File Title- Tournament 1

1AC
The United States federal government should substantially increase the provision of information and communication technology to Syrians. First, Social media in Syria is the battlefield of the uprisings: The regime uses the internet to censor, monitor, and release propaganda, and activists need assistance to bypass the noise and peacefully convince the middle class.
Vila 11 Susannah,Amid protest, is the Syrian online space redefining internet freedom? April 18, http://www.movements.org/blog/entry/Syria-Damascus-internet-freedom-protest-online-activismfacebook-twitter/
"'Rami Nakhle' as he is known to the few people he meets in his safe house in Beirut - the pizza guy, a French photographer passing through and a steady stream of Syrian dissidents who fled before they could be arrested is a hub of a growing and impressively organised network of activists using social media to break the bonds of one of the world's most tightly controlled police states and publish news and images of the unprecedented protest movement which has broken out against the regime in Syria." And this weekend the Washington Post also mentioned him within a larger story about Syrian protests. The Post piece highlights how uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have chipped away at the fear which kept Syrians (and still keeps most Syrians - protesters are a minority, after all) from demonstrating, as well as how to the increased ability to be in direct contact with people throughout the country and the diaspora is bolstering protesters' bravado. Information is the key factor here, as Syria Comment's Joshua Landis is quoted as saying: "...the middle class, the silent majority, are still sitting on the fence. But the more they see these videos [of crackdowns,] the more it repulses them. Activism in Syria right now is largely about getting these videos out to as many people as possible. A subset of Syrians have decided to focus their energies entirely on covering the protests - smugging thumb drives out of offline towns, verifying video and uploading it - rather than protesting them selves. The Vancouver
Sun writes: "Deraa, cradle of the uprising in Syria, is largely offline. A poor, tribal town, not many of its people were Internet-savvy anyway. Yet despite an intense crackdown most of the deaths happened there footage of enraged people smashing statues of Assads family members made it online." Media

dissemination is at the heart of the protests. Syrian authorities seem to get this, and are cracking down on it. State security have been grabbing young people on the street and try to get their Facebook logins with force. They're now attempting to drown out the signal in noise by flooding the #Syria hashtag on Twitter with spam bots that are Tweeting everything from photography, old Syrian sport scores, links to Syrian comedy shows, pro-regime news, and threats against a long list of tweeps who expressed their support of the protests. Unlike in other countries where government response may be about censoring controversial content, Syria has allowed for greater access to the global web. The Washington Post writes: "Assad helped make the uprisings possible by legalizing the internet and satellite television ," and quotes Landis: He
was trying to modernize his country, and to modernize the country meant engaging the world, and that ultimately undermined this isolation." In February, Assad removed the block on Facebook. Assad

welcomed freer access to information under the assumption that he could control it enough to benefit from it while mitigating the threats it posed. Internet freedom became about more than just the ability to access content on the web, also encapsulating the ability to access content without running into government thugs attempting to spy, hack and dissemble. What we're watching right now is activists in Syria finding more innovative ways to maintain protests, online and offline, under these new constraints. The result is that the online space, in the context of Syrian protests, is a live battleground wherein the push and pull between tech savvy dictators and tech savvy, activated citizens unfolds in real time.

US internet policy strategically chokes the organic narrative of Syrian protestors themselves; the government ignores the arrests and abuse of critical bloggers, silencing

File Title- Tournament 2

independent voices and preventing the international community from bearing witness to atrocities. York 11 director for International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San
Francisco. She writes a regular column for Al Jazeera focusing on free expression and Internet freedom. She also writes for and is on the Board of Directors of Global Voices Online. Jillian C, Al Jazeera, 11-3 http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/10/20111030102051411130.html
While the United States and the European Union have repeatedly condemned the actions of the

Syrian government - where they have virtually no influence - both have remained largely silent on the threats facing bloggers in allied countries across the region, at a time when arrests are at an alltime high. Since the fall of Mubarak, Egypt's Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) has kept a tight leash on free expression, enacting emergency law and using it to crack down on speech. In August, Twitter user
Asmaa Mahfouz was interrogated for tweeting, If the judiciary doesn't give us our rights, nobody should be surprised if militant groups appear and conduct a series of assassinations because there is no law and there is no judiciary. Blogger Maikel Nabil Sanad, who spent more than 50 days on hunger strike before being transferred to a mental institution, was arrested in March and sentenced to three years in prison for accusing the military of conducting virginity tests on female protesters, an accusation later found to be true. Most recently, prominent blogger Alaa Abd El Fattah was summoned by a military prosecutor after another blogger accused him of inciting violence and throwing stones during the October 9 protests that resulted in a massacre - largely incited by the military - that left 27 dead and more than 300 wounded. Abd El Fattah has also been the target of a smear campaign over the past few months on Twitter,

While a few brave Syrians continue to blog and upload videos, Syria's ongoing campaign against online activism - which includes government support of the Syrian Electronic Army - has some bloggers scared into silence. In recent weeks, the list of arrested bloggers and journalists has grown. In the past month
purportedly for his leftist views. Forced into silence

alone, more than 12 bloggers and online journalists have been arrested. I think

this huge crackdown against bloggers means that

blogs have proved to be a very effective tool for exposing human rights abuses in contexts where media attention wasn't focusing before, says Spanish-Syrian activist Leila Nachawati. Arab bloggers in particular have
done an excellent job at exposing repressive regimes that not only wish to retain power but also want worldwide legitimacy. Their legitimacy is now lost, and bloggers have contributed a lot to this. As protests rage on in Syria and journalists are

prevented from reporting freely, it becomes all the more important to listen for independent voices. But if those voices are forced into silence, then the continuing atrocities in the country will go unwitnessed. The US government has enacted sanctions on Syria in an attempt to force the government's hand, a tactic that could, eventually, work. But at the same time, seven-year-old export controls enacted by the Department of Commerce choke Syrian citizens off from online communication technologies and other opportunities, such as Google's Summer of Code, preventing them from entrepreneurial opportunities. Gulf bloggers persecuted The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia both rank low on press
freedom, with the latter coming in 157 out of 178 countries in Reporters Without Borders' 2010 report. Both countries have also managed to avoid the large-scale protests seen by neighbouring Bahrain, which some analysts say is a result of fear on behalf of dissidents. Their fear is certainly justified: In the UAE, five activists - including one prominent blogger, Ahmed Mansoor - were arrested for signing a petition calling for democratic reforms. All five men face charges of threatening state security, undermining public order and insulting the president, the vice-president and the crown prince of Abu Dhabi. The men have refused to appear in court, protesting what they see as a political crackdown. Meanwhile, Reporters Without Borders claims that the trial is deliberately being dragged out over a period of several months for the purpose of keeping the activists in prison. In next-door Saudi Arabia, a similar theme as three men detained on October 18 remain in prison more than a week later. Their alleged crime? Creating a video showing poverty in Riyadh. The three men - Feras Bugnah, Hosam al-Deraiwish and Khaled al-Rasheed - produce a regular web programme called We Are Being Cheated. The programme, launched this past summer, tackles problems in Saudi society that aren't often discussed. Previous episodes of the programme focussed on traffic police, inflation of food prices and Saudi youth. A Saudi journalist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there's speculation that the local Riyadh government - rather than the interior ministry, which usually conducts such arrests was responsible for the three men's continued detention. The journalist said that the three men were called for questioning and went to the office voluntarily, only to be detained. These people did nothing wrong, nothing that crossed the line, said the journalist. Even the king himself visited these poor neighbourhoods with state TV. This is an example of someone in the Riyadh administration, afraid of looking bad, trying to act more royal than the king. More

