-up to its review. But the U.S. will risk

undermining these efforts if it fails to fulfill its own human rights commitments.

UPR solves human rights implementation – global reachOHCHR 15 – United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, citing Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General (Universal Periodic Review, 2015, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRMain.aspx)//JJThe Universal Periodic Review "has great potential to promote and

protect human rights in the darkest corners of the world.” – Ban Ki-moon, UN

Secretary-General

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique process which involves a review of the human rights records of all UN Member States. The UPR is a

State-driven process, under the auspices of the Human Rights Council, which

provides the opportunity for each State to declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their countries and to fulfil

their human rights obligations . As one of the main features of the Council, the UPR is designed to ensure equal treatment for every country when their human rights situations are assessed.The UPR was created through the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006 by resolution 60/251, which established the Human Rights Council itself. It is a cooperative process which, by October 2011, has reviewed the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States. Currently, no other universal mechanism of this kind exists.

The UPR is one of the key elements of the Council which reminds States of their responsibility to fully respect and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The ultimate aim of this mechanism is to improve the human rights situation in all countries and address human rights violations wherever they occur.


2nc – terrorism

U.S. HR leadership solves the root cause of terrorismDuffy 6/26/15 – Senior Media Relations Associate for Human Rights First, former intern for or Senators Schumer, Gillibrand, and Clinton (Corrine, U.S. Government Should Promote Global Counterterrorism Strategy Rooted in Human Rights, Human Rights First, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/us-government-should-promote-global-counterterrorism-strategy-rooted-human-rights)//JJ

Today, in response to terrorist attacks in Kuwait and Tunisia, Human Rights First urged the U.S. government to redouble its efforts to combat terrorism and counter violent extremism by tackling the underlying drivers of violent extremism. “It is clear that there is a need for a concerted, sustained international effort to

combat and prevent terrorist violence such as the horrific attacks in Sousse and Kuwait today,” said Human Rights First’s Neil Hicks. "Violent extremists and repressive authoritarian governments are mutually reinforcing . To break this destructive cycle, governments that wish to be effective partners in the struggle against violent extremism must extend human rights protections to all members of their communities, make independent civil society a partner, protect religious freedom and denounce sectarian incitement ." In February,

President Obama outlined a preventive strategy at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, and this week a regional conference in Kenya focuses on similar issues.

As Under Secretary of State Sarah Sewall reiterated in her opening remarks in Kenya yesterday, the international community must commit itself to a renewed focus on protecting the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, an end to the incitement of sectarian violence, which leads to atrocities such as the suicide bombing of a Shi'ite mosque in Kuwait today, and for empowering independent

civil society organizations as core partners in the struggle against violent extremism. "Tunisia represents a hopeful alternative to endless conflict between repressive authoritarianism and violent extremism. The United States has a vital

interest in ensuring the success of Tunisia's fragile transition towards democracy," noted Hicks. "Tunisia has become a target for terrorist violence in recent months because of the progress it has made in transitioning away from decades of authoritarian rule towards democratic government grounded in the rule of law. With its international partners, the United States should make clear that it will not let terrorism win a victory in Tunisia, and that it will stand behind the Tunisian economy and help the Tunisian security forces to secure

further progress towards a peaceful democratic future for Tunisia." The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ( ISIL ) has claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing of a Shi'ite mosque in Kuwait, further spreading its sectarian violence in the Gulf region. The global struggle

against ISIL requires cooperation from key Arab partners, especially among the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. Since the Arab Spring protests of 2011 Saudi Arabia and the GCC states have been leading a region-wide pushback against popular demands for more representative, more responsive government. This has

included a Saudi-led, GCC supported, military incursion into Bahrain to put down a peaceful protest movement and ample financial and political support for President Abdel Fattah al-

Sisi's authoritarian rule in Egypt. The repressive policies of such governments undermine

global efforts to counter violent extremism and combat terrorism.

Specifically nuclear terrorWeiss and Burroughs 4 – President of the New York-based Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy and Vice President of the Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, AND ** Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy and Adjunct Professor of International Law at Rutgers Law School (Peter and John, Weapons of mass destruction and human rights, HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN SECURITY AND DISARMAMENT, 2004, p. 33)//JJ

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/us-government-should-promote-global-counterterrorism-strategy-rooted-human-rights)//JJ

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/us-government-should-promote-global-counterterrorism-strategy-rooted-human-rights)//JJ


There can be no doubt that a world rife with weapons of mass destruction is less safe a place than a world without them, a point only reinforced by the rise of catastrophic terrorism. The elimination of WMD is a matter of political will. It can be achieved through full implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention and the negotiation of

measures to eliminate nuclear arms within the overarching framework of a convention. The nuclear weapons states are pledged to negotiate in good faith toward this end, but so far have refused to honour their pledge. When they do, they will also be acting to uphold the human rights to life and peace. The elimination of terrorism may be a more difficult goal to reach. When leaders speak of waging the war against terrorism to its final victory, one can only wince and wonder what they have in mind. What war? Where fought? Against whom? With what weapons? The last question is probably the crucial one.

Yes, competent intelligence and brute force can reduce the danger of terrorist attacks. But if there is one lesson that history teaches it is that social, economic, ethnic and religious differences can translate into feelings of powerlessness and give rise to violence—which the powerless call the search for justice and those at whom the violence is directed call terrorism. This is where human rights come

in . There may never be a world without terrorism. But it is reasonable to expect that the closer the world comes to realizing the full panoply of human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration and the International Covenants, the closer it will be to freedom from terrorism, not least WMD terrorism . It is a goal worth striving

for.


2nc – middle east instability

U.S. human rights leadership solves Middle East instability – Duffy 6/25/15 – Senior Media Relations Associate for Human Rights First, former intern for or Senators Schumer, Gillibrand, and Clinton (Corrine, State Department Country Reports Highlight Need for U.S. Leadership

on Human Rights , Human Rights First, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/state-department-country-reports-highlight-need-us-leadership-human-rights)//JJHuman Rights First today welcomed the release of the State Department’s 2015 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, noting that the

widespread violations of human rights detailed underscore the urgent need for the United States to press foreign governments to protect the basic rights and freedoms of their citizens. The Country Reports, which have been delayed for months, are released and submitted to Congress annually, and highlight human rights violations perpetuated during the past year in all countries that receive U.S. assistance as well as all United Nations member states. “This year’s

State Department Country Reports highlight key human rights concerns throughout the world, including abuses perpetrated by U.S. allies in the Middle East and elsewhere, the spread of discriminatory anti-LGBT legislation in central Asia, and the growth of antisemitic and racist violence in Europe,” said Human Rights

First’s Tad Stahnke. “The reports give prominence to the terrible human rights violations committed by non-state actors, including terrorist groups like ISIL and Boko Haram, but they also

emphasize the responsibilities of governments whose violations of human rights have created the conditions exploited by violent extremists . These

reports should prompt further action by the U.S. government in pressing for human rights,

including a strategy to ensure that the fight against terrorism and extremism is

enhanced by freedom and human rights protections ." In response to today’s reports

Human Rights First urges the Obama Administration to: Make clear at the highest levels its opposition to human rights violations by U.S. partners in the multilateral initiative to combat violent extremism and terrorism, including Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, which undermine this vital global effort. Press Saudi Arabia to end practices that fuel violent extremism, including the targeting non-violent

human rights activists and inciting sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shi’ite

Muslims . Urge Bahraini authorities to release non-violent political prisoners and human rights defenders, and to implement political

reforms that would meet the legitimate demands of the majority of the population for more representative governance. Raise concerns about the misuse of counterterrorism laws to crackdown on peaceful dissent. Press the government of Kyrgyzstan to reject the passage of the proposed propaganda law, which, if passed, would violate the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons and contribute to a climate of violence and discrimination against them. Adopt a strategy to reverse Hungary’s backsliding on democracy and rule of law by supporting human rights, good governance and independent media organizations. As he did during his recent trip to Jamaica, President Obama should continue to champion those voices calling for positive change for LGBT people in the Caribbean. In line with his public comments at the Countering Violent Extremism Summit in February, President Obama should publicly oppose the targeting of legitimate human rights NGOs by the Kenyan government during his visit to Nairobi

next month. “The Country Reports make clear that several U.S. allies are using counterterrorism and national security justifications to crack down on civil society groups, peaceful expression, and legitimate dissent,” added Stahnke. “As President Obama prepares for his trip to

Kenya, he should use these Country Reports to highlight that the global struggle against

terrorism and violent extremism is undermined when human rights

are denied and civil society oppressed.”


