Inherency

The biopolitical regime is a specific and targeted construction of the

state
Mendieta 02-[Eduardo Prof. & Chair of Philosophy at SUNY at Stony Brook To make live
and to let die Foucault on Racism Meeting of the Foucault Circle APA Central Division
Meeting Chicago, April 25th2002,
http://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/philosophy/people/faculty_pages/docs/foucault.pdf]

The narrative developed by Foucault in these lectures is more fractious and detailed that I am portraying. The canvass that Foucault is panting in these
lectures concerns not just the wars that gave birth to our society, and its novel forms of knowledge, it also concerns something which I find fascinating,
and provocative: the invention of a people. To counter and challenge the power of the invaders, as well as the power of popes and kings, and using the
narratives to unmask their acts of usurpation and tyranny, elements within a social body begin to appeal to the ideas of a people, which then refers to a

the objects
of scientific study are partly constituted by the disciplines that seek to study them.
So, just as psychiatry produces the madman, and sexology the sexual deviant, and
so on, political theory in conjunction with historical discourse, produces a people.
But the discourse of political rationality that emerged since the sixteenth century does not secrete a univocal idea of a people. As the
political rationality of the modern state develops and grows in intensity, as it
augments its claims to power, a people becomes a nation, becomes a population,
becomes a biological phenomenon to be tended by all the sciences at the service of
the state. Analogously to how sexuality became the locus of the production of
control, insofar as it was the pivot of interaction between individuals and their
surrounding social environment, race also became the pivot around which the
biopower state came to exert its claims, so as to be able to produce certain power
effects. What is provocative here is the link that Foucault establishes between the emergence of biopower and the constitution of something that
race, which then refers to a populations, and then is enshrined in the anodyne notion of society. From a Foucauldian perspective,

we have now become accustomed to calling society, by which we in fact mean a population, a people, a particular nation. For Foucault the emergence of
political rationality is directly linked to the constitution of the object over which it must act. And here I am able to foreground one of the central lessons
of these lectures, namely that political theory has to attend to the emergence of political rationality in terms not of its rationality, or claims to reason,
but in terms of its modalities of operation. Behind political rationality does not stand reason, or rather, reason is not the alibi of political rationality;
instead, political rationality has to do with the horizon of its enactment. If we accept that Foucault is a historical nominalist, and he is a nominalist
through and through, in the way that Rorty reads him, and correctly I would argue, then there is no reason behind political power. Political power itself
cannot be mystified. There is no power without the horizon of its enactment and the vehicles of its transmission. This is still a misleading way of
putting. The effects produced by a certain way of organizing the social body, of studying it, of policing it, of taking care of it, of making sure that its
health and protection are attended to in the most detailed and careful ways possible, produce a confrontation of forces, whose momentary stalemates,

The political
rationality of the modern state is above all a rationality grounded in the way it
tends to the life of the population. The power of the biopolitical state is a
regulation of life, a tending, a nurturing and management of the living. The
political rationality of the modern total state is management of the living body of
the people. This logic was epitomized in the paroxysm of the Nazi state, but also in
the communist states, withtheir Gulags. I have thus far discussed Foucaults triangulation between the discourses of
clashes, subjugations and dispersal, are summarized in the name of power. And that power is the power over life.

the production of truth, the power that these discourse enact and make available to social agents, and the constitution of a political rationality that is
linked to the invention and creation of its horizon of activity and surveillance. I want now to focus on the main theme of this courses last lecture. This
theme discloses in a unique way the power and perspicacity of Foucaults method. The theme concerns the kind of power that biopower renders
available, or rather, how biopolitics produces certain power effects by thinking of the living in a novel way. We will approach the theme by way of a
contrast:

whereas the power of the sovereign under Medieval and early Modern times
was the power to make die and to let live, the power of the total state, which is the
biopower state, is the power to make live and to let die. Foucault discerned here a telling asymmetry. If
the sovereign exercised his power with the executioners axe, with the perpetual threat of death, then life was abandoned to its devices. Power was
exhibited only on the scaffold, or the guillotine its terror was the shimmer of the unsheathed sword. Power was ritualistic, ceremonial, theatrical, and
to that extent partial, molecular, and calendrical. It was also a power that by its own juridical logic had to submit to the jostling of rights and claims. In
the very performance of its might, the power of the sovereign revealed its limitation. It is a power that is localized and circumscribed to the theater of its