Long focussed on leading censors Iran and China, the US and the EU have this year begun to address the threats posed to netizens in the region. The EU recently took steps to regulate the sale of surveillance technology to repressive regimes, while the United States is reportedly investigating Blue Coat over an admission that its technology is being used in Syria. But bloggers continue to be persecuted . The US and EU have little sway with the Syrian government, but Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain - where bloggers Abduljalil Alsingace and Ali Abdulemam were sentenced to 15 years in prison - are all allies with the US and EU. In her groundbreaking 2010 speech on internet freedom, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on the US to champion internet freedom around the world. And while in some ways the State Department has stayed true to its word, condemning the blocking of websites and internet shutdowns in Egypt and Libya, its silence on bloggers in allied countries has been deafening. The US has been entirely silent on the bloggers
than lip service In some ways, the world is waking up. named in this piece. Europe's reaction has been somewhat better. Individual EU parliamentarians such as Marietje Schaake - a champion for internet freedom - have spoken out against blogger repression in Bahrain, mentioning Alsingace and Abdulemam, while the parliament recently called for the unconditional release of peaceful political prisoners, including bloggers, in Bahrain. But like the US, Europe seems only capable of words, not action .

The

hypocrisy is not lost on bloggers. In June, Bahraini journalist Lamees Dhaif, while on a State Department-sponsored tour of the US, spoke out
against the government's support of her country, stating that the State Department was aware of Bahrain's repression of journalists and bloggers, but remained silent.

Ali Abdulemam - the Bahraini blogger sentenced to 15 years in absentia this year - had criticised the State Department for hypocrisy toward Bahrain before his 2010 arrest as well, calling out the US government for allowing American companies to

File Title- Tournament 3

sell censorship technology to Bahrain. And after his initial imprisonment in 2010 (he was released briefly in February then went into hiding),
Abdulemam testified that he had been tortured in prison. As the US halts a planned $53m arms sale to Bahrain at the behest of lawmakers and human rights groups, it becomes clearer that

any movement towards condemning repression of free speech in those countries will have to come from outside the State Department. Internet freedom is a worthy goal, and Hillary Clinton's words offer something to aspire to. But as long as Clinton's words are not coupled with action and remain contradicted by other foreign policy goals, the State Department's internet freedom initiative is just lip service.

Scenario 1 is web militarization The Syrian protest narrative is vulnerable to both national and foreign media manipulation The US media paints a selective picture of Syria to justify military intervention in the form of funding the Free Syrian Army, falsely depicting Assad as on the brink of collapse, and depicting the opposition as begging for US involvement. This strategy empirically results in massive imperial violence it justifies military intervention to manage the Syrian uprising. Cooke 12 (Shamus Cooke is a social worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action, The Truth
Behind the Coming "Regime Change" in Syria, January 26, 2012, http://zcommunications.org/the-truthbehind-the-coming-regime-change-in-syria-by-shamus-cooke)
After meeting again to decide Syria's fate, the Arab League again decided to extend its "monitoring mission" in Syria. However, some Arab League nations under U.S. diplomatic control are clamoring for blood. These

countries virtual sock puppets of U.S. foreign policy want to declare the Arab League monitoring mission "a failure, so that military intervention in the form of a no fly zone can be used for regime change. The United States appears to be using a strategy in Syria that it has perfected over the years, having succeeded most recently in Libya: arming small paramilitary groups loyal to U.S. interests that claim to speak for the native population; these militants then attack the targeted government the U.S. would like to see overthrown including terrorist bombings and when the attacked government defends itself, the U.S. cries "genocide" or "mass murder, while calling for foreign military intervention. This is the strategy that the U.S. is using to channel the Arab Spring into the bloody dead end of foreign military intervention . For example, the U.S. media and government are fanatically giving the impression that, in Syria, the native population would like foreign militarily intervention to overthrow their authoritarian president, Bashar Assad. But facts are stubborn things. After spinning these lies, The New York Times was forced to admit, in several articles, that there have been massive rallies in Syria in support of the Syrian government. These rallies are larger than any pro-government demonstration that the U.S. government could hope to organize for itself. The New York Times reports: "The turnout [at least tens of thousands see picture in link] in Sabaa Bahrat Square in Damascus, the [Syrian] capital, once again underlined the degree of backing that Mr. Assad and his leadership still enjoy among many Syrians, nearly seven months into the popular uprising. That support is especially pronounced in cities like
Damascus and Aleppo, the countrys two largest." (January 13, 2012). The New York Times is forced to admit that the two largest cities in a small country support the government (or at least oppose foreign military intervention). This was further confirmed by a poll funded by the anti-Syrian Qatar Foundation, preformed by the Doha Debates: "According to the latest opinion poll commissioned by The Doha Debates, Syrians are more supportive of their president with 55% not wanting him to resign." (January 2, 2012). If people in Syria do not want foreign intervention a likely reason that so many attended pro-Assad demonstrations what about the so-called Free Syrian Army, which the United States has given immense credibility to and which claims to speak for the Syrian people?

The Free Syrian Army like its Libyan counterpart appears to be yet another Made-in-the-USA

militant group, by route of its ally Turkey, a fact alluded to by the pro U.S.-establishment magazine, Foreign Affairs: "Why does the Syrian
[government] military not rocket their [Free Syrian Army] position or launch a large-scale assault? The FSA fighters are positioned about a mile from the Turkish border, near enough to escape across if the situation turned dire." The article also quotes a Free Syrian Army member who states: "Every [Free Syrian Army] group in Turkey has its own job," Sayeed said. "[The Turks] gave us our freedom to move." (December 8, 2011). The article also mentions that the

Free Syrian Army is calling for a "no fly zone" over certain regions of Syria, which would destroy the Syrian government military; the possible starting locations of this no fly zone are on the Syrian borders of either Turkey, Jordan, or Iraq all three are either strong U.S. allies or client states. A no fly zone is the new euphemism that means the U.S. and its European military junior partners in NATO will intervene to use their advanced fighter jets to destroy the Syrian military, as happened in
Libya. In Libya the no fly zone evolved into a no drive zone and eventually a no survival zone for anything resembling the Syrian military or anybody who armed himself in defense of the Libyan government. As in Syria, Libya's largest city, Tripoli, never had large anti-government demonstrations. The anti-Libyan government/pro-U.S. paramilitary group that attacked Libyan forces was so tiny that it took months to take power after 10,000 NATO bombing sorties (bombing missions) that destroyed large portions of Libya's infrastructure, as documented by the independent Human Rights Investigations .