2nc – at: last upr

Past UPR is our brink not their thumper – last chance to save U.S. human rights credLarson 5/10/15 – AFP journalist, citing Jamil Dakwar, head of human rights at the American Civil Liberties Union (Nina, The UN is about to put the United States under the microscope, Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-us-rights-record-in-un-spotlight-2015-5)//JJ

Hard questions

"The world will be asking hard questions of a country that considers itself a human rights champion," Jamil Dakwar, head of human rights at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told AFP.

How the US delegation responds to questions on a multitude of issues Monday could mark "the last opportunity for the Obama administration to shape the human

rights legacy of the president," he warned.

Diplomats from around the world are expected to raise questions about widespread incarceration in the United States of illegal immigrants, including children.Conditions inside US prisons, including the use of long-term solitary confinement and continued use of the death penalty, were also among the issues raised in reports and questions filed in advance of Monday's hearing.The United States has seen its execution numbers drop in recent years to 35 in 2014, but still ranks fifth in the world after China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, according to Amnesty International.The issue of mass surveillance systems brought to light in documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden will also certainly be raised, as will US counterterrorism operations and targeted drone killings.Also on the agenda is the US record on addressing its "war on terror" legacy, including alleged CIA torture, and Washington's failure to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba.

The United States underwent its first UPR in November 2010, but activists say it has done little to implement many of the 171 recommendations it accepted out of the 240 made by other countries that time around.

"The US has little progress to show for the many commitments it made during its first Universal Periodic Review," Antonio Ginatta, US advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement.He said he hoped diplomats this time would "press the US on mass surveillance, police violence and detention of

migrant families," stressing that "the US should take the opportunity to make a

serious commitment to roll back these abusive practices ."

Dakwar agreed that after the last UPR, the US government "failed to deliver".

Now, he said, the administration had the opportunity to show what values it stands for."Will President Obama be remembered as the president who approved secret kill-lists, instituted indefinite detention, and failed to end unlawful surveillance practices?" he asked."Or will the president be on the right side of history by endorsing accountability for torture (and providing) an apology and reparations for victims?"

http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-us-rights-record-in-un-spotlight-2015-5)//JJ


2nc – at: alt causes

Fiat solves – the recommendations would encompass more than surveillance policy

Past UPR is our brink not their thumper – last chance to save U.S. human rights credLarson 5/10/15 – AFP journalist, citing Jamil Dakwar, head of human rights at the American Civil Liberties Union (Nina, The UN is about to put the United States under the microscope, Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-us-rights-record-in-un-spotlight-2015-5)//JJ

Hard questions "The world will be asking hard questions of a country that considers itself a human rights champion," Jamil Dakwar, head of human rights at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told AFP. How the US delegation responds to questions on a multitude of issues Monday could mark "the last

opportunity for the Obama administration to shape the human rights

legacy of the president," he warned. Diplomats from around the world are expected to raise questions about widespread incarceration in the

United States of illegal immigrants, including children. Conditions inside US prisons, including the use of long-term solitary confinement and continued use of the death penalty, were also among the issues raised in reports and questions filed in advance of Monday's hearing. The United States has seen its execution numbers drop in recent years to 35 in 2014, but still ranks fifth in the world after China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, according to Amnesty International. The issue of mass surveillance systems brought to light in documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden will also certainly be raised, as will US counterterrorism operations and targeted drone killings. Also on the agenda is the US record on addressing its "war

on terror" legacy, including alleged CIA torture, and Washington's failure to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba. The United States underwent its first UPR in November 2010, but activists say it has done little to implement many of the 171 recommendations it accepted out of the 240

made by other countries that time around. "The US has little progress to show for the many

commitments it made during its first Universal Periodic Review," Antonio Ginatta, US advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. He said he hoped diplomats this time would "press the US on mass surveillance, police violence and detention

of migrant families," stressing that "the US should take the opportunity to make a serious

commitment to roll back these abusive practices ." Dakwar agreed that after the last UPR, the US government "failed to deliver". Now, he said, the administration had the opportunity to show what values it stands for. "Will President Obama be remembered as the president

who approved secret kill-lists, instituted indefinite detention, and failed to end unlawful surveillance practices?" he asked. "Or will the president be on the right side of history by endorsing accountability for torture (and providing) an apology and reparations for victims?"

HR thumpers are nill – AFP 5/11/15 – international news agency headquartered in Paris, third largest news agency in the world (Agence France-Presse, US wants to improve police practices, enca, http://www.enca.com/world/us-wants-improve-police-practices)//JJGENEVA - The United States acknowledged Monday more needed to be done to

uphold its civil rights laws following a string of recent killings of unarmed black men by police. Speaking before the United Nations Human Rights Council, a US representative stressed the advances his country had made in establishing a range of civil rights laws over the past half century. But referring to a long line of recent cases of

alleged abuse of African Americans by police, James Cadogan, a senior counsellor in the justice department's civil rights division, admitted that "we must rededicate ourselves to ensuring that our civil rights laws live up to

http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-us-rights-record-in-un-spotlight-2015-5)//JJ


their promise." "The tragic deaths of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Michael Brown in Missouri, Eric Garner in New York, Tamir Rice in Ohio, and Walter Scott in South Carolina have... challenged us to do better and to work harder for progress," he said. The United States was undergoing a so-called Universal Periodic Review of its rights record -- which all 193 UN countries must undergo every four years. The US delegation, headed by US ambassador to the council Keith Harper and acting US legal advisor Mary McLeod, faced a range of questions from diplomats about law enforcement tactics, police brutality and the disproportionate impact on African Americans and other minorities. The half-day review in Geneva came after the US justice department on Friday launched a federal civil rights investigation into whether police in Baltimore have systematically discriminated against residents, following the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray in police custody last month. Six police officers have been charged in connection with Gray's

arrest and death. One faces a second-degree murder charge. Cadogan insisted Washington was intent on bringing abusive police officers to justice. "When federal, state, local or tribal officials willfully use excessive force that violates the US Constitution or federal law, we have authority to prosecute them," he said, pointing to criminal charges brought against more than 400 law enforcement officials over the past six years. Also on the agenda during Monday's review was the continued use of the death penalty, and the US record on addressing its "war on terror"

legacy, including Washington's failure to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba and CIA torture revelations. "As President (Barack) Obama has acknowledged, we crossed the line, we did not live up to our values, and we take responsibility for that ," McLeod said of the past cases of CIA torture,

detailed in an explosive Senate report last December. "We have since taken steps to clarify that the legal prohibition on torture applies everywhere and in all circumstances, and to ensure that the United States never resorts to the use of those harsh interrogation techniques again," she said.


