Dulles 1nc:

The war on drugs is the definition of epic fail– those who are under US influence are
subjected to a new form of slavery and oppression in which their lives are controlled, all
in the name of ‘safety.’ It’s also no coincidence that the vast majority of those
subjugated by this whiteness are minorities.
Drug Policy Alliance 2k1 . "The U.S. War on Drugs: Political Economics of a New Slavery."
Drug Policy Alliance. Aug. 2001. Web. 10 Feb. 2011.
<http://www.drugpolicy.org/about/position/race_paper_econ.cfm>.

The U.S. "war on drugs" is big business -- a multi-billion dollar public/private venture that radically inflates
the value of illegal drugs and is used to criminalize the poorest people of color, trapping them in a vicious
cycle of addiction, unemployment and incarceration: * $27 billion for interdiction and law enforcement,
$1.3 billion for Plan Colombia in 2000. * $9.4 billion in 2000 to imprison close to 500,000 people convicted
of non-violent drug offenses, 75% of whom are Black. * $80 to $100 billion in lost earnings. * Untold billions in homeless
shelters, healthcare, chemical dependency and psychiatric treatment, etc. It is rarely acknowledged that Black women are the fastest
growing segment of the prison population and that Native American prisoners are the largest group per capita.(1) Approximately five
million people -- including those on probation and parole -- are directly under the surveillance of the criminal justice system. To
deliver up bodies destined for profitable punishment, the political economy of prisons relies on racist practices in arrest, conviction,
and sentencing patterns. Black and brown bodies are the human raw material in a vast experiment to conceal
the major social problems of our time. The racialized demographics of the victims of the "war on drugs"
will not surprise anyone familiar with the symbiotic relationship between poverty and institutionalized
white supremacy. Economic inequality and political disenfranchisement have been inextricably intertwined
since the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. The racist enforcement of the drug laws is just the latest strategy to
sustain the status quo. As political economist John Flateau graphically puts it: "Metaphorically, the criminal justice pipeline is
like a slave ship, transporting human cargo along interstate triangular trade routes from Black and Brown communities; through the
middle passage of police precincts, holding pens, detention centers and courtrooms; to downstate jails or upstate prisons; back to
communities as unrehabilitated escapees; and back to prison or jail in a vicious recidivist cycle."(2) From Plantation to Prisons: Where
Does the Money Go According to the United Nations International Drug Control Program, the international illicit drug business
generates as much as $400 billion in trade annually. Profits of this magnitude invariably lead to corruption and complicity at the
highest levels. Yet the so-called war on this illegal trade targets economically disadvantaged ethnic minorities
and indigenous people in the U.S., Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Myanmar, Laos,
Thailand and Vietnam. Putting aside the question of legality, there is no evidence of a "trickle-down
effect." These substantial profits are not enriching the low level players who constitute the vast majority of
drug offenders. To the contrary, the black market drug economy undermines non-drug-related businesses
and limits the employability of its participants. Discussing the "legal apartheid" that keeps the developing
world poor, Peruvian economist, Fernando De Soto observes that "[t]he poor live outside the law . . .
because living within the law is impossible: corrupt legal systems and warped rules force those at the
bottom of the world economy to spend years leaping absurd hurdles to do things by the book."(3) "In a
criminalized economy, the risk of imprisonment is almost 'a form of business license tax.'" (4) Who is
profiting In the United States, prison architects and contractors, corrections personnel, policy makers and
academics, and the thousands of corporate vendors who peddle their wares at the annual trade-show of the American Corrections Association - hawking everything from toothbrushes and socks to barbed-wire fences and shackles. And multi-national
corporations that win tax subsidies, incentives and abatements from local governments -- robbing the public coffers and depriving communities of the kind of quality education, roads, health care and infrastructure that provide genuine incentives for legitimate
business. The sale of tax-exempt bonds to underwrite prison construction is now estimated at $2.3 billion annually.(5) Last year, the Wackenhut Corrections Corporation - which manages or owns 37 prisons in the U.S., 18 in the U.K and Australia and has one under
contract in South Africa -- tried to convert a former slave plantation in North Carolina into a maximum security prison to warehouse mostly Black prisoners from the nation's capital. Promising investors to keep the prison cells filled these corporations dispatch "bed-
brokers" in search of prisoners - evoking images of 19th century bounty-hunters capturing runaway slaves and forcibly returning them to the cotton fields. Corporations that appear to be far removed from the business of punishment are intimately involved in the
expansion of the prison industrial complex. Prison construction bonds are one of the many sources of profitable investment for leading financiers such as Merrill Lynch. MCI charges prisoners and their families outrageous prices for the precious telephone calls which
are often the only contact inmates have with the free world. Many corporations whose products we consume on a daily basis have learned that prison labor power can be as profitable as third world labor power exploited by U.S.-based global corporations. Both
relegate formerly unionized workers to joblessness, many of which wind up in prison. Some of the companies that use prison labor are IBM, Motorola, Compaq, Texas Instruments, Honeywell, Microsoft, and Boeing. But it is not only the hi-tech industries that reap the
profits of prison labor. Nordstrom department stores sell jeans that are marketed as "Prison Blues," as well as t-shirts and jackets made in Oregon prisons.(7) Racism & Poverty: The Free Market and Prison Economies Today there are over 2 million people incarcerated
in the United States. Studies demonstrated that two-thirds of state prisoners had less than a high school education and 1/3 were unemployed at the time of arrest. Over the past decade states have financed prison construction at the expense of investment in higher
education. At the same time, access to education in prison has been severely curtailed. Officially, 8.3% of working-age Blacks in the U.S. are unemployed(9) but taking into account the "incarceration effect," the rate is significantly higher.(10) Research confirms the
obvious - the positive relationship between joblessness or low wages and recidivism. The stigma of prison has been codified in laws and licensing regulations that bar people with criminal records from countless jobs and opportunities, effectively excluding them from
the legitimate workforce and forcing them into illegal ventures. As economists Western and Petit point out, "[T]he penal system can be viewed as a type of labor market institution that systematically influence's men's employment . . .[and has a] pervasive

(11) Like slavery, the focused machinery of the "war on drugs" fractures families,
influence . . . on the life chances of disadvantaged minorities."