cruelty, and the staging of its pomp. In contrast, however, the power of the biopower state is over life [expand]. And here Foucault asks how can
biopolitics then reclaim the power over death? or rather, how can it make die in light of the fact that its claim to legitimacy is that it is guarding,
nurturing, tending to life? In so far as biopolitics is the management of life, how does it make die, how does it kill? This is a similar question to the one
that theologians asked about the Christian God. If God is a god of life, the giver of life, how can he put to death, how can he allow death to descend upon
his gift of life why is death a possibility if god is the giver of life? Foucaults answer is that in order to re-claim death, to be able to inflict death on its
subjects, its living beings, biopower must make use of racism; more precisely, racism intervenes here to grant access to death to the biopower state. We
must recall that the political rationality of biopower is deployed over a population, which is understood as a continuum of life. It is this continuum of
life that eugenics, social hygiene, civil engineering, civil medicine, military engineers, doctors and nurses, policeman, and so on, tended to by a careful
management of roads, factories, living quarters, brothels, red-districts, planning and planting of gardens and recreation centers, and the
gerrymandering of populations by means of roads, access to public transformations, placement of schools, and so on. Biopolitics

is the
result of the development and maintenance of the hothouse of the political body,
of the body-politic. Society has become the vivarium of the political rationality,
and biopolitics acts on the teeming biomass contained within the parameters of
that structure built up by the institutions of health, education, and production.
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 [meurtrire] 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 has been telling in these dazzling lectures has made a new turn: the war of
peoples, a war against invaders, 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 .

Racism is constructed by specific state practices for the purpose of

maintaining order
Martinot and Sexton 3, Director, critical race theorist at San Francisco State University and African American Studies School of Humanities
UCI, The Avant-Garde of White Supremacy, Social Identities, Volume 9, Number 2, 2003 Accessed 6-20-15, NN

The foundations of US white supremacy are far from stable. Owing to the instability of white supremacy, the social structures of whiteness must ever be re-secured in an
obsessive fashion.

The process of re-inventing whiteness and white supremacy has always

involved the state, and the state has always involved the utmost paranoia. Vast political
cataclysms such as the civil rights movements that sought to shatter this invention have confronted the state as harbingers of sanity. Yet the states
absorption and co-optation of that opposition for the reconstruction of the white
social order has been reoccurring before our very eyes. White supremacy is not
reconstructed simply for its own sake, but for the sake of the social paranoia, the
ethic of impunity, and the violent spectacles of racialisation that it calls the
maintenance of order, all of which constitute its essential dimensions. The cold, gray institutions of this society courts, schools, prisons, police,
army, law, religion, the two-party system become the arenas of this brutality, its excess and spectacle, which they then normalise throughout the social field . It is not
simply by understanding the forms of state violence that the structures of hyperinjustice and their excess of hegemony will be addressed . If they foster policing as their paradigm including
imprisonment, police occupations, commodified governmental operations, a renewed Jim Crow, and a re-criminalisation of race as their version of social order then to merely
catalogue these institutional forms marks the moment at which understanding stops. To pretend to understand at that point would be to affirm what denies understanding.

, we have to understand the state and its order as a mode of anti-production

that seeks precisely to cancel understanding through its own common sense. For
common sense, the opposite of injustice is justice;however , the opposite of hyper-injustice is not justice. The
existence of hyperinjustice implies that neither a consciousness of injustice nor
the possibility of justice any longer applies. Justice as such is incommensurable with and wholly exterior to the relation
between ordinary social existence and the ethic of impunity including the modes of gratuitous violence
that it fosters. The pervasiveness of state-sanctioned terror, police brutality, mass incarceration, and the endless ambushes of white populism is where we must
Instead

begin our theorising. Though state practices create and reproduce the subjects,discourses, and places that are inseparable from them, we can no longer presuppose the subjects
and subject positions nor the ideologies and empiricisms of political and class forces. Rather, the analysis of a contingent yet comprehensive state terror becomes primary. This
is not to debate the traditional concerns of radical leftist politics that presuppose (and close off) the question of structure, its tenacity, its systematic and inexplicable

The problem here is how to dwell on the structures of pervasiveness,

terror, and gratuitousness themselves rather than simply the state as an
apparatus. It is to ask how the state exists as a formation or confluence of
processes with de-centred agency, how the subjects of state authority its agents,
citizens, and captives are produced in the crucible of its ritualistic violence
gratuitousness.