2nc – at: treaties

Recent policy solves – this also proves recommendation implementationSmith 15 – Project Attorney with the Human Rights in the U.S. Project at the Human Rights Institute, JD from Columbia Law School (Erin, Federal Outreach and Mechanisms to Ensure Human Rights Implementation and the Federal, State and Local Levels, Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute & The International Association of Official Human Rights Agencies, April 2015, https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/images/state_and_local_upr_report.pdf)//JJIn recent years, the Obama Administration has taken a number of important

steps to improve federal coordination around treaty reporting and

implementation : a. The United States has created a federal level interagency Equality Working Group to

coordinate federal agencies around human rights. 28 b. The U.S. has stepped up efforts to inform state and local actors about treaty review processes . In 2014, the State Department’s Office of the

Legal Adviser sent letters to state and local governments, emphasizing the U.S. “commitment to protecting human rights domestically through the operation of our comprehensive system of laws, policies, and programs at all levels of government – federal, state, local, insular, and tribal,” and noting that the U.S. is “proud of this shared role in upholding and protecting human

rights.” 29 The 2014 letter followed up on earlier communications to state and local actors seeking input into U.S. treaty reports. 30 c. In 2014, the U.S. included a mayor and a state attorney general in its delegations for the ICCPR and CERD reviews. d. During the interactive dialogue with the Human Rights Committee, the

Obama Administration committed to disseminate the Human Rights Committee’s Concluding Observations to state and local

actors. e. The State Department made a presentation on human rights treaties

at IAOHRA conferences in 2010 , 2011 and 2012 , and at the 2014

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission conference for state and local agencies.

No impact to treatiesGroves and Schaefer 10 – Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow, The Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation, AND ** Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs, The Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation (Steven and Brett, United Nations Human Rights Council: Universal Periodic Review for the United States of America, Heritage Foundation, 4/20/10, http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/united-nations-human-rights-council-universal-periodic-review-for-the-united-states-of-america)//JJThe United States is not party to all of the core human rights treaties, but ratification of treaties is not the indispensable condition of the


observation and protection of human rights. Many governments boast that they have ratified a treaty, or that human rights are enshrined in their constitutions and laws, yet routinely and flagrantly violate those rights.

The evidence indicates that without an independent judiciary and an ability to enforce civil and political rights,

such rights are under constant threat regardless of the number of treaties a state has ratified or the rights provided for under their laws. The United States’ system of representative government, its independent judiciary, its robust civil society, and the principles enshrined in its Constitution represent best practices that all states and stakeholders should emulate in observing and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.


2nc – at: UPR bad

Empirics prove – massive impact on the most nefarious abusersDiop 14 – Advocacy Advisor of Child Rights at Save the Children, has a Master’s of Science in Human Rights from the University College Dublin and a Master’s in Politics and International Relations from the Institute of Political Studies, Toulous (Diarra, Universal Periodic Review: Successful examples of child rights advocacy, Save The Children, 2014, http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/library/universal-periodic-review-successful-examples-child-rights-advocacy)//JJThe Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is an inter-governmental human rights review within the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The UPR assesses the extent to which governments are meeting their

obligations to protect , respect and fulfil human rights , including child rights, in their countries. Save the Children has seized the opportunity of the UPR from the outset (2008) to raise the profile of children’s rights, by engaging directly in reporting and advocacy or supporting child rights coalitions.

"Universal Periodic Review: Successful examples of child rights advocacy" provides valuable insights for future child rights advocates wanting to engage in the UPR process and more generally in child rights monitoring and advocacy. This document includes eight case studes (Nepal, Philippines, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Peru, Zambia, Bangladesh and Mali,) which give good practices

examples of Save the Children’s engagement in UPR reporting and advocacy . It

sheds light on the different strategies used to push forward child rights priorities to influence UPR recommendations. It also

provides some pointers on how the UPR recommendations can reinforce existing

advocacy efforts and be integrated into follow-up plans to track their

implementation . Key success factors and lessons learned were drawn to capitalize on the experience from these countries over the last 6 years, and inspire others to replicate these approaches in order to maximize

advocacy outcomes and impact for children.

Even if it’s not perfect – it’s the best option availableOHCHR 15 – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (Basic facts about the UPR, United Nations Human Rights, 2015, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/BasicFacts.aspx)//JJThe Universal Periodic Review ( UPR ) is a unique process which involves a

periodic review of the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States. The

UPR is a significant innovation of the Human Rights Council which is based on equal treatment for all countries. It provides an opportunity for all States to

declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their countries and to overcome challenges to the enjoyment of human rights. The


UPR also includes a sharing of best human rights practices around the

globe . Currently, no other mechanism of this kind exists.


2nc – at: plan solves impact

UPR keyCDT 14 – global non-profit organization championing global online civil liberties and human rights, driving policy outcomes that keep the Internet open, innovative, and free (Center for Democracy and Technology, Protecting Human Rights in the Age of Surveillance, 4/8/14, https://cdt.org/insight/protecting-human-rights-in-the-age-of-surveillance/)//JJLeveraging United Nations Mechanisms

Participants agreed that it is important to take advantage of UN human rights

bodies and processes in 2014 and beyond. Discussants raised the importance of the Human

Rights Committee review of United States compliance with the ICCPR. They also

talked about strategic contributions to the anticipated report from the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to privacy in the digital age, and the possibility of pushing the Human Rights Committee for a General Comment on privacy. In

addition, discussants addressed the possibility of creating a UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy, and considered

processes in Human Rights Council , including the upcoming

Universal Periodic Review of the United States.


2nc – at: noko da

This isn’t an argument – empirically denied by 2010 and 2015 U.S. UPRs and every other UPR ever

No war – deterrence and zero capabilitiesKimball 14 – executive director of the Arms Control Association (Daryl, Will North Korea ever use its nuclear weapons?, The Guardian, 10/31/14, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/31/sp-north-korea-nuclear-weapons)//JJAs president Ronald Reagan once said, “a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought”. North Korea does not have, and will not have for many years , the means to

strike with nuclear weapons beyond the peninsula – that would be

suicide . Combined US and South Korean forces would end the Kim

dynasty and destroy much of the country . Therefore, there is a near

zero chance of a premeditated North Korean nuclear attack.

All rhetoric – assumes all the warrantsRedhead 14 – Metro News Reporter (Harry lol, North Korea defends human rights record – then threatens ‘nuclear war’, Metro, 11/26/14, http://metro.co.uk/2014/11/26/north-korea-defends-human-rights-record-then-threatens-nuclear-war-4963760/)//JJA week after a U.N. resolution condemned North Korea’s human rights

record , the country has shown its commitment to preserving basic individual dignities by threatening the U.S. and Japan with nuclear war. North Korea reacted angrily after the U.N. General Assembly’s Third Committee urged the Security Council to consider referring the country’s human rights abuses to the International Criminal

Court in a damning resolution last Tuesday. And the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s National Defence Commission (NDC) accused Japan and the U.S. of ‘violating their dignity’ and promised payback. ‘Time will prove what high price those who unreasonably violated the dignity of the Demoratic People’s Republic of Korea, despite its repeated warnings, will have to pay,’ the NDC said. ‘The US and its followers are now unable to escape merciless punishment for daring impair the prestige of the DPRK

and foolishly trying to bring down the socialist system.’ One of those perceived followers, Japan – who North Korea said would ‘disappear from the world map’ – were completely unconcerned the comments . ‘It’s not the first time that they’ve threatened us over nuclear issues,’ Taro Tsutsumi, counsellor at Japan’s mission to the United Nations, told VICE. ‘It’s actually a usual , daily

matter . ’ In September, North Korea released a report declaring its human rights record as excellent.