as it destroys individual lives and destabilizes whole communities. It targets Native Americans living on or near
reservations and urban minority neighborhoods, depressing incomes and repelling investment. "The lost potential earnings, savings,
consumer demand, and human and social capital . . . cost black communities untold millions of dollars in potential economic
development, worsening an inner-city political economy already crippled by decades of capital flight and de-industrialization." (12)
The Case for Racial and Economic Justice This reality is not the result of unintended consequence from otherwise
well-reasoned policies. It is the logical, inevitable consequence of " tough-on-crime" laws and punitive
sentencing polices that elected leaders and public officials embrace to avoid addressing the pressing social problems caused by
institutionalized racism and political and economic exclusion. By incarcerating high proportions of low income Black, Latino and
Native American residents and maintaining surveillance over them for even longer periods of time, the "war on drugs" and its
criminal justice apparatus perpetuate a social segregation policy that intentionally isolates historically
disadvantaged racial and ethnic minorities and communities, ensuring a capital divestment policy that
builds neither social capital nor economic infrastructure. According to the United States Department of State's 2000
report to the United Nations Commission on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), "discrimination in the criminal justice
system" is a "principal causative factor" hindering progress toward ending racial discrimination in [U.S.] society. If the United States
 then the "war on drugs" and the prison industrial
takes seriously its mandates of equality and peace with justice,
complex must be dismantled and reparation made for the devastation they have wrought. Decimated
communities must be rebuilt and enriched and barriers torn down in order to guarantee Blacks and other ethnic minorities a fair
playing field. Only then can the United States begin to acknowledge responsibility for the damning impact of
slavery and its perpetuation through the institutionalization of racism and poverty.

Whiteness structures how we view reality, and what kinds of politics are viable so as to
naturalize domination and close off emancipatory realities.
Peter Mclaren, prof of education at U of California and sunglasses-wielding bad ass, and
Rudolfo Torres, Professor of Planning, Policy, and Design, Chicano/Latino Studies, and
Political Science. 1999. P. 49-50. “Racism and Multicultural Education: Rethinking ‘Race’
and ‘Whiteness’. “Critical Multiculturalism”. Edited by Stephen May.
To this end, rather than stressing the importance of diversity and inclusion, as do most
multiculturalists, we think that significantly more emphasis should be placed on the
social and political construction of white supremacy and the dispensation of white
hegemony. The reality-distortion field known as ‘whiteness’ needs to be identified as a
cultural disposition and ideology linked to specific political, social, and historical
arrangements. As Matt Wray and Annalee Newitz, editors of White Trash: Race and Class
in America, put it: It has been the invisibility (for Whites) of whiteness that has enabled
white Americans to stand as unmarked, normative bodies and social selves, thestandard
against which all others are judged (and found wanting). As such, the invisibility of
whiteness is an enabling condition for both white supremacy/privilege and race-based
prejudice. Making whiteness visible toWhites—exposing the discourses, the social and
cultural practices, and the material conditions that cloak whiteness and hide its
dominating effects— is a necessary part of any antiracist project. (1997, pp. 3–4) The concept
of whiteness became lodged in the discursive crucible of colonial identity by the early 1860s. Whiteness at that time had become a marker for measuring inferior
and superior ‘races’. Interestingly, Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, and Confucius were at this time considered as ‘white’. Blackness was evaluated positively in
European iconography from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries, but after the seventeenth century and the rise of European colonialism, blackness became
conveniently linked to inferiority (Cashmore, 1996). For instance, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, blood purity (limpieza de sangre) became raised
to a metaphysical—perhaps even sacerdotal—status, as it became a principle used to peripheralize Indians, Moors, and Jews. Blackness was not immediately
associated with slavery. In the United States, the humanistic image of Africans created by the abolitionist movement was soon countered by new types of racial
signification in which white skin was identified with racial superiority. Poor Europeans were sometimes indentured and were in some sense de facto slaves. They
occupied the same economic categories as African slaves and were held in equal contempt by the lords of the plantation and legislatures. So poor Europeans were
invited to align themselves with the plantocracy as ‘white’ in order to avoid the most severe forms of bondage. This strategy helped plantation owners form a
stronger social control apparatus as hegemony was achieved by offering ‘race privileges’ to poor Whites as acknowledgment of their loyalty to the colonial land
(Cashmore, 1996). By the early twentieth century, European maritime empires controlled over half of the land (72 million square kilometres) and a third of the
Africans died during the centuries- long transatlantic
world’s population (560 million people). Seventy-five million

slave trade (West, 1993). The logics of empire are still with us, bound to the cultural
fabric of our daily being-in-the-world; woven into our posture towards others; structured
into the language of our perceptions. We cannot will our racist logics away. We need to
work hard to eradicate them. We need to struggle with a formidable resolve in order to
overcome that which we are afraid to confirm exists, let alone confront, in the
battleground of our souls. George Lipsitz argues that understanding the destructive quality of white identity requires what Walter Benjamin
termed ‘presence of mind’ or ‘an abstract of the future, and precise awareness of the present moment more decisive than foreknowledge of the most distant events’
(1995, p. 370). Noting that ‘race’ is not merely a ‘cultural construct’ but a construct that has ‘sinister structural causes and consequences’, Lipsitz argues that from
there have existed systematic efforts ‘to create a possessive investment
colonial times to the present

in whiteness for European Americans’. Identifying what he calls a new form of racism
embedded in ‘the putatively race-neutral liberal social democratic reforms of the past
five decades’ (1995, p. 371), Lipsitz asserts that the possessive investment in whiteness
can be seen in legacies of socialization bequeathed to United States’ citizens by federal,
state, and local policies toward African-Americans, Native Americans, Mexican
Americans, Asian Americans, and other groups designated by Whites as ‘racially other’.In
her article, ‘Whiteness as property’, Cheryl Harris (1993) makes the compelling case that
within the legal system and within popular reasoning, there exists an assumption that
whiteness is a property interest entitled to legal protection. Whiteness as property is essentially the reification in
law of expectations of white privilege. Not only has this assumption been supported by systematic white supremacy through the laws of slavery and ‘Jim Crow’ but
also by recent decisions and rationales of the US Supreme Court concerning affirmative action. Harris is correct in arguing that whiteness serves as the basis of
white ‘racial’ identity provides the basis for allocating societal benefits in
racialized privilege in which