It's totally unimaginable that any

File Title- Tournament 4

large section of Syrian society would invite a NATO-backed no fly zone, i.e. war, into Syria. The examples of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are too glaring for any Middle Eastern nation not to notice. For the Free Syrian Army to demand a NATO invasion of Syria is enough to label the FSA a U.S. puppet group striving for political power, deserving to be condemned. This strategy of using a proxy army to undermine an anti-U.S. government has a grisly past. This strategy is celebrated in the book Charlie Wilson's War, which tells the true story of the U.S. government sending weapons and cash to Islamic extremists to wage a terrorist campaign against the Afghan government, which was an ally of the Soviet Union at the time. The attacks eventually led to the Afghan government asking for Soviet military re-enforcements, whose presence in Afghanistan created a degree of popular support for the extremists who eventually became known as the Taliban. The same scenario also played itself out in Kosovo, where the tiny, U.S.-backed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) began a terrorist campaign against the government of Yugoslavia, intending to separate Kosovo into an independent nation. When the Yugoslav government attempted to defend itself from the KLA while imitating its violent tactics the U.S. and other western governments labeled it genocide, and invaded Yugoslavia, calling it a "humanitarian invasion. To this day the U.S. is one of few nations that recognizes Kosovo as
an independent nation while Kosovo faithfully serves the interests of the United States. The same proxy war strategy by the U.S. and other European powers played a crucial role in numerous wars throughout Africa, which culminated in the massive Congo War that killed over five million people, as French journalist Gerard Prunier describes in his book, Africa's World War. In

Syria history is repeating itself, and some non-U.S. allies are

very aware of it. The New York Times reports: "[Russia's Foreign Minister] said that foreign governments [the U.S., Turkey, etc.] were arming militants
and extremists in Syria." The Foreign minister also gave an accurate description of U.S. foreign policy towards Iran: "Mr. Lavrov offered a similarly grave message about the possibility of a military strike against Iran, which he said would be a catastrophe. He said sanctions now being proposed against Tehran were intended to have a smothering effect on the Iranian economy and the Iranian population, probably in the hopes of provoking discontent. (January 19, 2012). Most ominously,

the Russian Foreign Minister said that U.S. foreign policy in Syria and Iran could lead to a "very big war, i.e., a war that becomes regional or even international in scope, as other powers intervene to uphold their interests in the region. Russia has offered a way to avoid war in Syria and is pursuing it through the UN Security Council; it is the same path being pursued by the pro-U.S.
government in Yemen: maintaining the current government in power until elections are called. Unfortunately, Yemen is an ally of the U.S. and Syria is not the U.S. and its allies are blocking the same approach in Syria in order to pursue war. The National Coordination Committee, opposes foreign military intervention. A

Syrian government opposition bloc inside of Syria, the leader of the NCC is Hassan Abdul Azim, who wisely states; We refuse on principle any type of military foreign intervention because it threatens the freedom of our country, (January 19, 2012). This is very likely the prevailing opinion inside of Syria, since the threat of no fly zones will result in the same mass bombings experienced by the citizens of Tripoli in Libya. The fake Syrian opposition outside of the country, The Syrian National Council, is yet another U.S. puppet now allied with the Free Syrian Army begging for a military invasion of Syria in order to "liberate" it. Of course the western media tells only the perspective of the pro-U.S. Syrian National Council. The U.S. has proven on multiple occasions that military solutions solve nothing, having torn asunder the social fabric of Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya. The working people of Syria and Iran do not desire "help" from the U.S. government and its allies to prevent bloodshed. The working people of these countries could liberate themselves from their authoritarian governments, as did the Tunisians and Egyptians, which is precisely the point: the U.S. is intervening militarily to re-gain control over a region that slipped out of its hands during the Arab Spring. This military approach serves to push the working people of the targeted country into the hands of their government while creating a humanitarian catastrophe for the invaded nation. The working people of the United States have no interest in aggressive war and have a responsibility to learn about U.S. government propaganda so that they can demand its end in the streets .

This rhetoric paves the way for further US militarization of Syria: Mass media dupes the public into letting Syria become the next Libya or Iraq. Internet freedom means the public can explore the issues for themselves and isnt being to be won over or tricked by the government. Corbett 12 (James, Faking It: How the Media Manipulates the World into War, January 2, 2012,
http://theintelhub.com/2012/01/02/faking-it-how-the-media-manipulates-the-world-into-war/)

File Title- Tournament 5

In the lead-up to the war on Iraq, the American media infamously took the lead in framing the debate about the Iraqi governments weapons of mass destruction NOT as a question of whether or not they even existed, but as a question of where they had been hidden and what should be done to disarm them. The New York Times led the way with Judith Millers now infamous reporting on the Iraqi WMD story, now known to have been based on false information from untrustworthy sources, but the rest of the media fell into line with the NBC Nightly News asking what precise threat Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction pose to America, and Time debating whether Hussein was making a good-faith effort to disarm Iraqs weapons of mass destruction. Reports about chemical weapons stashes were reported on before they were confirmed, although headlines boldly asserted their existence as indisputable fact. We now know that in fact the stockpiles did not exist, and the administration premeditatedly lied the country into yet another war, but the
most intense opposition the Bush administration ever received over this documented war crime was some polite correction on the Sunday political talk show circuit. Remarkably, the public at large has seemingly learned nothing from all of these documented historical manipulations. If anything, the

media has become even bolder in its attempts to manipulate the publics perceptions, perhaps emboldened by the fact that so few in the audience seem willing to question the picture that is being painted for them on the evening news. Later that year, CNN aired
footage of a bombed out Tskhinvali in South Ossetia, falsely labeling it as footage of Gori, which they said had been attacked by the Russians. In 2009, the BBC showed a cropped image of a rally in Iran which they claimed was a crowd of protesters who assembled to show their opposition to the Iranian government. An uncropped version of the same photograph displayed on the LA Times website, however, revealed that the photo in fact came from a rally in support of Ahmedinejad. In August of 2011, the BBC ran footage of what they claimed was a celebration in Tripolis Green Square. When sharp-eyed viewers noticed that the flags in the