***aff


2ac – alt causes

Massive alt. causes to human rights compliance – this is the UPRJust Security 5/20/15 – based at the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University School of Law (The UN’s “Universal Periodic Review” of US Human Rights Practices—National Security Highlights, Just Security, http://justsecurity.org/23115/us-upr-natsec-highlights/)//JJ

Last week, the UN Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review released a draft of its report on the United States’ UPR. The UPR is a process during which each UN member state has the

opportunity to explain what measures it has taken to meet international human rights standards and receives feedback and recommendations from other member states in a sort of

“peer review” process. While the UPR covers all human rights (including economic and social) and contains information on a wide range of topics , a number of recommendations may be of special interest to Just Security readers. We

have collected and organized some key recommendations below that relate to national security law and policy. Lethal Force, Extrajudicial

Killings, and Drones (5.207–13) A number of states submitted recommendations related to lethal force, extrajudicial executions, killings, and drone strikes, largely focused on ending “unlawful” extrajudicial killings, compensating victims, and protecting innocent civilians. The specific

recommendations were: “Use armed drones in line with existing international legal regimes and pay compensation to all innocent victims without discrimination” (Pakistan) “Put an end to unlawful practices which violate human rights including extrajudicial executions and arbitrary detention, and close any arbitrary detention centres” (Egypt) “Take legal and administrative measures to address civilian killings by the US military troops during and after its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by bringing perpetrators to

justice and remedying the victims” (North Korea) “Desist from extrajudicial killings such as drone strikes and ensure accountability for civilian loss of life resulting from

extraterritorial counter terrorism operations” (Malaysia) “Stop extrajudicial killings of citizens of the United States of America and

foreigners, including those being committed with the use of remotely piloted aircraft” (Russia)

“Investigate and prosecute in courts the perpetrators of selective killings through the use of drones, which has costed[sic] the lives of innocent civilians outside the United States” (Ecuador) “Punish those responsible for torture, drone killings, use of lethal force against African Americans and compensate the victims” (Venezuela) Torture (5.214–17,

221, 287–91, 293) A handful of countries made recommendations related to torture, ranging from strengthening safeguards against torture to paying compensation and prosecuting CIA officials including for acts committed outside the United States. The specific recommendations were: “Strengthen safeguards against torture in all

detention facilities in any territory under its jurisdiction, ensure proper and transparent investigation and prosecution of individuals responsible for all allegations of torture and ill-treatment, including those documented in the unclassified Senate summary on CIA activities published in 2014 and provide redress to victims” (Czech Republic) “Enact comprehensive

legislation prohibiting all forms of torture and take measures to prevent all acts of torture in areas outside the national territory under its effective control” (Austria) “Stops acts of torture by US Government officials, not only in its sovereign territory, but also in foreign soil” (Maldives) “Prevent torture and ill-treatment in places of detention” (Azerbaijan) “Respect the absolute prohibition on torture and take measures to guarantee punishment of all perpetrators” (Costa Rica)

“Prosecute all CIA operatives that have been held responsible for torture by the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence” (Pakistan) “Allow an independent body to investigate

allegations of torture and to end the impunity of perpetrators” (Switzerland) “Prosecute and punish those responsible for torture” (Cuba) “Investigate the CIA torture crimes, which stirred up indignation and denunciation among people, to disclose all information and to allow investigation by international

community in this regard” (North Korea) “Further ensure that all victims of torture and ill-treatment — whether

still in US custody or not — obtain redress and have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation and as full rehabilitation as possible, including medical and psychological assistance” (Denmark) “Investigate torture allegations, extrajudicial executions and other violations of

human rights committed in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, NAMA and BALAD camps and to subsequently close them” (Iran) Also Lebanon, Switzerland, and Denmark

http://justsecurity.org/23115/us-upr-natsec-highlights/)//JJ


recommended the US ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (5.43–45) Guantánamo (5.244–55) Ten countries —

including four NATO members (France, Germany, Iceland, and Spain) — recommended the closure of Guantánamo. Two

other states put forth recommendations that the US agree to an unrestricted visit to the site by the Special Rapporteur on Torture. The specific recommendations were: “Close, as soon as possible, the detention

centre at Guantanamo Bay and put an end to the indefinite detention of persons considered as enemy combatants” (France) “Close the Guantanamo prison and release all detainees still held in Guantanamo, unless they are to be charged and tried

without further delay” (Iceland) “Improve living conditions in prisons in particular in Guantanamo” (Sudan) “Work and do all its best

in order to close down the Guantanamo facility” (Libya) “Immediately close the prison in Guantanamo and cease the illegal detention of terrorism suspects at its military bases abroad” (Russia) “Immediately close the Guantanamo facility” (Maldives)

“Close Guantanamo and secret detention centres” (Venezuela) “Make further progress in fulfilling its commitment to close the Guantanamo detention facility and abide by the ban on torture and inhumane treatment of all individuals in detention”

(Malaysia) “Fully disclose the abuse of torture by its Intelligence Agency, ensure the accountability of the persons responsible, and agree to unrestricted visit by the Special Rapporteur on Torture to

Guantanamo facilities” (China) “Engage further in the common fight for the prohibition of torture, ensuring accountability and victims’ compensation and enable the Special Rapporteur on torture to visit every part of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and to conduct

unmonitored interviews” (Germany) “Take adequate measures to ensure the definite de-commissioning of the Guantanamo Military Prison” (Spain) “End illegal detentions in Guantanamo Bay or bring the detainees to trial immediately” (Pakistan)


1ar – xt: alt causes

Massive alt cause to HR cred – no ratificationGICJ 5/18/15 – Geneva International Center for Justice (US Human Rights Violations: Geneva Centre for Justice, Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-human-rights-violations-geneva-centre-for-justice/5450204)//JJThe United States’ continued lack of ratification for several key

international human rights treaties drew criticism from many states . Most

countries including Luxembourg, Lebanon, and Iran called for the ratification of key documents such as: the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women ( CEDAW ), the Convention on the Rights of the Child ( CRC ), the

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ( CRPD ) and the

Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). Also mentioned by Egypt,

India, and Togo was the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ( ICESCR ) which is still not ratified by the United States since it signed onto the treaty in 1977. The Indian delegation pointed out that the United States considers itself to be

a global leader on human rights, but still does not have a guarantee for all the economic, social and cultural rights outlined in the ICESCR. To truly be a leader on

human rights , India urged the U.S. to ratify the ICESCR. While the United States

delegation did not specifically discuss all the outstanding treaties, the delegation did discuss the process of ratification in the United States. Pointing out that the United States’ constitution requires the nation’s legislative bodies to sign onto ratification of the treaties, the delegation appeared to shift the responsibility for ensuring the United States’ engagement with the outstanding

treaties. Not mentioned is the lack of political willingness from administrations to push treaties such as the ICESCR which has not been ratified in the over 30 years since it was signed.