both public and private spheres. Whiteness as a property of status continues to assist in the reproduction of the existing system of racial
classification and stratification in the US that protects the socially entrenched white power elite. For example, rejecting race-conscious remedial measures as
unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is, according to Harris, ‘based on the [US Supreme] Court’s chronic refusal to
dismantle the institutional protection of benefits for Whites that have been based on white supremacy and maintained at the expense of Blacks’ (1993, p. 1767).
Current legal definitions of ‘race’ embrace the norm of colourblindness and thus
disconnect ‘race’ from social identity. Within the discourse of colourblindness, blackness
and whiteness are seen as neutral and apolitical descriptions reflecting skin colour, and
unrelated to social conditions of domination and subordination and to social attributes
such as class, culture, language, and education. In other words, colourblindness is a
concept that symmetrizes relations of power and privilege and flattens them out so that
they appear equivalent. But blackness and whiteness exist symmetrically only as
idealized oppositions; in the real world they exist as a dependent hierarchy, with
whiteness constraining the social power of blackness. According to Harris: To define race
reductively as simply colour, and therefore meaningless is as subordinating as defining
race to be scientifically determinative of inherent deficiency. The old definition creates a
false linkage between race and inferiority; the new definition denies the real linkage
between race and oppression under systematic white supremacy. Distorting and denying
reality, both definitions support race subordination. As Neil Gotanda has argued,
colourblindness is a form of race subordination in that it denies the historical context of
white domination and black subordination. (1993, p. 1768) Likewise, Alcoff writes: ‘For
Whites and others who benefit in the present from a history of oppression, the appeal of
universal racelessness may also he in its ability to deface their/our race-based
connections with that unpleasant past: in other words, it may entitle Whites to believe
they/we don’t need to acknowledge the salience of white identity and thus to avoid the
moral discomfort that that identity cannot help but present’ (1996, p. 10). Affirmation action (positive
discrimination) thus needs to be understood not through privatizing social inequality through claims of bipolar corrective justice between black and white
competitors but rather as an issue of distributive social justice and rights that focuses not on guilt or innocence but on entitlement and fairness. Because racism and
‘race’ hierarchies are virtually ignored in discussions of multiculturalism in the US, the educational left has largely failed to address the issue of whiteness and the
insecurities that young Whites harbour regarding their future during times of diminishing economic expectations. With their ‘racially coded and divisive rhetoric’,
neo-conservatives may be able to enjoy tremendous success in helping insecure young white populations develop white identity along racist lines while at the same
time appealing to a universal racelessness. Consider the comments by David Stowe who writes: The only people nowadays who profess any kind of loyalty to
whiteness qua whiteness (as opposed to whiteness as an incidental feature of some more specific identity) are Christian Identity types and Aryan Nation diehards.
Anecdotal surveys reveal that few white Americans mention whiteness as a quality that they think much about or particularly value. In their day-to-day cultural
preferences—food, music, clothing, sports, hairstyles—the great majority of American Whites display no particular attachment to white things. There does seem to
be a kind of emptiness at the core of whiteness. (1996, p. 74) People don’t discriminate against groups because they are different but rather the act of
discrimination constructs categories of difference that hierarchically locates people as ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’ and then universalizes and naturalizes such differences.
cultural
When we refer to whiteness or to the cultural logics of whiteness, we need to qualify what we mean. Here we adopt Ruth Frankenberg’s injunction that

practices considered to be white need to be seen as contingent, historically produced,

and transformable. White culture is not monolithic and its borders must be understood as
malleable and porous. It is the historically specific confluence of economic, geopolitical,
and ethnocultural processes. According to Alastair Bonnett, whiteness is neither a
discrete entity nor a fixed, asocial category. Rather, it is an ‘immutable social
construction’ (1996, p. 98). White identity is an ensemble of discourses, contrapuntal
and contradictory. Whiteness —and the meanings attributed to it—are always in a state
of flux and fibrillation.Bonnett notes that ‘even if one ignores the transgressive youth or ethnic borderlands of western identities, and focuses on
the “centre” or “heartlands” of “whiteness”, one will discover racialized subjectivities, that, far from being settled and confident, exhibit a constantly reformulated
white culture
panic over the meaning of “whiteness” and the defining presence of “non-whiteness” within it’ (1996, p. 106). According to Frankenberg,

is a material and discursive space that:is inflected by nationhood, such that whiteness
and Americanness, though by no means coterminous, are profoundly shaped by one
another.... Similarly, whiteness, masculinity, and femininity are co-producers of on
another, in ways that are, in their turn, crosscut by class and by the histories of racism
and colonialism. (1993, p. 233)Whiteness needs to be seen as cultural, as processual, and not ontologicallydifferent from
processes that are non-white. It works, as Frankenberg notes, as‘an unmarked marker of others’

differentness—whiteness not so much void or formlessness as norm’ (1993, p. 198).

Whiteness functions through social practices of assimilation and cultural
homogenization; whiteness is linked to the expansion of capitalism in the sense that ‘whiteness signifies the production and consumption of
commodities under capitalism’ (1993, p. 203). Yet capitalism in the United States needs to be understood as contingently white, since white people participate in
maintaining the hegemony of institutions and practices of racial dominance in different ways and to greater or lesser degrees. Ruth Frankenberg identifies the key
discursive repertoires of whiteness as follows: [first] modes of naming culture and difference associated with westEuropean colonial expansion; second, elements of
‘essentialist’ racism... linked to European colonialism but also critical as rationale for Anglo Settler colonialism and segregationism in what is now the USA; third,
‘assimilationist’ or later ‘colour- and power-evasive’ strategies for thinking through ‘race’ first articulated in the early decades of this century; and, fourth, ...‘race-
cognizant’ repertoires that emerged in the latter half of the twentieth century and were linked both to US liberation movements and to global struggles for
decolonization. (1993, p. 239)While an entire range of discursive repertoires may come into play, jostling against, superseding, and working in conjunction with each
white identity is constructed in relation to an individual’s personal history,
other,

geopolitical situatedness, contextually specific practices, and his or her location in the
materiality of the so called ‘racial order’. In other words, many factors determine which
discursive configurations are at work and the operational modalities present. Whiteness
has no formal content. It works rhetorically by articulating itself out of the semiotic
detritus of myths of European superiority. These are myths that are ontologically empty,
epistemologically misleading, and morally pernicious in the way that they privilege
descendants of Europeans as the truly civilized in contrast to the quaint, exotic or
barbaric character of non-European cultures. Whiteness is a sociohistorical form of
consciousness, given birth at the nexus of capitalism, colonial rule, and the emergent
relationships among dominant and subordinate groups. Whiteness operates by means of
its condition as a universalizing authority by which the hegemonic white bourgeois
subject appropriates the right to speak on behalf of everyone who is non-white, while
denying voice and agency to these ‘others’ in the name of civilized humankind. Whiteness constitutes and demarcates ideas,
feelings, knowledges, social practices, cultural formations, and systems of intelligibility that are identified with or attributed to white people and which are invested
Whiteness is also a refusal to acknowledge how white people are
in by white people as ‘white’.