CNN reported on a story from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claiming that eight infants in incubators had died in a hospital in Hama when Syrian authorities cut off power in the area. Some news sites even carried pictures of the infants. The images were later admitted to have been taken in Egypt and no evidence has ever emerged to back up the accusations. As breathtaking as all of these lies, manipulations and so-called mistakes are, they in and of themselves dont represent the only functions of the media for the war machine. Now, the US government is taking the lead in becoming more and more directly involved with the shaping of the media message on war propaganda, and the general public is becoming even more ensnared in a false picture of the world through the Pentagons own lens. In 2005, the Bush White House admitted to producing videos that were designed
footage were in fact Indian flags, the BBC was forced to admit that they had accidentally broadcast footage from India instead of Tripoli. Also that month, to look like news reports from legitimate independent journalists, and then feeding those reports to media outlets as prepackaged material ready to air on the evening news. When the Government Accountability Office ruled that these fake news reports in fact constituted illegal covert propaganda, the White House simply issued a memo declaring the practice to be legal. In April 2008, the New York Times revealed a secret US Department of Defense program that was launched in 2002 and involved using retired military officers to implant Pentagon talking points in the media. The officers were presented as independent analysts on talk shows and news programs, although they had been specially briefed beforehand by the Pentagon. In December of 2011, the DoDs own Inspector General released a report concluding that the program was in perfect compliance with government policies and regulations. Earlier this year, it was revealed the the US government had contracted with HBGary Federal to develop software that create fake social media accounts in order to steer public opinion and promote propaganda on popular websites. The federal contract for the software sourced back to the MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. As

the vehicle through which information from the outside world is captured, sorted, edited and transmitted into our homes, the mass media has the huge responsibility of shaping and informing our understanding of events to which we dont have first-hand access . This is an awesome
responsibility in even the most ideal conditions, with diligent reporters guided by trustworthy editors doing their level best to report the most important news in the most straightforward way. But

in a media landscape where a handful of companies own virtually all of the print, radio and television media in each nation, the only recourse the public has is to turn away from the mainstream media altogether. And that is precisely what is happening. As study after study and report after report has shown, the death of the old media has accelerated in recent years, with more and more people abandoning newspapers and now even television as their main source of news. Instead, the public is increasingly turning toward online sources for their news and information, something that is necessarily worrying for the war machine itself, a system that can only truly flourish when the propaganda arm is held under monopolistic control. But as citizens turn away from the New York Times and toward independent websites, many run and maintained by citizen journalists and amateur editors, the system that has consolidated its control over the minds of the public for generations seems to finally be showing signs that it may not be invincible. Surely this is not to say that online media is impervious to the defects that have made the traditional media so unreliable. Quite the contrary. But the difference is that online, there is still for the time being relative freedom of choice at the individual level. While internet freedom exists, individual readers and viewers dont have to take the word of any website or pundit or commentator on any issue. They can check the source documentation themselves ,
except, perhaps not coincidentally, on the websites of the traditional media bastions, which tend not to link source material and documentation in their articles.

Hence the SOPA Act, Protect IP, the US governments attempts to seize websites at the domain name level, and all of the other concerted attacks we have seen on internet freedoms in recent years. Because ultimately, an informed and engaged public is far less likely to go along with wars waged for power and profit. And as the public becomes better informed about the very issues that the media has tried to lie to them about for so long, they realize that the answer to all of the

File Title- Tournament 6

mainstream medias war cheerleading and blatant manipulation is perhaps simpler than we ever suspected: All we have to do is turn them off.

Securititzing Syria will backfire The US and the media are using the protests as a pretext for oil-motivated military intervention, which inflames all of Central Asia integration of multiple war theaters means conflict escalates. Chossudovsky 11 (Michel Chossudovsky, Towards a Broader Middle East-Central Asian War? Global
Research, August 9, 2011)
An extended Middle East Central Asian war has been on the Pentagon's drawing board since the mid-1990s. As part of this extended war scenario, the US-NATO alliance plans to wage a military campaign against Syria under a UN sponsored "humanitarian mandate". Escalation is an integral part of the military agenda. Destabilization of sovereign states through "regime change" is closely coordinated with military planning . There is a military roadmap characterised by a sequence of US-NATO war theaters. War preparations to attack Syria and Iran have been in "an advanced state of readiness" for several years. The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 categorizes Syria as a "rogue state", as a country which supports terrorism. A war on Syria is viewed by the Pentagon as part of the broader war directed against Iran. President George W. Bush confirmed in his Memoirs that he had "ordered the Pentagon to plan an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and [had] considered a covert attack on Syria" (George Bush's memoirs reveal how he considered attacks on Iran and Syria, The Guardian, November 8, 2010) This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil reserves and pipeline routes. It is supported by the Anglo-American oil giants. The July 2006 bombing of Lebanon was part of a carefully planned "military road map". The extension of "The July War" on Lebanon into Syria had been
contemplated by US and Israeli military planners. It was abandoned upon the defeat of Israeli ground forces by Hizbollah. Israel's July 2006 war on Lebanon also sought to establish Israeli control over the North Eastern Mediterranean coastline including offshore oil and gas reserves in Lebanese and Palestinian territorial waters. The plans to invade both Lebanon and Syria have remained on the Pentagon's drawing board despite Israel's setback in the 2006 July War: "In November 2008, barely a month before Tel Aviv started its massacre in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military held drills for a two-front war against Lebanon and Syria called Shiluv Zroot III (Crossing Arms III). The military exercise included a massive simulated invasion of both Syria and Lebanon" (See Mahdi Darius Nazemoraya, Israel's Next War: Today the Gaza Strip, Tomorrow Lebanon?, Global Research, January 17, 2009) The

road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign ("regime change") including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government . A "humanitarian war" under the logo
of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) directed against Syria would also contribute to the ongoing destabilization of Lebanon. Were a military campaign to be waged against Syria, Israel would be directly or indirectly involved in military and intelligence operations. A

war on Syria would lead to military escalation. There are at present four distinct war theaters: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya. An attack on Syria would lead to the integration of these separate war theaters , eventually leading towards a broader Middle East-Central Asian war, engulfing an entire region from North Africa and the Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The ongoing protest movement is intended to serve as a pretext and a justification to intervene militarily against Syria . The existence of an armed insurrection is denied. The Western media in chorus have described recent events in Syria as a "peaceful protest movement" directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad, when the evidence confirms the existence of an armed insurgency
integrated by Islamic paramilitary groups. From the outset of the protest movement in Daraa in mid-March, there has been an exchange of fire between the police and armed forces on the one hand and armed gunmen on the other. Acts of arson directed against government buildings have also been committed. In late July in Hama, public buildings including the Court House and the Agricultural Bank were set on fire. Israeli news sources, while dismissing the existence of an armed conflict, nonetheless, acknowledge that "protesters [were] armed with heavy machine guns."

Scenario two: Nonviolent protest We must return control of the online Syrian protest narrative to activists on the ground its key to their survival through community building, creating, active population, and linking directly to international audiences.