Alt causes to HR cred – laundry listSherrif 5/11/15 – visiting scholar at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute, journalist for NYU, Luce Research Fellow in Religion and Digital Media at NYU’s Center for Religion and Media( (Natasja, US cited for police violence, racism in scathing UN review on human rights, Aljazeera America, http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/11/us-faces-scathing-un-review-on-human-rights-record.html)//JJThe United States was slammed over its rights record Monday at the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, with member nations criticizing the country for police

violence and racial discrimination , the Guantánamo Bay Detention

Facility and the continued use of the death penalty . The issue of racism and police brutality dominated the discussion on Monday during the country’s second universal periodic review (UPR).

Country after country recommended that the U.S. strengthen legislation and expand training to eliminate racism and excessive use of force by law enforcement. "I'm not surprised that the world's eyes are focused on police


issues in the U.S.," said Alba Morales, who investigates the U.S. criminal justice system at Human Rights Watch. "There is an international

spotlight that's been shone [on the issues], in large part due to the events in Ferguson and the disproportionate police response to even peaceful protesters," she said. Anticipating the comments to come,

James Cadogan, a senior counselor to the U.S. assistant attorney general, told delegates gathered in Geneva, "The tragic deaths of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Michael Brown in Missouri, Eric Garner in New York, Tamir Rice in Ohio and Walter Scott in South Carolina have renewed a long-standing and critical national debate about the even-handed administration of justice. These events challenge us to do better and to work harder for progress — through both dialogue and action." All of the names he mentioned are black men

or boys who were killed by police officers or died shortly after being arrested. The events have sparked widespread anger and unrest over the past year. Cadogan added that the Department of Justice has opened more than 20 investigations in the last six years — including an investigation into the

Baltimore Police Department — as well as the release of a report of the Presidential Task Force on 21st Century Policing in March, which included more than 60 recommendations. But advocates like Morales say the

U.S. could do much more . "Use of excessive force by police was a major part of this year's UPR, and the fact that we still don't have a reliable national figure to know how many people are killed by police or what the racial breakdown is of those people is a travesty," she said. "A nation as advanced as the U.S. should be able to gather that number." The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment. Although

the problems are not new, the death of young men like Gray and Brown and the unrest that followed their killings in U.S. cities over the past year has attracted the attention — and criticism — of the international community. "Chad considers the United States of America to be a country of freedom, but recent events targeting black sectors of society have tarnished its

image , " said Awada Angui of the U.N. delegation to Chad. The U.S. responded to questions and recommendations from 117 countries during a three-and-a-half-hour session in Geneva on Monday morning, with

the high level of participation leaving each country just 65 seconds to speak. Among the various concerns raised by U.N. member states was the failure to close the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, the continued use of the death penalty, the need for adequate protections for migrant workers and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. Member states also called on the U.S. to end child labor, human trafficking and sexual violence against Native American and Alaska Native women and to lift restrictions on the use of foreign aid to provide safe abortion services for rape victims in conflict areas.

More laundry – hope you brought your OxiCleanSherrif 5/11/15 – visiting scholar at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute, journalist for NYU, Luce Research Fellow in Religion and Digital Media at NYU’s Center for Religion and Media( (Natasja, US cited for police violence, racism in scathing UN review on human rights, Aljazeera America, http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/11/us-faces-scathing-un-review-on-human-rights-record.html)//JJPakistan, Russia, China and Turkey were among the most vociferous of the member states, with Russia informing the U.S. that "the human rights situation in the country has seriously deteriorated recently" before presenting seven recommendations to the U.S.

delegation. Pakistan Ambassador to the U.N. Zamir Akram told the delegation that Pakistan has "serious concerns about the human rights situation in the U.S." Akram’s eight recommendations included calls for the U.S. to use armed drones in line with international norms and to

compensate innocent victims of drone strikes with cash. He also said


the U.S. should end police brutality against African-Americans, cease

illegal detentions at Guantánamo Bay and prosecute CIA operatives

responsible for torture . The March findings of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on torture were

not overlooked by international delegates. Many echoed the concerns of the Danish delegate, Carsten Staur, who recommended

that the U.S. "further ensures that all victims of torture and ill treatment, whether still in U.S. custody or not, obtain redress and have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation and as full rehabilitation as possible, including medical and psychological assistance."


2ac – 4 years

UPR reviews happen in cycles – most recent U.S. review was two months ago – computation means the counterplan process happens in 4 yearsOHCHR 15 – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (Basic facts about the UPR, United Nations Human Rights, 2015, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/BasicFacts.aspx)//JJ

***all of the neg ev talks about how the most recent UPR was in May 2015

When will States have their human rights records reviewed by the UPR?

During the first cycle, all UN Member States have been reviewed, – with 48 States reviewed each year. The second cycle, which officially started in May 2012 with the 13th session of the UPR Working Group, will see 42 States reviewed each year. The reviews take place during the sessions of the UPR Working Group (see below) which meets three times a year . The order of review

remains the same as in the first cycle and the number of States reviewed at each session is now 14 instead of 16.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/BasicFacts.aspx)//JJ


2ac – wont implement

U.S. won’t implement – empiricsHRW 5/7/15 – Human Rights Watch, citing Antonio Ginatta, U.S. Advocacy Director at HRW (US: UN Rights Review to Expose Failings, HRW, https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/05/07/us-un-rights-review-expose-failings)//JJThe United States should make concrete commitments to address serious human rights problems during a United Nations review of its human rights record, Human Rights Watch said today. On May 11, 2015, the US is scheduled to undergo its second Universal Periodic Review (UPR) before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, in which UN member countries will raise past US human rights pledges and new concerns. The UN Human Rights Council periodically reviews the human rights progress of each member every four-and-a-half years

during this process. The first review of the US was in 2010. “At the UN rights review, the US has been strong on process and short on substance,” said Antonio Ginatta, US advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “The US has little progress to

show for the many commitments it made during its first Universal Periodic Review.” During the current UN review, Human Rights Watch has flagged concerns over the newly revealed mass surveillance programs, longstanding concerns over indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo Bay, and the lack of accountability for torture under the previous administration. The UN established the UPR process in 2006. Countries under review submit written reports on their human rights situation and respond to the questions and

recommendations put forward by UN member countries at the Human Rights Council. All 193 UN member countries undergo these reviews. The United States engaged in extensive consultation with nongovernmental organizations in the lead-up to its UPR. In its first review in 2010, the US accepted 171 recommendations out of 240 from other member countries.

However, the US has largely failed to follow through on these recommendations. For example, the US agreed to: Take measures to “improve living conditions through its prison system,” “increase its efforts to eliminate

alleged brutality and use of excessive force by law enforcement officials” against Latinos, African Americans, and undocumented migrants, and study racial disparities in the

application of the death penalty. Five years later, the US has done little on these recommendations; “[I]nvestigate carefully each case” involving the detention of migrants and ensure immigration detention conditions meet international

standards. While UN bodies oppose all detention of immigrant children, the US has in the past year embraced the detention of immigrant children and their mothers; and Seek the ratification of core international human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Obama administration submitted only the Disability Rights Convention to the

Senate for its consent, and was unable to muster the two-thirds majority necessary for ratification. UN member countries should hold the US to its past human rights commitments by making sure that new

recommendations are concrete, specific, and measurable, Human Rights Watch said. “Governments at the Human Rights Council should press the US on mass surveillance, police violence, and detention of migrant families,” Ginatta said. “The US should take the opportunity to make a serious commitment to roll back these abusive practices.”

https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/05/07/us-un-rights-review-expose-failings)//JJ