implicated in certain social relations of privilege and relations of domination and

subordination. Whiteness, then, can be considered as a form of social amnesia
associated with certain modes of subjectivity within particular social sites considered to
be normative. As a lived domain of meaning, whiteness represents particular social and
historical formations that are reproduced through specific discursive and material
processes and circuits of desire and power. Whiteness can be considered to be a
conflictual sociocultural, sociopolitical, andgeopolitical process that animates
commonsensical practical action in relationship to dominant social practices and
normative ideological productions.Whiteness constitutes the selective tradition of dominant discourses about ‘race’, class, gender and
sexuality hegemonically reproduced. Whiteness has become the substance and limit of our commonsense articulated as cultural consensus. As an ideological
formation transformed into a principle of life, into an ensemble of social relations and practices, whiteness needs to be understood as conjunctural, as a composite
social hieroglyph that shifts in denotative and connotative emphasis, depending upon how its elements are combined and upon the contexts in which it operates.
Whiteness is not a pre-given unified ideological formation but is a multifaceted collective phenomenon resulting from the relationship between the self and the
ideological discourses which are constructed out of the surrounding local and global cultural terrain. Whiteness is fundamentally Euro-or western- centric in its
Whiteness in the United States can be
episteme, as it is articulated in complicity with the pervasively imperializing logic of empire.

understood largely through the social consequences it provides for those who are
considered to be non-white. Such consequences can be seen in the criminal justice
system, in prisons, in schools, and in the board rooms of multinational corporations. It
can be defined in relation to immigration practices and social policies and practices of
sexism, racism, and nationalism. It can be seen historically in widespread acts of
imperialism and genocide and linked to an erotic economy of ‘excess’. Eric Lott writes: In rationalized western societies, becoming ‘white’
and male seems to depend upon the remanding of enjoyment, the body, and aptitude for pleasure. It is the other who is always putatively ‘excessive’ in this respect,
whether through exotic food, strange and noisy music, outlandish bodily exhibitions, or unremitting sexual appetite. Whites in fact organize their own enjoyment
through the other, Slavoj Zizek has written, and access pleasure precisely by fantasizing about the other’s ‘special’ pleasure. Hatred of the other arises from the
necessary hatred of one’s own excess; ascribing this excess to the ‘degraded’ other and indulging it—by imaging, incorporating, or impersonating the other—one
conveniently and surreptitiously takes and disavows pleasure at one and the same time. This is the mixed erotic economy, what Homi Bhabha terms the
‘ambivalence’ of American whiteness. (1993, p. 482)Whiteness is a type of articulatory practice that can be located in the convergence of colonialism, capitalism,
and subject formation. It both fixes and sustains discursive regimes that represent self and ‘other’; that is, whiteness represents a regime of differences that
produces and racializes an abject other. In other words, whiteness is a discursive regime that enables real effects to take place. Whiteness displaces blackness and
brownness—specific forms of non- whiteness—into signifiers of deviance and criminality within social, cultural, cognitive, and political contexts. White subjects
Whiteness
discursively construct identity through producing, naming, ‘bounding’, and marginalizing a range of others (Frankenberg, 1993).

constitutes unmarked (white American male) practices that have negative effects on and
consequences for those who do not participate in them. Inflected by nationhood,
whiteness can be considered an ensemble of discursive practices constantly in the
process of being constructed, negotiated, and changed.Yet it functions to instantiate a
structured exclusion of certain groups from social arenas of normativity. Coco Fusco
remarks:To raise the spectre of racism in the here and now, to suggest that despite their
political beliefs and sexual preferences, white people operate within, and benefit from,
white supremacist social structures is still tantamount to a declaration of war. (1995, p.
76)
This form of whiteness perpetuates constant racism and emerges into biopolitical
managerialism that is the root of all war.
Mendieta ‘2 [Eduardo Mendieta, SUNY at Stony Brook, APA Central Division Meeting, Meeting of the Foucault Circle, “To Make Live
and to Let Die – Foucault on Racism”, April 25, 2002]
This is where racism intervenes, not from without, exogenously, but from within, constitutively. For the emergence of biopower as the
form of a new form of political rationality, entails the inscription within the very logic of the modern state the logic of racism. For
racism grants, and here I am quoting: “the conditions for the acceptability of putting to death
in a society of normalization. Where there is a society of normalization, where there is a power that is, in all of its surface and in first
instance, and first line, a bio-power, racism is indispensable as a condition to be able to put to death someone, in order to be able to
put to death others. The homicidal [meurtrière] function of the state, to the degree that the state functions on the
modality of bio-power, can only be assured by racism “(Foucault 1997, 227) To use the formulations from his 1982
lecture “The Political Technology of Individuals” –which incidentally, echo his 1979 Tanner Lectures –the power of the state after the
18th century, a power which is enacted through the police, and is enacted over the population, is a power over living beings, and as
such it is a biopolitics. And, to quote more directly, “since the population is nothing more than what the
state takes care of for its own sake, of course, the state is entitled to slaughter it, if
necessary. So the reverse of biopolitics is thanatopolitics.” (Foucault 2000, 416). Racism, is the thanatopolitics
of the biopolitics of the total state. They are two sides of one same political technology, one same political
rationality: the management of life, the life of a population, the tending to the continuum of life of a people. And with the
inscription of racism within the state of biopower, the long history of war that Foucault

the war of peoples, a war against invaders,

has been telling in these dazzling lectures has made a new turn:
imperials colonizers, which turned into a war of races, to then turn into a war of
classes, has now turned into the war of a race, a biological unit, against its polluters and threats. Racism
is the means by which bourgeois political power, biopower, re-kindles the fires of war within
civil society. Racism normalizes and medicalizes war. Racism makes war the
permanent condition of society, while at the same time masking its weapons of death
and torture. As I wrote somewhere else, racism banalizes genocide by making quotidian the
lynching of suspect threats to the health of the social body. Racism makes the killing
of the other, of others, an everyday occurrence by internalizing and normalizing the
war of society against its enemies. To protect society entails we be ready to kill its threats, its foes, and if we
understand society as a unity of life, as a continuum of the living, then these threat and foes are biological in nature.