File Title- Tournament 7

Shaery-Eisenlohr 11 (Roschanack, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic
Diversity, Gottingen, Germany. From Subjects to Citizens? Civil Society and the Internet in Syria Middle East Critique Vol. 20, No. 2, 127138, Summer 2011)
Despite the limited success of activists in the Middle East to create a more pluralistic form of public sphere through the use of the new media, civil society activists and political dissidents continue to view the Internet as an important tool in their resistance against oppressive regimes and argue that it is often their only available medium to connect to ordinary citizens. In this article I discuss why and how self-proclaimed secular Syrian civil society activists mobilize the Internet as part of their political project to resist the Asad regime. Based on the examples discussed in the paper I make three broad arguments: First, the Internet can be seen as a new forum where power relations between the regime and its opponents are negotiated, and this new medium adds to what Lisa Wedeen calls the ambiguities of domination.5
Dissidents are never sure whether the goals achieved can be linked directly to their own efforts and activism or whether they are part of the regimes calculation to create a democratic faade. Second, both regimes and dissidents believe in the power of media as an educational tool , similar to the early classic Frankfurt School perspectivewhich believed that consumers understand the content of the media as intended by the producers and therefore argued that media can manipulate greatly the minds of people. Likewise, civil

society activists privilege the production rather than the consumption aspect of media. In other words, because civil society activists believe that the spreading of alternative information among activists themselves and for the general public on the Internet eventually will create the necessary awareness among ordinary people to resist the oppressive regime, they put too much importance on the fact that information in a variety of forms
is put on the Internet. However, they do not take into account that knowledge can be interpreted in a variety of ways and used in diverse forms, sometimes in ways the activists had least intended. Often, consumers of these civil society websites engage in non-virtual patron-client relations, and, as one of the examples below will show, producers of information serve as quasi-patrons of those seeking help. Third, activists

view the Internet as providing them with opportunities to counter the culture of fear, the core of which is the atomization of society, the creation of distrust among citizens, and international isolation. Activists argue that they use the media in a way that facilitates networking and community-building, trust among citizens and contact with a variety of international organizations. Thus, through the power many activists imagine to inhabit the new media, they propose new state-society relations in which Syrians are aware citizens rather than mute subjects and would hold the state accountable for its actions, having gained knowledge of their rights.

ICT Communication, collaboration, and access assistance also maintains protestors nonviolence. Serwer 11 (Daniel, professorial lecturer at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and
a Scholar at the Middle East Institute. 5 Ways the U.S. Can Help in Syria The Atlantic DEC 22 2011, 8:19 AM ET. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/12/5-ways-the-us-can-help-insyria/250390/)
If the White House is planning something, let's hope it doesn't simply go back to some shopworn ideas that wouldn't have any real relevance to the situation in Syria. A no-fly zone? The Syrians aren't using aircraft to attack demonstrators. Safe
areas? They will quickly become targets for shelling by the regime, as they did in Bosnia and will have to be protected with force. This may be what those who call for them hope, but we should not be tricked into it. Corridors for deliver of humanitarian assistance? There seems to be no lack of food, water and shelter.

But we

do have options. Here are a few less talked about notions that might have an impact: 1. Make sure the Arab League
observers have real access. This means guiding them to places where we see concentrations of military force. It means making sure that they can communicate instantaneously with their home governments without being eavesdropped on by Syrian security forces, including by uploading text and photos. It means using diplomatic pressure to counter any intimidation or restrictions they encounter. 2. Ensure that the Syrian National Council and protesters inside Syria continue to communicate and collaborate. There are already efforts in this direction, but they will need to be redoubled. The regime will offer "dialogue," hoping to split the opposition and find a way to remain in place for a promised

File Title- Tournament 8 transition period. There can be no serious transition with Bashar al-Assad inside Syria. This was Yemen's mistake, and we should avoid it. 3. Help maintain the opposition's nonviolence. The regime has ratcheted up its killing to hundreds per day, including many army deserters or others who have refused orders to fire on demonstrators. This makes it exceedingly
difficult for the opposition to maintain nonviolent discipline, but in force-on-force clashes the demonstrators are bound to lose more than they win. Violence also

disincentivizes people from joining the demonstrations, limiting their numbers and making them easier prey for violence by the security forces (see, for example, Egypt). More Syrians should be trained in nonviolence outside the country; they can
then return and train others.

Nonviolent strategies that break with the trend towards military intervention and the Free Syrian Army are the best chance that protestors have to survive the regime. Serwer 12 (Why the Syrian Rebels Should Put Down Their Guns The Atlantic, FEB 8 2012, 7:05 AM
ET. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/why-the-syrian-rebels-should-put-downtheir-guns/252731/)
Violence also reduces the likelihood of future defections from the security forces . For current Syrian soldiers
weighing defection, it is one thing to refuse to fire on unarmed demonstrators. It is another to desert to join the people who are shooting at you. Defections are important -- eventually, they may thin the regime's support. But they

aren't going to happen as quickly or easily if rebels are shooting at the soldiers they want to see defect. But if you can't march around singing kumbaya, what are you going to do? There are a number of options, few of which have been tried. Banging pans at a fixed hour of the night is a tried and true protest technique that demonstrates and encourages opposition,
but makes it hard for the authorities to figure out just who is opposing them. The Arab variation is Allahu akbar called out for 15 minutes every evening. A Libyan who helped organize the revolutionary takeover of Tripoli explained to me that their effort began with hundreds of empty mosques playing the call to prayer, recorded on CDs, at an odd hour over their loudspeakers. A

general strike gives clear political signals and makes it hard for the

authorities to punish all those involved. Coordinated graffiti, marking sidewalks with identical symbols, wearing of the national flag -- consult Gene Sharp's 198 methods for more. The point is to demonstrate wide participation, mock the authorities, and deprive them of their capacity to generate fear. When I studied
Arabic in Damascus a few years ago, I asked an experienced agitator friend about the efficacy of the security forces. She said they were lousy. "What keeps everyone

the oppositions resorts to violence, it helps the authorities: by responding with sometimes random violence, they hope to re-instill fear. Could the Syrians return to nonviolence after everything that's happened? As long as they are hoping for foreign intervention or foreign arms, it's not likely. Steve Heydemann, my former colleague at the United States Institute of Peace, recently suggested on PBS Newshour that we need a "framework" for arming the opposition that would establish civilian control over Free Syria Army. This is a bad idea if you have any hope of getting back to nonviolence, as it taints the civilians, making even the nonviolent complicit in the violence. It's also unlikely to work: forming an army during a battle is not much easier than building your airplane as you head down the runway. What is needed now is an
in line?" I asked. "Fear," she replied. If effort to calm the situation in Homs, Hama, Deraa, and other conflict spots. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who is visiting Damascus, could help. The continuing assault on Homs and other population centers is a major diplomatic embarrassment to Moscow. The opposition should ask for a ceasefire and the return of the Arab League observers, who clearly had a moderating influence on the activities of the regime. And, this time around, they should be beefed up with UN human rights observers. If

the violence continues to spiral, the regime is going to win. They are better armed and better organized. The Syrian revolt could come to look like the Iranian street demonstrations of 2009, or more likely the bloody Shia revolt in Iraq in 1991, or the Muslim Brotherhood uprising in Hama in 1982, which ended with the regime

killing thousands. There is nothing inevitable about the fall of this or any other regime -- that is little more than a White House talking point. What will make it inevitable is strategic thinking, careful planning, and nonviolent discipline. Yes, even now.