2ac – U.S. lies

U.S. will lie about the plan – durable fiat doesn’t answer thisNorrel 5/12/15 – staff reporter at numerous American Indian newspapers and a stringer for AP and USA Today (Brenda, US lies to UN Human Rights Council about spying, torture, imprisonment of migrant children, The Narcosphere, http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/brenda-norrell/2015/05/us-lies-un-human-rights-council-about-spying-torture-imprisonment-mi)//JJ

The United States lied about spying , torture and the imprisonment of

migrant children , before the UN Human Rights Council during a review of the US human

rights record on Monday in Geneva. The US delegation said that US spying has not been used to suppress dissent or for unfair business advantage. However, the US government has used spying to stalk and entrap activists, spy on the media, and imprison whistleblowers. Further, the US government has used the NSA spying for insider knowledge for business and trade. During the Universal

Periodic Review , the US delegation concealed the facts of the imprisonment of migrant children, the murder of women and children during drone assassinations , and the truth about US torture and

renditions . Chad's representative Awada Angui told the UN Human Rights Council, "Chad considers the United States of America to be a

country of freedom, but recent events targeting black sectors of society have tarnished its image.” The US concealed its prisons for profit empire, which has resulted in the imprisonment of migrants, blacks, American Indians and Chicanos for

corporate profit. The US did not mention its political prisoners. The US did not provide the

facts of the murder of migrants by US Border Patrol agents , or of the rape

and abuse carried out by US Border Patrol agents . The US delegation did not reveal

that hundreds of US Border Patrol and ICE agents have been convicted for drug

smuggling and serving as “spotters” for the drug cartels to bring their load across the

Mexican border. Tohono O'odham and other Indigenous Peoples living along the border are the victims of violence carried out by the US Border Patrol

agents and drug cartels. During its responses, the US attempted to cover up the widespread rape within the US military and the extensive homelessness and failed

medical services for veterans in the US. The majority of the

predominantly docile UN Human Rights Council representatives seemed to believe the US public relations spin asserting that all problems in Indian country have been solved. The US did not reveal that coal mining, power plants and uranium mining are poisoning Native American communities. The US did not reveal that Navajos and Pueblos in the Southwest live in a cancer alley created by uranium mines, and dirty coal-fired power plants.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/brenda-norrell/2015/05/us-lies-un-human-rights-council-about-spying-torture-imprisonment-mi)//JJ



1ar – xt: lie

They’ll lie – May’s review provesNorrel 5/12/15 – staff reporter at numerous American Indian newspapers and a stringer for AP and USA Today (Brenda, US lies to UN Human Rights Council about spying, torture, imprisonment of migrant children, The Narcosphere, http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/brenda-norrell/2015/05/us-lies-un-human-rights-council-about-spying-torture-imprisonment-mi)//JJ

The US delegation concealed the fact that the imprisonment of

whistleblowers and assassinations by drones have accelerated during the Obama administration. During the review on Monday, the United States was not held accountable for arming the drug war in Mexico by providing drug cartels with assault weapons. The ATF’s Project Gunrunner, Operation Wide Receiver and Fast and

Furious have armed the drug cartels in Mexico since 2005, beginning on the Texas border and continuing on the Arizona border, according to US Dept. of Justice documents. Further,

the US delegation concealed the fact US Homeland Security gave the US border surveillance contract to Israel’s Apartheid security contractor Elbit Systems, responsible for the security surrounding Palestine. Currently Elbit holds the

contract to construct US spy towers on the Arizona border, including those on the sovereign Tohono O’odham Nation. The most egregious

cover-ups by the US delegation were the fantasy claims by the US delegation regarding the fairy tale array of services for migrant children.

Migrant children have been imprisoned in large numbers, in violation of international law. The US fantasy claims included the denial of torture, and assurances that all inmates in Guantanamo had access to fair trials. While one member of the US delegation asserted that the US had gone too far in its torture program, and steps had been taken to halt it, another member of

the US delegation from the Joint Chiefs of Staff assured the Human

Rights Council that inmates at Guantanamo were treated in accordance with domestic and international law.




2ac – surv. compliance now

Surveillance compliance now – DS 2/6/15 – U.S. Department of State (UPR Report of the United States of America, Department of State Diplomacy in Action, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/upr/2015/237250.htm)//JJ

83. The United States strives to protect privacy and civil liberties while also

protecting national security. We have an extensive and effective framework of protections that applies to privacy and intelligence issues, including electronic surveillance. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act governs, among other matters, electronic surveillance conducted within the United

States for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence or counterintelligence information. In establishing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISA sets forth a system of rigorous,

independent judicial oversight of the activities it regulates to ensure that they are lawful and effectively address privacy and civil liberties concerns. Such activities are also subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress and entities in our Executive Branch. 84. Signals intelligence collection outside the FISA context is also regulated, and must have a valid foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose. In January 2014, the

President issued Presidential Policy Directive-28 , which enunciates standards for the collection and use of foreign signals intelligence. It emphasizes that we do not collect foreign intelligence for the purpose of suppressing criticism or dissent, or for disadvantaging any individual on the basis of ethnicity ,

race , gender , sexual orientation , or religion , and that agencies within our intelligence

community are required to adopt and make public to the greatest extent feasible procedures for the protection of personal information of non-U.S.

persons. It also requires that privacy and civil liberties protections be integral in the planning of those activities, and that personal information be protected at appropriate stages of collection, retention, and dissemination. 85. PPD-28 recognizes that all persons should be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of nationality or place of residence, and that all persons have legitimate privacy interests in the handling of

their personal information collected through signals intelligence. It therefore requires U.S. signals intelligence activities to include appropriate safeguards for the personal information of all individuals. 86. Further, our intelligence community is required to report on such programs and activities to Congress, where these

issues are vigorously debated. Agencies within our intelligence community have privacy and civil liberties officers. The National Security Agency, for example, has recently established a Civil

Liberties and Privacy Officer who advises on issues including signals intelligence programs that entail the collection

of personal information.

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/upr/2015/237250.htm)//JJ


2ac – upr bad

The UPR is a joke – no credibilityPollak 5/11/15 – lost to my cousin in the 2010 Illinois’s 9th congressional district election, editor-in-chief for Breitbart, AB from Harvard, JD from Harvard, MA from Cape Town (Joel, Obama Complains to UN About America’s ‘Human Rights’ Violations, Breitbart, http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/11/obama-complains-to-un-about-us-human-rights-violations/)//JJThe State Department report, released Monday as part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the UN Human Rights Council, reads less like an accounting of human rights issues and more like the platform of the Democratic Party