Representations of terror turn into racist forms of discrimination

Bizri 7 (Siwar, Policy Analyst @ SAIC, 11/16/7, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12042007-153628/unrestricted/finalthesis.pdf) JPG
Research shows that the repetitive association of certain words and images with an accompanying idea may result in cognitively associating two otherwise separate
ideas due to constant exposure to this repetition (Abreu et al. 2003, 692; Graber 2007, 28; Lasorsa and Dia 2007, 282; Ramasubramanian 2005, 9; Shaheen 2003,
172; Van Dijk 1995, 261). For example, when violent regions or violence in general is shown
continually accompanying a certain race or ethnic group in the media, the public may
begin to cognitively associate the idea of violence with this group (Downings and Husband 2005, 87;
Mousa 1987, 101). This is similar to the way stereotyping takes place when an idea forms of a particular group that is continually referred
to or discussed in a way conducive to the stereotype (Abraham and Appiah 2006, 190). Stereotypes themselves refer to the wholesale attribution of characteristics
towards all members of a given group, which may be positive or negative, but are typically the latter towards groups other than one’s own (Amodio and Devine
2006, 652. Furthermore, a detrimental element of negative stereotyping is its persistence over time (Garcia-Marques, Santos and Mackie 2006, 814; Shaheen 1985,
161). Existing research has shown that the cognitive processing of news media may occur at a subconscious level (Abreu et al. 2003, 702; Berkowitz 1984, 411;
Devine 2001, 757; Ramasubramanian 2007, 250) including the absorption of stereotypes, otherwise known as automaticity (Lasorsa and Dia 2007, 281). Therefore,
any underlying bias within the media may actually be unnoticeable to the American
public, as well as to the journalists themselves, whom otherwise might eschew any apparent prejudices or stereotypes with which they are confronted (Larson
2006, 2; Ottosen 1995, 100; Van Dijk 1992, 89). The above point makes it necessary to also make clear the level at which the effects of the media occur, whether
individual, group, or societal. This research study, then, attempts to decipher the individual level effects of the media on cognition, which manifests itself in
individual opinion and belief but may become an expression of the larger society (Domke 1997, 5; Graber 2007, 20). Previous
studies have
supported the idea of associations forming from exposure to certain racial/ethnic
triggers such as particular photographs, images or ideas (Abraham and Appiah 2006, 189; Ram Subramanian 2007, 250). In regards to the current study, by
continually referring to a negatively-connotated event, word, idea, or group, the media may influence the formation of
mental associations that link these negative expressions with Arabs and Arab Americans
(Abouchedid and Nasser 2006, 204; Entman 2007, 313; Shaheen 1985, 166). In a case study done by Robert M. Entman, it was found that exactly this was
happening in news media regarding the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980’s (2007, 313). The media maintained an unfavorable frame of the movement, which
indicated that ordinary citizens were not in favor of the nuclear freeze policy when in actuality the majority was. Entman found public opinion and the mental
associations that formed to be contingent upon the unfavorable media framing that was occurring at the time. Moreover, acting elites found themselves less
pressured to act upon the favors of the nuclear freeze movement with the unfavorable media framing helping to reduce the priority of this particular policy on the
 public agenda (Entman 2007, 314). Regarding Arab-Americans, then, unfavorable
media framing may also decrease
any pressure on elites to reduce the negative images of Arabs and Arab-Americans, which in turn could
also delegitimize the importance of this issue in the eyes of the public. In addition to the current maintenance of stereotypical imagery, the combination of negative
media framing and common ethnic schemas of Arabs and Muslims have resulted in a long history of socialization and activation in the American and perhaps,
wider world culture (Cainkar 2006, 259). This is similar to the activation of racial schemas in regards to African Americans which has placed them in an
unfavorable light in reference to particular social issues (Abraham and Appiah 2006, 199; Ramasubramanian 2005, 6). Negative
perceptions
of most ethnic groups, however, has tended to digress from overt forms of racism, such
as institutional practices or claims of inferiority, instead replaced by implicit verbal
and visual associations in the media which activate particular stereotypes maintained within the culture (Van Dijk 1995, 276; 1992, 95).
Explicit forms of racism, usually in the form of negative perceptions towards an entire group, have increasingly become replaced by a more subtle form of racism
towards specific characteristics of an ethnic group (Ramasubramanian 2005, 6; Van Dijk 1992, 90). A negative judgment towards specific actions or characteristics
of a group may be more warranted than blatant forms of racism, therefore are more difficult to label as racist (Van Dijk 1992, 93). In reference to Arabs and
Muslims, the
action of terrorism has become synonymous with this religious/ethnic
group, therefore justifying subtle forms of discrimination and stereotyping (Ottosen 1995, 109). This study, then, will
mainly focus on assumed semantic implications of word associations in the media based on shared ideological and socially shared knowledge (Van Dijk 1995,
270), rather than measure any explicit statements of racial and ethnic schemas.