Division of the human and nonhuman creates the preconditions for

unlimited genocidal violence
Deckha 10 [Maneesha, faculty of law, university of Victoria, its time to abandon the idea of
human rights, the scavenger, dec. 10]

While the intersection of race and gender is often acknowledged in understanding the etiology of
justificatory narratives for war, the presence of species distinctions and the importance of the
subhuman are less appreciated. Yet, the race (and gender) thinking that animates Razacks argument
in normalizing violence for detainees (and others) is also centrally sustained by the subhuman figure.

Throughout the
history of our ascent to dominance as the master species, our victimization
of animals has served as the model and foundation for our victimization of
each other. The study of human history reveals the pattern: first, humans
exploit and slaughter animals; then, they treat other people like animas and
do the same to them. Patterson emphasizes how the human/animal hierarchy and
our ideas about animals and animality are foundational for intra-human
hierarchies and the violence they promote. The routine violence against
beings designated subhuman serves as both a justification and blueprint for
violence against humans. For example, in discussing the specific dynamics of the Nazi camps,
As Charles Patterson notes with respect to multiple forms of exploitation:

Patterson further notes how techniques to make the killing of detainees resemble the slaughter of
animals were deliberately implemented in order to make the killing seem more palatable and benign.
That the detainees were made naked and kept crowded in the gas chambers facilitated their
animalization and, in turn, their death at the hands of other humans who were already culturally
familiar and comfortable with killing animals in this way. Returning to Razacks exposition of race

subhuman thinking is foundational to

race thinking. One of her primary arguments is that race thinking, which she defines as the
denial of a common bond of humanity between people of European descent
and those who are not, is a defining feature of the world order today as in
the past. In other words, it is the species thinking that helps to create the
racial demarcation. As Razack notes with respect to the specific logic
infusing the camps, they are not simply contemporary excesses born of the
wests current quest for security, but instead represent a more ominous,
permanent arrangement of who is and is not a part of the human
community. Once placed outside the human zone by race thinking, the
detainees may be handled lawlessly and thus with violence that is
legitimated at all times. Racialization is not enough and does not complete their
thinking in contemporary camps, one can see how

Othering experience. Rather, they must be dehumanized for the larger public to
accept the violence against them and the increasing culture of exception which
sustains these human bodily exclusions . Although nonhumans are not the focus of Razacks

to the logic of the camps and racial and sexual

violence contained therein is also clearly illustrated in her specific examples.
work, the centrality of the subhuman

In the course of her analysis, to determine the import of race thinking in enabling violence, Razack
quotes a newspaper story that describes the background mentality of Private Lynndie England, the
white female soldier made notorious by images of her holding onto imprisoned and naked Iraqi men
with a leash around their necks. The story itself quotes a resident from Englands hometown who says
the following about the sensibilities of individuals from their town: To the country boys here, if youre
a different nationality, a different race, youre sub-human. Thats the way that girls like Lynndie
England are raised. Tormenting Iraqis, in her mind, would be no different from shooting a turkey. Every
season here youre hunting something. Over there theyre hunting Iraqis. Razack extracts this quote
to illustrate how race overdetermined what went on, but it may also be observed that species

Race has a formative function, to be sure, but it

works in conjunction with species difference to enable the violence at Abu
Ghraib and other camps. Dehumanization promotes racialization, which
further entrenches both identities. It is an intertwined logic of race, sex,
culture and species that lays the foundation for the violence.
overdetermined what went on.