File Title- Tournament 9

And we have a human rights imperative to unconditionally support peaceful Syrian protestorss safety Assads repression has reached a genocidal level. SUPPORT SYRIAN FREEDOM 11 (We Demand an End to Assads Regime. We Demand
Protection for Syrian People. We Demand Accountability http://supportsyrianfreedom.wordpress.com/we-demand/)
The inhumanity of dictator Bashar al Assad is appalling and apocalyptic. People in Syria have been under a prolonged and bloody assault by Assads forces, the violent repression is increasing on a daily basis, while
governments around the world have kept their silence. The ongoing genocidal slaughter in Syria by Assads troops, and the concomitant refusal to act by responsible governments worldwide, is not unique in the history of Syria. It is a bloodcurdling echo of Hafez Al-assads 1982 massacre of Hama, and the criminal complicit silence of governments worldwide at that time. Then, an estimated 50,000 civilians were slaughtered by Assads forces in full view of the international community, which kept its silence. Now, Bashar Al-assads

forces have again declared war on Syrian people; thousands have been

killed in full view of the world, and once again, governments that have a responsibility in the face of crimes against humanity under the Geneva Convention remain criminally silent. The Importance of the Syrian Revolution The ongoing crimes against people in Syria must be opposed in their own right. The forces of Bashar al Assad have perpetrated massive slaughter against Syrian people for the past 6 months,
including the Ramadan Massacre in which hundreds were killed over a single weekend. The attacks on the people of Syria, implemented using weaponry from tanks to snipers, have culminated in the loss of an estimated 5,000 lives; real numbers are likely higher. On this basis alone, these has a legal duty and mandate to stop these crimes by all means legally available. It

crimes amount to

genocide and crime against humanity. The necessity of ending the slaughter of the people in Syria is obvious, and the UN Security Council
is in the context of these crimes against the people of Syria and, by extension, all humanity that we call humane society to urgently recognize the

importance and necessity of unconditionally supporting the people struggling in Syria ; and our role and responsibility in demanding an end to the slaughter of people in Syria. There are practical ways to enforce an
immediate end to these atrocities, none of which have been seriously negotiated.

Prefer our violence impacts US policy should privilege the lived suffering of the protestors. The myopic realism of instrumental approaches to democracy assistance produces Arab pessimism and justifies cruelty in the name of self interest. Hoover 11 Joe, Fellow in the International Relations Department at the LSE, Journal of Critical
Globalisation Studies , Egypt and the Failure of Realism, Issue 4
Clearly regional

stability is the key rhetorical trope, which justified turning a blind eye to the brutality

of Mubaraks regime and the lack of democracy in Egypt. Perhaps no issue is more important in defining what regional stability means for the US than the issue of Israeli security. Binyamin Netanyahu clearly exerted pressure on the US, trying to limit the support they gave to democratic reforms in Egypt. The prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, reportedly ordered his cabinet to refrain from commenting publicly on the unfolding drama, saying only that the treaty must be maintained. But as Haaretz reported today, the government is seeking to convince the US and EU to curb their criticism of Hosni Mubarak to preserve stability in the region, even as Washington and its allies signal their wish for an orderly transition which the incumbent almost certainly cannot ignore. (Black, 2011) Despite

the homilies on human rights and democratic freedom delivered by Mr Obama to the Egyptians (Wilson and Warrick, 2011), it was a predictable set of concerns that set the agenda for the US response to the revolution taking place in Cairo and throughout Egypt the imperative was to maintain order, control those changes that proved

inevitable and ensure that the political and economic interests of dominant states were preserved.
The representative for the US State Department, PJ Crowley, who was interviewed by Al Jazeera (US urges reform in Egypt, 2011), performed a practiced dance to the theme of restraint, gradual reform and false equivalencies as if protesters and the agents of Mubaraks coercive apparatus could be compared2 as he made clear that the suffering of the Egyptian people and their desire for democracy would not undermine US support for the Mubarak regime. We respect what Egypt contributes to the region. It is a stabilising force; it has made its own peace with Israel and is pursuing normal relations with Israel. We think thats important; we think thats a model that the region should adopt broadly speaking. At the same time, we recognise that Egypt, Tunisia, other countries, do need to reform, they do need to respond to the needs of their people and we encourage that reform and we are contributing across the region to that reform. (US urges reform in Egypt , 2011) This

File Title- Tournament 10

routine, we can assume, was an

exercise in managing expectations and making US interests clear democratic revolution should not be allowed to upset regional stability, nor should the suffering of the protestors be allowed to cloud our judgment on what really matters or, more bluntly, if democratic dreams threatened the interests of the US, then so much the worse for those beautiful revolutionary dreams. As Tony Blair joined the discussion
he not only underlined Bidens scepticism regarding whether Mubarak was a dictator, claiming he was immensely courageous and a force for good (McGreal, 2011), but he also clearly articulated the managerial worldview of a man who has learned to think of himself as a member of a privileged group of cleareyed realists whose responsibility it is to control all the things of world politics. Blair

argued that the region has unique problems that make political change different from the democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe. He said the principal issue was the presence of Islamist parties that he fears will use democracy to gain power and then undermine the freedoms people seek... Blair said he did not doubt that change was coming to Egypt. People want a different system of government. Theyre going to get it. The question
is what emerges from that. In particular I think the key challenge for us is how do we help partner this process of change and help manage it in such a way that what comes out of it is open minded, fair, democratic government. (McGreal, 2011) Not

only does this response implicitly trade in the notion that Arab countries will not be able to handle democracy without Western tutelage, it also trades in a

degraded notion of realism, in which serious men act as if their apologia for imperial arrogance is sagacious wisdom gleaned from long experience. The Egyptian protestors will be allowed their democracy, but their democracy will be managed and defined by the powerful, so as not to disturb the order of things or run afoul of the realities of world politics. Yet this statist and status quo line is actually divorced from reality, or at least the reality of the protesters battling their corrupt leaders in the streets of Cairo, Alexandria and cities throughout Egypt it reflects the reality of dominance. Realism, as Western leaders express it, is little more
than an attempt to limit the happenings of world politics to their own constrained vision, a myopic self-interest that fails to take the measure of the cruelty it justifies or realise its own analytical failings.