Our alternative is the rhetorical suicide of whiteness. Whiteness maintains itself through its invisible
replication in elite discourses of policy making. Multicultural integration is a failure- our alternative is
instead to embrace African American Language as an act of rupturing the apolitical nature of whiteness.
We realize there is humor in the disjunction between the way we normally talk and the way we will
articulate our alternative, and that that is part of the point- this disjunction functions to make our subject
position visible, short-circuiting the epistemological basis of whiteness.
George Yancy, Duquesne University. “Geneva Smitherman: The Social Ontology of African-American
Language, the Power of Nommo, and the Dynamics of Resistance and Identity Through Language .”
Journal of Speculative Philosophy 18:4. 2004.
Hence, from the very giddayup, that is, befo I bees gittin into some really dope cultural, historical, philosophical, and linguistic analyses, let’s engage in a lil bit
of naming and claiming. Word! The power of Nommo. Geneva Smitherman (a.k.a. Docta G) is an educational activist, a word warrior,
a language rights fighter, a linguist-activist, and a linguistic democratizer. Can I get a witness? Yeah, that’s
right. She is the legitimizer of African American Language (AAL) (Smitherman 2001, 347). The shonuff sista
from the hood who is cognizant of what it means to be a New World African, to be linked to that shonuff
Black space of talkin and testifyin, stylin and profilin. AAL is the language of her nurture (343). She was,
after all, baptized “in the linguistic fire of Black Folk” (Smitherman 1997, 242). Believe me, for if I’m lyin,
I’m flyin, she knows the source of those deleted copulas (“The coffee cold”), those post-vocalic –r sounds
(“My feet be tied,” not “tired”), redundant past tense markings (“I likeded her,” not “liked”), few consonant
pairs (“Those tesses was hard,” not “tests”), stylizations, and rhetorical devices.
Docta G operates within that unique African American space of performative “languaging,” a space
of agency, contestation, self-definition, poiesis, and hermeneutic combat. She is all up in the cultural
sphere of ashy knees, nappy hair, and how we be actin so saddity. Ah, yes, and she knows about the hot
comb as a cultural artifact of self-hatred, a form of hatred instilled through the power of colonial white
aesthetics. She member where she come from. She got no desire to front. Docta G’s medium is the
message. She avoids what linguist-philosopher John L. Austin refers to as the “descriptive fallacy,” which
involves the assumption that the main function of language is to describe things.
Through the incorporation of AAL flava in her written works (and no doubt in her lectures), Docta G is doing
something with those words and phrases. Her writings, in short, are demonstrative enactments of the
historical, stylistic, political, communicative, cognitive, and social ontological power of African American
Language. Docta G is the lion who has learned how to write, how to narrate a counterhistorical narrative,
and how to recognize and theorize a counterlanguage. A metalinguist, she is a cultural, ethical, and
political theorist.
If push comes to shove, she’ll “choose goodness over grammar” (349). She knows that the politics of
language policy is a larger question of the politics of reality construction, historical structuring of society,
race, class, and Anglo-linguistic imperialism. As such, she moves between both the sociolinguists (who stress social and ethnic language)
and the Cartesian or Chomskyan linguists (who stress “ideally competent” language). She knows that the right to speak AAL is a question of
linguistic freedom, agency, and justice. A womanist, moving within that bold, self-assertive, and we-affirming space of sistas like Angela Davis,
Alice Walker, Patricia Hill Collins, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Tubman, Docta G is responsible, in charge, and serious. She’s no prisoner of the
academy; rather, she is existentially and politically committed to the Black community, its survival, and
the continual actualization of its cultural generative force. Smitherman maintains that a womanist denotes
an “African-American woman who is rooted in the Black community and committed to the development of
herself and the entire community” (Smitherman 1996, 104). African American women, empowered by their
womanist consciousness, were well-aware that white feminists had failed to critique, self-reflexively, the
normativity of their own whiteness. Epistemologically, Black womanists occupied their own subject
positions, positions that did not square with the theorizations of white middle- class women. You dig (Wolof:
dega) what I’m sayin? Can I get an Amen?

Thus, we present the following counterplan text: ma homiez at da murder capital should get dem troopaz
dat be stoppin’ dem narc trades in Afghanistan outta da hood.
Holla and we’ll spell it out what we mean.

Case:

THEY MAKE THE PROBLEM OF ALGAE BLOOMS WORSE – AFTER THE DISEASE POPPY PRODUCTION
REBOUNDED 1.6 TIMES, TURNS CASE
AFP 11. "AFP: High Prices May Spur Afghan Opium Farmers: UN." Google. 20 Jan. 2011.
Web. 10 Feb. 2011.
<http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j0A14xeJqwJ6cxipsB8v3ngXz8Vg
?docId=CNG.92aeb8bdb61f21b28082d7f915770a08.a91>.
VIENNA — More Afghan farmers may be tempted to produce opium after a cut in
production sent prices soaring last year, a UN report warned Thursday. "There is cause
for concern. The market responded to the steep drop in opium production with an
equally dramatic jump in the market price to more than double 2009 levels," Yury
Fedotov, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said on the release of the
2010 Afghanistan Opium Survey. From 2005 to 2009, prices of opium had fallen steadily.
"If this cash bonanza lasts, it could effectively reverse the hard-won gains of recent
years," Fedotov noted. A plant disease that decimated crops in Afghanistan's southern
Helmand and Kandahar provinces, major poppy-growing areas, slashed opium
production last year by half and in turn speculation helped boost prices and production,
the report said. In 2010, the average of opium at harvest time was 169 dollars (125
euros) per kilo, up 164 percent from 64 dollars in 2009, the UNODC said.

AND THEIR OWN AUTHOR DISAGREES WITH THEIR AFF, THEIR GLAZE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT TROOPS
SHOULD BE INCREASED, ALONG WITH THE CN EFFORTS:
The total number of U.S and NATO troops in Afghanistan should be increased to at least 50,000,
which approximately represents a 10,000-soldier increase over the current level, to counter the
growing number of aggressive anti-government elements, particularly in 12 the southern
provinces. Robert Hunter of the RAND Corporation states flatly that “40,000 foreign troops in
Afghanistan are not enough,” and that some provinces have “little or no ISAF presence.”67
These 10,000 additional troops are needed to defeat anti-government forces that have put up
stiff resistance and have co-opted support from local Afghans. Increasing troop levels in
Afghanistan will help provide security needed in the regions with the highest level of conflict and
opium production. NATO countries should supply at least half of the 10,000-soldier increase, and
they need to drop individual national stipulations that limit where and how their troops can be
employed. The ISAF Commander has been asking for more troops, but has thus far received only
lukewarm responses from NATO countries reluctant to get involved in the fighting. Several NATO
countries have refused to send more troops and have imposed rules limiting their forces’
participation in actual combat.68 Due to a lack of troops, especially line units assignable to
combat, the ISAF commander essentially has been forced to abandon portions of southern
Afghanistan to Taliban and insurgent forces. In many areas of Helmand Province, the Taliban
operate freely, and opium cultivation is flourishing. The United States should continue to press
fellow NATO countries to increase troop levels in Afghanistan and eliminate operational
limitations on their use, which impair flexibility and are unfair to their compatriots who must bear
the burdens and hazards of combat.