[chirp chirp] –and invites the world to judge America harshly. The so-called “human rights” problems cited in the report include: Police brutality, including the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri Discrimination against Muslims who want to build or expand mosques Voter identification laws in Texas and elsewhere Predatory lending in home mortgages Suspension of black children in schools Women earning “78 cents on the dollar” (a false statistic) In addition, the report boasts of progress in the following areas: Promoting same-sex marriage Fighting discrimination against transgender children in school Executive action on illegal immigration Helping illegal alien children who cross the border Protecting privacy rights against government surveillance Trying to close the Guantánamo Bay prison for terror detainees Revoking “torture” memos for interrogating terrorists Passing Obamacare Expanding food stamps Regulating “carbon pollution” to fight climate change The apologetic, left-liberal report echoes one filed by the Obama administration five years ago, during which the State Department proudly told the Human Rights Council that the administration opposed Arizona’s new immigration law, among

other alleged American misdeeds. Critics of the UN note that “the UPR has become a place where abusers are applauded and democracies are heavily

criticized ,” and “Iran, Libya, China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia” are treated lightly. Al-Jazeera America reported that the U.S. was subjected to scathing criticism from a variety of dictatorships after filing its report, including Chad, Pakistan, Russia, and China. Iran, for example, complained about racial discrimination in the United States, among other criticisms, calling on

the U.S. to “protect the rights of African-Americans against police brutality.” (The Iranian regime brutally

represses its own population, and used police and paramilitaries to crush a pro-democracy protest in 2009.) The Qatar-owned network piled on with a misleading headline : “US cited for police violence, racism in scathing UN review on human rights.” The story implied that it was the UN that had targeted the United States, rather than the Obama administration targeting America–a rather telling conflation of America’s enemies with the Obama administration itself. A representative of the Obama administration offered meekly: “The tragic deaths of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Michael Brown in Missouri, Eric Garner in New York, Tamir Rice in Ohio and Walter Scott in South Carolina have renewed a long-standing and critical national debate about the even-handed administration of justice. “These events challenge us to do better and to work harder for

progress–through both dialogue and action.” The Obama administration also boasted to the UN about challenging “racially discriminatory voting laws in North Carolina and Texas,” though many UN member states have laws requiring voter photo identification, and similar laws have been upheld in the recent past by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional and non-discriminatory.


1ar – xt: upr bad

UPR won’t solve – hypocritical processSherrif 5/11/15 – visiting scholar at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute, journalist for NYU, Luce Research Fellow in Religion and Digital Media at NYU’s Center for Religion and Media( (Natasja, US cited for police violence, racism in scathing UN review on human rights, Aljazeera America, http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/11/us-faces-scathing-un-review-on-human-rights-record.html)//JJUnder the UPR, every U.N. member state is subject to the same peer-review of its human rights record on a four-year cycle. The UPR was created as part of the mandate of the Human Rights Council, established by the U.N. General Assembly in 2006 to replace the widely discredited Human Rights Commission, which included among its members some of the world's most egregious human rights abusers. The council consists of elected members which, when electing new members, according to the resolution that created it, should "take into account the candidates' contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto." Still, according to Freedom House — an organization

advocating for democracy and human rights — repressive regimes nonetheless gain council

membership and can weaken the effectiveness of the council and the

UPR. And the process is not without hypocrisy , as countries that

frequently abuse the rights of their citizens line up to offer their critiques of and recommendations for other member states. "Obviously, everybody has improvements they can make to their human rights record. We do believe that everybody from the most powerful country on down should be called to task on their rights records, and we value the opportunity to do so," said Morales. "We like to focus on the substance of the comments rather than the source of them," she added.

More – the UPR is terminally flawed Schaefer and Groves ’10 --- fellow in international regulatory affairs at Heritage’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and senior research fellow (Brett D, and Steven, “The U.S. Universal Periodic Review: Flawed from the Start,” The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/08/the-us-universal-periodic-review-flawed-from-the-start)//MnushEstablished in Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1 of June 18, 2007, the UPR process reviews countries on several bases, including, but not limited to: (a) the charter of the United Nations; (b) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; (c) human rights instruments to which the state is a party; and (d) voluntary pledges and commitments made by states, including those undertaken when presenting their candidatures for election to the Human Rights Council.¶ While the UPR offers an unprecedented opportunity to hold the human rights practices of

every country open for public examination and criticism, it has proven to be a flawed

process hijacked by countries seeking to shield themselves from

criticism—a flaw that the HRC shares with the broader human rights

efforts in the U.N. system.¶ There are two key problems with the UPR: (1) contributions to the process by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are strictly curtailed; and (2) countries use points of order and other procedures to intimidate NGOs from making statements or to strike their comments from the record.[5] These two issues have tainted the UPR and resulted in numerous farcical human rights reviews. For instance:¶ China laughably claimed in its

UPR report that it “adheres to the principle that all ethnic groups are equal and implements a system of regional ethnic autonomy in areas with high concentrations of ethnic minorities,” that elections are “democratic” and “competitive,” that “citizens enjoy freedom of speech and of the press,” and that China respects the right to religious freedom.[6]¶ Cuba’s UPR report claimed that its “democratic system is based on the principle of ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people’” and that the right to “freedom of opinion, expression and the press” is guaranteed and protected, as are the rights of assembly and peaceful demonstration.[7]¶ North Korea asserted that it “comprehensively provides” for fundamental rights and


freedoms, including “the right to elect and to be elected, the freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association, the rights to complaints and petitions, work and relaxation, free medical care, education and social security, freedoms to engage in scientific, literary and artistic pursuits, and freedoms of residence and travel.”[8]¶ These patently false reports were accepted at face value and approved by the majority of member states in the council.¶ A U.S. Grilling in the Offing¶ The U.S. review is unlikely to go as smoothly as those for China or Cuba. Countries deeply resentful of the U.S. and its practice of criticizing their human rights records in its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices will seize with great glee the opportunity to accuse the U.S. of violating the rights of its citizens (and non-citizens). Human rights NGOs (including organizations based in the U.S.) will eagerly join them to make sure that their complaints, which are often unsupported if not specious, are highlighted.¶ Aside from the Administration’s obvious self-aggrandizement (President Obama is referred to over 20 times in the 25-page report, and his health care reform is credited with vast achievements that have yet to be realized, if they ever will), the U.S. UPR report generally defends America’s strong record in the preservation of human rights. To its credit, the report provides a robust defense of the U.S. Constitution as the basis for and protection of human rights in the U.S. The report properly emphasizes the primacy of civil and political rights (dedicating over 12 pages to those rights) as opposed to so-called “economic and social rights” (of which the report discussed only three and asserted that they were pursued as “a matter of public policy” rather than as human rights obligations). That emphasis will likely displease the HRC, which tends to give equal if not greater weight to economic and social “rights” when analyzing a nation’s human rights record.¶ Yet some of what the Obama Administration wrote in the official U.S. report will be cannon fodder to the HRC during the U.S. review. For instance, one particular paragraph in the U.S. report demonstrates the type of self-flagellation that the HRC expects of the U.S.:¶ We are not satisfied with a situation where the unemployment rate for African Americans is 15.8%, for Hispanics 12.4%, and for whites 8.8%, as it was in February 2010. We are not satisfied that a person with disabilities is only one-fourth as likely to be employed as a person without disabilities. We are not satisfied when fewer than half of African-American and Hispanic families own homes while three-quarters of white families do. We are not satisfied that whites are twice as likely as Native Americans to have a college degree.[9]¶ This paragraph’s emphasis on group rights and achieving “equality of results” rather than only “equality of opportunity” is consistent with the HRC’s often wrongheaded perspective on the nature of

human rights.¶ It remains to be seen how the HRC will react to the U.S. report this November in Geneva. But the UPR process thus far has been closer to farce than fact . Those countries bent on attacking the U.S. will no doubt come armed with plenty of criticisms regarding the U.S. record. The UPR report will provide them with some additional, unnecessary ammunition. However, U.S. participation in the UPR process itself already provides undue legitimacy to their

complaints .