Contention 3: Solvency The Obama administration must clearly encourage internet and communication technology to the Syrian people. Urgent need to increase Syrian access to technology. York 11 (Jillian York, Director of International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, September 26, 2011, Stop the Piecemeal: Obama Administration Should Fully Free
Communications Tech Exports to Syria (& Companies Should Help) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/09/stop-the-piecemeal-export-approach
But the story doesnt end there. Restrictions from the Department of Commerces Bureau of Industry

and Security (BIS) still appear to prevent communications tools and services from being exported to Syrians without a license. We think that because of these restrictions, Syrians still cannot access Google products Chrome and Earth, cannot download Java, among various other tools, and cannot use hosting services like Rackspace, SuperGreenHosting and others. So the Treasury Departments OFAC is out of the way, but the Commerce Departments BIS restrictions remain, meaning that companies are still blocking certain communications tools from getting to Syrians. And until the government
These sorts of export restrictions are overbroad and contain elements which have no effect on the Syrian
makes the bigger step of stopping the piecemeal nature of their relaxation of restrictions, well have the same problems weve long complained about.

regime, while preventing Syrian citizens from accessing a wealth of tools that are available to their activist counterparts in neighboring countries and around the world. Furthermore, the penalties that result in violations of the regulations can be severe, so amidst confusing regulations, companies appear to be implementing broad restrictions on their services rather than run any risk. This happened recently when the open-source platform SourceForge blocked the IP addresses of users in

File Title- Tournament 11 five sanctioned countries. What Needs to Happen Two things ought to be done here, as soon as possible. First, and most importantly, the government -- the whole government -- should remove the license requirements and restrictions for communications technologies used by democracy activists . In the short term this should happen for Syria, in light of the ongoing struggle there. In the longer term, its time for the
U.S. to stop this piecemeal approach and affirmatively allow unlicensed distribution of communications tools and services to people in all countries of the world. Second, companies hesitant about allowing Syrians to use communications tools and services should take the simple steps necessary to seek a BIS license. While we don't think that such licenses should be required, the process is in fact quite simple, and frankly, the Syrians cannot wait. A company that wishes to export to Syria can file an online application with the Commerce Departments Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) for a license, which then should be resolved within 90 days. While registration is required before applying, any company that has ever gotten an export license before is likely already registered. Alternatively, companies may also request interpretative guidance as to whether or not they require a license from BIS, which takes only 30 days. EFF Wants to Help Given

the situation

on the ground in Syria, we need to focus there first. We reiterate our call for the Obama administration to affirmatively make clear throughout its various agencies that providing digital communications and information tools to citizens around the world, especially those under repressive governments, is not only legal, but encouraged. And in the meantime, we challenge those companies who are
concerned about the BIS restrictions to take the simple steps necessary to apply for a license. In fact, we think this is so important that EFF would be willing to help a company that wants to take these steps but doesnt have the resources to do it.

The Arab Revolutions has proven the transformative power of social media to radically reconfigure politics: citizen empowerment can governments from going to war, but we must be on the right side of this historical moment in ICT to shift societal values. Camatsos 12 (Stratis G. Camatsos, Legal Affairs Analyst, Internet finds voice as citizens cry freedom,
January 5, 2012, http://www.stopcartel.net/2012/01/05/POLITICS/Internet_finds_voice_as_citizens_cry_freedom/1004.ht ml)
December 2010: Mohamed Bouazizi proclaimed that there was police corruption and ill treatment in Tunisia. This sparked

revolutions well into 2011 in Tunisia and Egypt, a civil war in Libya resulting in the fall of its government; civil uprisings in Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen, major protests in Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, and Oman, and less in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. The parallels between all
three of these iconic uprisings are that the protests have shared techniques of civil response in sustained campaigns involving strikes, demonstrations, marches and rallies. All of them were based on a common ideal or symbol that led the way for organisation. All were themselves the epitome of the principle of freedom of expression. The differences between the three rest with the tools used to mobilise and organise. As the former two were based on word of mouth and media such as newspapers and TV, the

latter one saw the largest uprising to have used the social media to communicate and raise awareness in the face of state attempts at repression and Internet censorship . It was truly a behemothic moment for the internet, as its potential was finally reached. The internet has become a wave of untamed power that still has not revealed its full force. And, as people have increasingly turned to the internet to conduct important aspects of their lives, the fundamental principle of freedom of expression with Internet censorship have become ever so delicately intertwined. The line of respecting one's right to express oneself online and government censorship has become blurred on the cyberworld battleground. However, as Jusice John Paul Stevens once said: The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship . Activists are no longer only fighting for human rights on the ground, but now also online. Internet freedom goes beyond fighting for only a platform to freely express, practice one's faith, or peacefully assemble, but the benefits of the network itself grow as the number of users online grow. More and more now, governments are increasing their efforts to help and promote internet freedom throughout the world, but especially in regions where cyber dissidents and bloggers are being suppressed and persecuted.
Take a look at Russia, where prominent anti-corruption blogger Alexei Navalny was jailed for 15 days after taking part in anti-government protests over ballotstuffing and other irregularities in the parliamentary elections. The United States' stance on this issue was echoed by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton at a Conference on Internet Freedom when she said: It is a most urgent [task] for those...who are blocked from accessing entire categories of internet content, or who are being tracked by governments seeking to keep them from connecting with one another...in ways that distance and cost made impossible just a generation ago. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour Daniel Baer told New Europe: The US has been committed to supporting people who are having their rights limited in difficult places around the world. By the end of this year, we will have invested more than $70 million worth

File Title- Tournament 12

of grants funding, to help support these people in order to be able to exercise their fundamental rights online. This includes technologies and cyber-defense training which is training online activists to know the risks when using the internet, and cutting-edge research. Repressive regimes, like Syria and Iran, are coming up with new ways to clamp down and target people. So we are coming up with new tools to be ready to support people on the ground. The EU is also investing heavily in this area focusing on helping people organise, mobilise, and exercise their rights online. It has pushed for the 'No Disconnect' strategy, which outlines what is needed to help cyber-activists bypass restrictions on their freedom to communicate, including the tools and technology needed to shield them from indiscriminate surveillance. Both the US and the EU have also shift the onus of responsibility on the technology companies to be transparent about equipment they were selling to governments who might use it to repress their citizens. Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes said: If technology is used by certain repressive governments to identify innocent citizens and put their life or freedom in danger, we ought to know. The citizen Thus, with such a possibility tingling the senses, governments

see that to encourage a movement of magnitudes that could even minimise declaring wars in the sake of democracy is the empowerment of the citizen, which will eventually lead to social justice and democratic rule. The ability of people to manage their lives, to recognize and meet their needs, and to fulfil their potential as creative, responsible and productive members of society to the extent compatible with the empowerment of others is the ultimate goal, and citizens have seen the power of the Internet to help them achieve this state. This is the very reason why
the EU and US have been spending money in trying to make the Internet free in repressive locations, which will use the citizens to instil democratic ideals and empower the people to demand for change. As Aristotle emphatically wrote, the