Terrorists wont get ahold of Pakistan nukes, they have the components split up and safe guards for
protection
Benson 2k3
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/13/nuclear.terrorists/
The author of a book called "Peddling Peril," Albright also worries about whether Pakistan's nuclear
stockpile is secure, despite assurances from both the United States and Pakistan that it is.Pakistan
"has had many leaks from its program of classified information and sensitive nuclear equipment, and
so you have to worry that it could be acquired in Pakistan," Albright said. However the U.S.
intelligence official said there is no indication that terrorists have gotten anything from Pakistan, and
added there is confidence right now in Pakistan's security apparatus. The Pakistanis store their
nuclear stockpile in a way that makes it difficult to put the pieces together; that is, components are
located in different places. The official said Pakistan has put the appropriate safeguards in place.

Extinction is inevitable - several risks - - (this evidence is from scientists

with PhDs who study the risk of extinction, btw).
Sandberg, Matheny, & Ćirković, 08
Anders Sandberg, James Martin Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University - PhD in computational neuroscience from Stockholm University and is
a postdoctoral research assistant for the EU Enhance project. Jason G. Matheny, and Milan M. Ćirković, senior research associate at the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade.
He is also an assistant professor of physics at the University of Novi Sad in Serbia and Montenegro. | 9 September 2008. "How can we reduce the risk of human extinction?"
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/how-can-we-reduce-the-risk-of-human-extinction

Humanity could be extinguished as early as this century by succumbing to natural hazards, such as an extinction-level
asteroid or comet impact, supervolcanic eruption, global methane-hydrate release, or nearby supernova or gamma-
ray burst. (Perhaps the most probable of these hazards, supervolcanism, was discovered only in the last 25 years,
suggesting that other natural hazards may remain unrecognized.) Fortunately the probability of any one of these events killing off our species
is very low—less than one in 100 million per year, given what we know about their past frequency. But as improbable as these events are, measures to reduce their probability can
still be worthwhile. For instance, investments in asteroid detection and deflection technologies cost less, per life saved, than most investments in medicine. While an extinction-
level asteroid impact is very unlikely, its improbability is outweighed by its potential death toll. The risks from anthropogenic hazards appear at present larger than those from
natural ones. Although great progress has been made in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world, humanity is still threatened by the possibility of a global
thermonuclear war and a resulting nuclear winter. We may face even greater risks from emerging technologies. Advances in synthetic biology might make it possible to engineer
pathogens capable of extinction-level pandemics. The knowledge, equipment, and materials needed to engineer pathogens are more accessible than those needed to build nuclear
weapons. And unlike other weapons, pathogens are self-replicating, allowing a small arsenal to become exponentially destructive. Pathogens have been implicated in the
extinctions of many wild species. Although most pandemics “fade out” by reducing the density of susceptible populations, pathogens with wide host ranges in multiple species can
reach even isolated individuals. The intentional or unintentionalrelease of engineered pathogens with high transmissibility, latency, and
lethality might be capable of causing human extinction. While such an event seems unlikely today, the likelihood may increase as biotechnologies
continue to improve at a rate rivaling Moore’s Law. Farther out in time are technologies that remain theoretical but might be developed this century. Molecular
nanotechnology could allow the creation of self-replicating machines capable of destroying the ecosystem. And
advances in neuroscience and computation might enable improvements in cognition that accelerate the
invention of new weapons. A survey at the Oxford conference found that concerns about human extinction were dominated by fears that new technologies would
be misused. These emerging threats are especially challenging as they could become dangerous more quickly than past technologies, outpacing society’s ability to control them. As
H.G. Wells noted, “Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.”

The usa spends millions of dollars safeguarding Pakistani nuclear facilities. No

risk they will get infiltrated.
David sanger 2k7
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/washington/18nuke.html?
pagewanted=print
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 — Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent
almost $100 million on a highly classified program to help Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s
president, secure his country’s nuclear weapons, according to current and former senior
administration officials. But with the future of that country’s leadership in doubt, debate
is intensifying about whether Washington has done enough to help protect the warheads
and laboratories, and whether Pakistan’s reluctance to reveal critical details about its
arsenal has undercut the effectiveness of the continuing security effort. The aid, buried
in secret portions of the federal budget, paid for the training of Pakistani personnel in the
United States and the construction of a nuclear security training center in Pakistan, a
facility that American officials say is no where near completion, even though it was
supposed to be in operation this year. A raft of equipment — from helicopters to night-
vision goggles to nuclear detection equipment — was given to Pakistan to help secure its
nuclear material, its warheads, and the laboratories that were the site of the worst
known case of nuclear proliferation in the atomic age.

Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan are only the start of what has been caused by the
United States exercising a role as the worlds police force. Every time, there is a new
justification. Every time, it is a ‘just war,’ and whenever the legitimacy is lost the US gets
out. This time it’s to stop terrorists from getting nukes. This legitimation causes endless
wars, turns case.
Michael Dillon, Professor of Politics at the University of Lancaster, UK and Julian Reid,
Lecturer in International Relations at Kings College London, UK, and Professor of
International Relations at the University of Lapland, Finland. The Liberal Way of War:
Killing to Make Life Live. 2009. 30-3.
One way of expressing the core problematic that we pursue in this book is, therefore, in
the form of a question posed back to Paine on account of that definitive claim. What
happens to the liberal way of rule and its allied way of war when liberalism goes global in
pursuit of the task of emancipating the species from war, by taking the biohuman as its
referent object of both rule and war? What happens to war, we ask, when a new form of
governmental regime emerges which attempts to make war in defence and promotion of
the entire species as opposed to using war in service of the supposedly limited interests
of sovereigns? For the liberal project of the removal of species life from the domain of
human enmity never in practice entailed an end to war, or to the persistence of threats
requiring war. Paine makes this clear in his original formulation. Under liberal regimes,
Paine observes, war will still be defined by relations between the human and its enemies.
The enemies of the human will simply no longer be ‘its species’ (Paine 1995:595). What
that meant, in practice, was that the liberal way of rule had to decide what elements,
and what expressions, of human life best served the promotion of the species. Those
that did not were precisely those that most threatened it; those upon which it was called
to wage war.
Deciding on what elements and expression of the human both serve and threaten is the
definitive operation by which liberalism constitutes its referent object of war and rule:
that of the biohuman. Whatever resists the constitution of the biohuman is hostile and
dangerous to it, even if it arises within the species itself. Indeed, as we shall show, since
life is now widely defined in terms of continuous emergence and becoming, it is a
continuous becoming-dangerous to itself. The locus of threat and danger under the
liberal way of rule and war progressively moves into the very morphogenic composition
and re-composability of living systems and of living material. The greatest source of
threat to life becomes life. It is very important to emphasize that this discourse of danger is precisely not that which commonly arises in the
political anthropologies of human cupidity of early modern political theory going back classically, for example, to Hobbes and Locke, which was nonetheless still
formulated in a context still circumscribed by the infinity of divine providence, however obscure this was becoming, and however much this obscurity helped fuel the
crisis of their times. The analytics of finitude, rather than the analytics of redemption, circumscribe late modern discourses of governance and danger now, instead.
Biology, one might therefore also say, itself arose as a science of finitude; of the play of species life and death outwith the play of human life and redemption. The
same might very well be said for modern ‘political science’.
Biology does not, of course, recognize cupidity. Cupidity arises in a different, anthro-political, order of things. These days, especially, biology recognizes only the
dynamics of complex adaptive evolutionary emergence and change of living systems, whose very laws of formation it increasingly understands in informational
terms. These, additionally, empower it to re-compose living material according to design rather than nature in order to rectify the infelicities of nature, or, indeed,
pre-empt its expression by positively creating new nature, rather than merely negating existing nature. Pre-emption here is not negative, it is positive. It is not
precaution, so much as creative production. The discourse of danger being elaborated throughout the liberal way of rule and war, in the age of life as information, is
therefore related to the possibility that complex adaptive emergence and change can go acerbic. The possibility of catastrophe lies, immanently, in the very
dynamics of the life process itself. Neither is this a discourse of danger which revolves around traditional othering practices alone, however pervasive and persistent
. This is a discourse of danger which hyperbolicizes fear in relation to
these politically toxic devices remain