2ac – noko war da

UN human rights action triggers North Korea nuclear responseOakford 14 – UN correspondent at VICE News (Samuel, North Korea Threatens 'Nuclear War' Over Human Rights Reprimand, VICE News, 11/24/14, https://news.vice.com/article/north-korea-threatens-nuclear-war-over-human-rights-reprimand)//JJA week after the passage of a UN resolution condemning North Korea's human rights record, the reclusive regime has ratcheted up threats against the US and Japan, warning its Pacific neighbor "will disappear from the world

map for good." The bluster came in a statement issued Sunday by North Korea's National Defense Commission (NDC). In it, the country

— known officially as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea — predicted "time will prove what high price those who unreasonably violated the dignity of the DPRK despite its repeated warnings will have to pay." The NDC also referred to the specter of " nuclear war " on the Korean peninsula , and intimated that the country

may be considering a further nuclear test. The statement was a direct response to the

passage of a resolution last Tuesday in the General Assembly's Third Committee that urged the Security Council to consider referring North Korea's human rights abuses to the International Criminal Court. Though both China and Russia are expected to veto such a move, the resolution — overwhelmingly approved by member states — was highly symbolic, and upped pressure on the isolated nation. North Korea warns of 'serious consequences' after UN human rights reprimand. Read more here. For months prior to the vote, North Korea had engaged in a diplomatic charm offensive aimed at averting attention from the results of a UN Commission of Inquiry that investigated human rights abuses in the country. In an April report, the Commission found the government in Pyongyang has

systematically murdered, starved, and raped its own citizens, imprisoning tens of thousands of people in political prisons. "The UN as a body has never come out in this way to criticize North Korea," Charles Armstrong, professor

of Korean Studies at Columbia University, told VICE News. "This will be hanging over them for some time to come."

Causes escalatory global nuclear warYenko 6/30/15 – reporter for the Morning News (Athena, North Korea Threatens US To Extinction, Morning News USA, http://www.morningnewsusa.com/north-korea-threatens-us-to-extinction-2325630.html)//JJNorth Korea vowed to launch a nuclear counter-attack that will extinguish the United States into flames the moment it ignites a nuclear war on the peninsula . A statement from the

National Defense Commission of the DPRK brandished a warning that it is ready for conventional, nuclear or cyber wars against U.S. The statement comes after U.S. deployed USS Chancellorship and Global Hawk at a U.S. military

base in Yokosuka, Japan. U.S. will perish in the flames North Korea has called for the U.S. to pay heed to the DPRK’s

warning that it is ready for conventional or nuclear or cyber war. “The U.S. would be well advised to bear in mind that the DPRK has already put in place powerful strike group equipped with strategic and tactical rockets to cope with its missile threat,” the statement from its defense department reads as reported by KCNA. “It is as clear as a pikestaff that if the U.S. nuclear maniacs ignite a nuclear war on the peninsula at any cost, they will perish in the flames kindled by


themselves,” the statement declared. The heavy-worded statement comes as U.S. deploys the USS Chancellorship and Global Hawk at a U.S. military base in Yokosuka, Japan. North Korea’s defense department said if the U.S. pushes through its plan to deploy USS Ronald Reagan at the end of this year, there will already be 14 warships in the U.S. Navy base in Yokosuka, Japan. The number will be the largest-ever warship fleet in Japan by U.S. since World War II. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki North Korea said the U.S. is daydreaming if it thinks that it can launch a nuclear attack tantamount to dropping atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. North Korea’s fear over the same attack was sparked as U.S. said that the deployment of warships in Japan is part of military strategy to contain North Korea and China. “All these military moves under the pretext of ‘containing

the DPRK and China’ are aimed to kick up an overall nuclear war racket against

the DPRK in the ground, air and seas,” KCNA said in its report. “This fully revealed once again the aggressive nature of the U.S. imperialists who are making no scruple of periodically disturbing peace and stability in the region to attain their strategic and avaricious purposes,” the report stated. Morning News USA has recently reported that Pentagon has called for the advancement of its nuclear deterrent capability. Deputy Defense Secretary

Bob Work said that ongoing nuclear upgrades by Russia , China and North Korea should compel U.S. to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent force at present or in the immediate future.


1ar – xt: noko war da

TurnAFP 14 – Associated Free Press (North Korea warns 'catastrophic consequences' over UN rights ruling, The Telegraph, 11/23/14, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/11248559/North-Korea-warns-catastrophic-consequences-over-UN-rights-ruling.html)//JJ

North Korea's top military body on Sunday warned of "catastrophic consequences" for supporters of the latest UN censure on its human rights record, as state media reported leader Kim Jong Un presided over fresh military drills.

A resolution asking the UN Security Council to refer North Korea's leadership to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for possible charges of "crimes against humanity" passed by a resounding vote of 111 to 19 with 55 abstentions in a General Assembly human rights committee last week.

Introduced by Japan and the European Union and co-sponsored by some 60 nations, the resolution drew heavily on the work of a UN inquiry which concluded in February that the North was committing human rights abuses "without parallel in the contemporary world."

The North since then has repeatedly slammed the bill as a political "fraud" and warned that it was being pushed into conducting a fresh nuclear test.

The National Defense Commission (NDC), chaired by Kim, said Sunday the bill amounted to a "war declaration" taking issue with the North's leader, Kim Jong-Un.Related Articles

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, left, and then Vice Chairman of the National Defense Commission Jang Song Thaek

North Korean linked to Kim Jong-un's purged uncle 'goes missing' in Paris 21 Nov 2014

Pyongyang threatens new nuclear test in response to UN criticism 20 Nov 2014

Comment: If Kim Jong-un won't face a war crimes court, then who on earth will? 19 Nov 2014

UN panel demands North Korea human rights investigation 19 Nov 2014

The resolution makes no mention of Kim but notes the UN inquiry finding that the "highest level of the state" holds responsibility for the rights abuses.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/11248559/North-Korea-warns-catastrophic-consequences-over-UN-rights-ruling.html)//JJ

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/11248559/North-Korea-warns-catastrophic-consequences-over-UN-rights-ruling.html)//JJ


The dignity of its leader "cannot be bartered for anything," NDC said in a statement, adding Japan as well as South Korea and the US - co-sponsors of the UN bill - were Pyongyang's "primary target."

"The US and its followers will be wholly accountable for the unimaginable and catastrophic consequences to be entailed by the frantic 'human rights' racket against the (North)," it said.

As Pyongyang ramped the up angry threats, Kim guided a large military drill involving maritime transport and amphibious landing, the state-run KCNA said.

The NDC also said that Seoul's leader Park Geun-Hye would not be safe "if a nuclear war breaks out" on the Korean peninsula, and its attacks could make Japan "disappear from the world map for good."

The isolated and nuclear-armed state has staged three atomic tests - most recently in 2013, which was its most powerful test to date.

This week, the US-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University said on its closely followed 38 North website that new satellite imagery suggested Pyongyang may be firing up a facility for processing weapons-grade plutonium - a major source for a nuclear test.

South Korea said last week its military was on stand-by, and the US said Thursday that the renewed threat of a nuclear test in the North was a "great concern."


2ac – permutation

The permutation solves the net benefit – US taking the lead gives credibility to the UNSchaefer and Groves ’10 --- fellow in international regulatory affairs at Heritage’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and senior research fellow (Brett D, and Steven, “The U.S. Universal Periodic Review: Flawed from the Start,” The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/08/the-us-universal-periodic-review-flawed-from-the-start)//Mnush

By legitimizing the HRC through U.S. membership, the Obama Administration will give credibility to a farcical UPR process that has become little more than a “mutual praise society”[3] for repressive regimes and created the opportunity for human rights abusers to take unjustified shots at America’s human rights record. The Obama Administration was mistaken to believe it could improve the HRC from within and should press for fundamental reforms at the mandatory 2011 review of the council.

Un Upr Cp - Michigan7 2015

Documents

Transcript of Un Upr Cp - Michigan7 2015