underlying principle of democracy is freedom , since only in a democracy the citizens can have a share in freedom. In essence, that this is what every democracy should make its aim, and since everyone is equal according to number, not merit, people should be able to live as they please, under the very notion that one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn. As he made clear, ...in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign . It is through the Internet that citizens have grasped Aristotles words so effectively. Thus, the Internet is currently on a trajectory of salvation. Although there are still paths for the Internet that lead to emptiness, the users have found a way to band together, through new technologies and models that are used to connect to one another in a meaningful way. Even governments have seen that the users have become ubiquitous and they themselves are the tools to take the Internet into a different path than it was originally projected. Ideas and ideals are now being formulated, discussed and defended online; there are no social barriers. The users have created online social structures that are being formed to provide solutions with creativity and through true collaboration. This trajectory will continue in the years but with greater force . The scope of it will widen, bringing unprecedented change to our way of lives. With upcoming presidential/prime ministerial elections, the Internet will provide a platform to influence our political outlook in the years to come through a steady stream of information; this may mean an increase in online organised and mobilised revolts. Due to the potential that both sides see in the Internet, it will become the new crude oil. A war will wage against the technology companies and repressive governments against online activists and supportive governments. The fight will be for control versus freedom, as citizens of the majority and the poor will fight to hold the line between protection fundamental rights online and violating them.
A friend told me that I was extremely fortunate to be able to share my thoughts and speak out without being restricted from any outside forces. Man's creative instinct yearns to break the chains of restriction on his very core of being. Many

of us have been given a key to unlock and free thyself from

these chains, and that is why my voice have joined millions of others online speaking for those who

have not yet been given a key so that our voice together will become sovereign .

This is the most important structural impact - collapse of the communicative sphere causes extinction Habermas 84 (Jurgen, Doctorate in Philosophy, at University of Gttingen, University of Zrich, University of Bonn; Graduate studies in
philosophy at Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt am Main Institute for Social Research and habilitation in political science at the University of Marburg; earned "extraordinary professor" of philosophy at the University of Heidelberg; chair in philosophy and sociology at Frankfurt University; Director of the Max Planck Institute in Starnberg; directorship of the Institute for Social Research; Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, which is the highest honour awarded in German research; Permanent Visiting" Professor at Northwestern University and "Theodor Heuss Professor" at The New School, New York; The Prince of Asturias Award in Social Sciences of 2003; 2004 Kyoto Laureate in the Arts and Philosophy section; 2005 Holberg International Memorial Prize; in 2007 the 7th most-cited author in the humanities including the social sciences by The Times Higher Education Guide; Theory of Communicative Action, p. 397)

File Title- Tournament 13

of its members and that this coordination has to be established through communicationand in certain central spheres through communication aimed at reaching agreementthen the reproduction of the species also requires satisfying the conditions of a
If we assume that the

human species maintains itself through the socially coordinated activities

rationality that is inherent in communicative action. These conditions have become perceptible in the modern period with the decentration of our understanding of the world and the
the same time, to the degree that the normative integration of everyday life is loosened up,

differentiation of various universal validity claims.

the concept of self-preservation takes

To the extent that religious-metaphysical world-views lose their credibility, the concept of self-preservation changes, but not only in the respect emphasized by Blumenberg. It does, as he argues, lose its teleological alignment with objective ends, so that a self-preservation that has become absolute can move up to the rank of an ultimate end for cognition and success-oriented action. At

a direction that is at once universalistic and individualistic. A process of self-preservation that has to satisfy the rationality conditions of communicative action becomes dependent on the integrative accomplishments of subjects who coordinate their action via criticizable validity claims. Thus, what is characteristic of the position of modern
consciousness is less the unity of self-preservation and self-con-sciousness than the relation expressed in bourgeois philosophy of history and society: The social-life context reproduces itself both through the media-controlled purposive-rational actions of its members and through the common will anchored in the communicative practice of all individuals.91 that is

A subjectivity

characterized by communicative reason resists the denaturing of the self for the sake of self-preservation . Unlike communicative reason cannot be subsumed without resistance under a blind self-preservation. It refers neither to a subject that preserves itself in relating to objects via representation and action, nor to a self-maintaining system that demarcates itself from an environment, but to a symbolically structured lifeworld that
instrumental reason,

constituted in the interpretive accomplishments of its members and only reproduced through communication. Thus communicative reason does not simply encounter ready-made subjects and systems; rather, it takes part in structuring what is to be preserved. The Utopian perspective of reconciliation and freedom is ingrained in the conditions for the communicative sociation of individuals; it is built into the linguistic mechanism of the reproduction of the
is species.

Policymakers should challenge established political mechanisms and tactically respond to callings for justice this role of the ballot creates more agonistic democratic planning. Metzger 11 (Metzger J, 2011, "Neither revolution, nor resignation: (re)democratizing contemporary
planning praxis: a commentary on Allmendinger and Haughton's "Spatial planning, devolution, and new planning spaces"" Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 29(2))
The above injunctions must not be shrugged off as philosophical musings, for, if

we reject the defeatist position and see the policy

practitioner as vested with both a capacity and perhaps a duty to make a difference to how policy formulation and implementation play out in practice, we will often be able to identify a certain `margin of manoeuver' for policy practitioners (cf Callon, 1986), within which they actually have a real possibility to challenge established mechanisms and to tactically act in ways that facilitate the development of alternative types of planning methods and ways of going about. Thus, if we take our cue from Healey (2010, page 19) and choose to see the ``twenty-first century `planning project''' as not only a set of expert skills, a techne, but also as a calling for justice, an ethos, it becomes a crucial task for planning scholars to proceed to attempt to define some of the potential content of this callingfor how this calling is articulated will decide how it is responded to: how it engenders respons(e)i bility among planners and policy practitioners. (1) As Allmendinger and Haughton's paper shows us, a reinvigorated discussion on the transparency and accountability of planning decisions should form a pivotal point for such emergent discussions, and perhaps will also contribute to a widening of interest in the democratic merits of strife and conflict, not only in spatial planning and other policy theory, but also in practice. This might play out as a renewed interest in the facilitation of `court' institutions within planning processesthat is, the
provision of spaces where policy decisions might be challenged, but will hopefully also entail experimentation with new methods to accommodate fruitfully dissensus already at

an early stage within the planning process where the `opening out' of issues through the articulation of

File Title- Tournament 14

opposing value systems might take place (cf Brand and Gaffikin, 2007; Metzger, 2011; Oosterlynck and Swyngedouw, 2010). Possibly, it could also entail a renewed interest in a rediscovery and reworking of advocacy planning theory to put it more in tune

with the demands of contemporary society and the present challenge of confronting neocorporatist governance structures in which spatial planning is reduced to little else than pseudodemocratic window dressing of dominant corporatist interests.