the radically contingent outcomes upon which the very liveliness of life itself is now said
to depend.
Biohumanity—itself an expression of the attempt to give concrete form to finitude
politically—is therefore both threat and promise. The corollary is therefore also clear:
enemies of the species must be cast out from the species as such. ‘Just war’ in the cause
of humanity here—a constant liberal trope (Douzinas 2003)—takes a novel turn when the
humanity at issue is biohumanity. For just war has constantly to be waged for
biohumanity against the continuous becoming-dangerous of life itself; and less in the form of the
Machiavellian or Hobbesian Homo lupus than in the form of continuously emergent being, something which also prompts the thought that Foucault’s analytics of
finitude might itself have to be revised to take account of the infinity of becoming which now also characterizes the contemporary ontology of the life sciences.
Since the object is to preserve and promote the biohuman, any such war to end war
becomes war without end; thus turning Walzer’s arguments concerning the justification
of liberal war inside out (Walzer 2000:329–35). The project of removing war from the life
of the species becomes a lethal and, in principle, continuous and unending process. In a
way, as a matter of its biopolitical logic, there is little particularly startling about this
claim. Immanent in the biopoliticization of liberal rule, it is only a matter of where, when
and how it finds expression. As the very composition and dynamics of species life
become the locus of the threat to species life, so the properties of species life offer
themselves in the form of a new kind of promise: war may be removed from the species
should those properties be attended to differently. Consider, for example, Kant’s ‘Idea for
a Universal History’:
if he lives among others of his own species, man is an animal who needs a master…he
requires a master to break his self-will and force him to obey a universally valid will
under which everyone can be free. But where is he to find such a master? Nowhere else but
in the human species.
(Kant 2005:46; emphasis added)
‘Nowhere else but in the human species.’ Here Kant, too, discloses the circumscription of
his reflections by the analytics of finitude.
Put simply, liberalism’s strategic calculus of necessary killing has, then, to be furnished
by the laws and dynamics, the exigencies and contingencies, derived from the properties
of the biohuman itself. Making life live becomes the criterion against which the liberal
way of rule and war must seek to say how much killing is enough. In a massive, quite
literally terrifying, paradox, however, since the biohuman is the threat it cannot, itself,
adjudicate how much self-immolation would be enough to secure itself against itself
without destroying itself. However much the terror of the liberal way of rule and war
currently revolves around the ‘figure’ of Al-Qaeda, the very dispositif of terror which
increasingly circumscribes the life of the biohuman at the beginning of the twenty-first
century is the fear induced by its very own account of life.
No specific manner or form is proper, then, to the biohuman other than this: its
being continuously at work instrumentally reassigning itself in order, it is said,
to survive, but in fact to secure itself against its own vital processes. Within
the compass of this biopolitical imaginary of species existence, the biohuman
becomes the living being to whom all manner of self-securing work must be
assigned. The task thus posed through the liberal way of rule and war by its
referent object of rule and war—the biohuman—is no longer that, classically, of
assigning the human its proper nature with a view to respecting it. The proper
nature of the biohuman has become the infinite re-assignability of the very
pluripotency of which it is now said to be comprised, against the threat of that
very pluripotency itself. This is the strategic goal of the liberal way of war
because it has become the strategic goal of the liberal way of rule. From the
analytics of finitude, politically, has thus arisen an infinity of securitization and
fear.

The Russian mafia isn’t interested in nuclear smuggling (not lucrative, too risky)
Lee, 2000 (Rensselaer Lee is an authority on international crime and narcotics and nuclear security issues. A Stanford Ph.D., he is president of Global
Advisory Services, a McLean, Virginia-based consulting firm, Smuggling Armageddon: The Nuclear Black Market in the Former Soviet Union, 2000, p. 63)

The extent of Russian mafia participation in nuclear materials smuggling is difficult to gauge. Most observers see a limited organized crime presence in the market. In
1994 CIA director Woolsey informed a meeting of Washington’s CSIS that “trading in nuclear weapons and materials is not the primary
or secondary source of business today” for professional underworld groups.41 Most substances offered on the
black market are not weapons-quality, a fact that APPARENTLY indicates a lack of criminal professionalism. “The
people seem to be naïve amateurs,” declared a spokesman for the Federal Counterintelligence Service who was
interviewed by Der Spiegel. “If the mafia were involved it would dig out precisely what is needed for a nuclear bomb.” Furthermore, nuclear
42

smuggling LIKELY entails significant opportunity costs, at least at the low-value end of the business. “Why drag
across multiple frontiers kilograms of uranium that require years of reworking and enrichment and then spend
months looking for a potential buyer?” QUERIES KIRILL BELYANINOV, A LONGTIME OBSERVER OF THE RUSSIAN CRIMINAL
TRENDS. “Why not just SHIP NON-FERROUS METALS OUT OF THE COUNTRY OR make millions from banking
manipulations and ruble-dollar exchange transactions?”43