Thus the Plan

We demand that the use of so-called police animals be ceased

Advantage 1: Biopolitics
Law enforcement agencies use police dogs to create an atmosphere of
fear and intimidation
Alex Olesker, Apr. 15 11, On Police Intimidation, Insurgent Consciousness,
http://insurgentconsciousness.typepad.com/insurgent_consciousness/2011/04/on-policeintimidation.html
Rarely do law enforcement officers have to physically force anybody to do
something, whether it's paying a traffic ticket, ceasing a dangerous or illegal
activity, or submitting to arrest. Police officers rarely draw their weapon and even
more rarely discharge it. When dealing with dangerous criminals and repeat
offenders, this has little to do with their regard for the law, rather i t's the
intimidating power of the badge, uniform, and gun. The fear of arrest, stiffer sentencing
for resisting, and possible confrontation is enough. Sometimes, police officers use more
powerful intimidation strategies. When a canine unit arrives at a burglary, before
entering the building and risking being surprised by an armed assailant, they
announce loudly and repeatedly that they have a dog and that, if whoever is in the
house doesn't come out, he will get bitten. This is more than a precaution on behalf
of the suspect, it's an appeal to the common fear of dogs . And, as several officers
have told me, the only thing scarier than a dog is a shot gun, with its distinctive
click. SWAT team entrances are also designed in part to shock and awe criminals.
Even regulations on the appearance of police officers, the neatness of their
uniform and their grooming, aim to intimidate by giving off an air of
professionalism. Interviews with cop-killers have confirmed that a well-dressed and wellgroomed officer is more intimidating. But intimidation is a double-edged sword. What
may make one suspect surrender may cause another to draw his weapon. Fred Leland of Law
Enforcement and Security Consulting lectures on the dangers of trying to project too much
authority. He has shown how excessive reliance on intimidation has led to escalation
and confrontation when it would have been safer to explain why you're doing what
youre doing and what you will do next to reassure the suspect, complainant, or
witness. Fred calls this process verbal judo, as not only does it control the situation
but it also allows the officer to maintain the initiative in a non-threatening
manner.

Totalizing surveillance environments create the preconditions for

unlimited violence
Giroux 14 Giroux 14-Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the
English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson
University [Henry, Totalitarian Paranoia in the Post-Orwellian Surveillance State, Truthout,
February 10, 2014, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21656-totalitarian-paranoia-in-thepost-orwellian-surveillance-state
The point of no return in the emergence of the corporate-state surveillance apparatus is not strictly confined to
the task of archiving immense pools of data collection to be used in a number of illegal ways.18

It is in creating a culture in which surveillance becomes trivialized, celebrated, and

legitimated as reasonable and unquestioned behavior. Evidence that diverse forms of public pedagogy
are sanctioning the security state is on full display in post-Orwellian America,
obvious in schools that demand that students wear radio chips so they can be
tracked.19 Such anti-democratic projects are now also funded by billionaires like Bill Gates who push for the use of biometric bracelets to
monitor students' attentiveness in classrooms.20 The normalization of surveillance is also evident in the
actions of giant Internet providers who use social messaging to pry personal
information from their users. The reach of the surveillance culture can also be seen in the use of radio chips and GPS technologies used to
track a person's movements across time and space. At the same time, cultures of surveillance work hard to
trivialize the importance of a massive surveillance environment by transforming it
into a source of entertainment. This is evident in the popularity of realty TV shows such as "Big Brother" or "Undercover
Boss," which turn the event of constant surveillance into a voyeuristic pleasure.21 The atrophy of democratic intuitions
of culture and governance are evident in popular representations that undermine
the meaning of democracy as a collective ethos that unconditionally stands for social, economic, and political
rights.22 One example can be found in Hollywood films that glorify hackers such as those in the Matrix trilogy, or movies that celebrate
professionalized modern spying and the government agents using their omniscient technological gizmos to fight terrorists and other forces of evil.

What is lost in the culture of surveillance is that spying and the unwarranted
collection of personal information from people who have not broken the law in the name of national security and for
commercial purposes is a procedure often adopted by totalitarian states . The surveillance state with its immense
data mining capabilities represents a historical rupture from traditional notions of modernity with its emphasis on enlightenment, reason, and the
social contract. The older modernity held up the ideals of justice, equality, freedom, and democracy, however flawed. The investment in public goods
was seen as central to a social contract that implied that all citizens should have access to those provisions, resources, institutions, and benefits that
expanded their sense of agency and social responsibility. The

new modernity and its expanding surveillance

net subordinates human needs, public goods, and justice to the demands of
commerce and the accumulation of capital, at all costs. The contemporary citizen is primarily a consumer
and entrepreneur wedded to the belief that the most desirable features of human behavior are rooted in a "basic tendency towards competitive,
acquisitive and uniquely self-interested behavior which is the central fact of human social life."23 Modernity

is now driven by
the imperatives of a savage neoliberal political and economic system that embrace what
Charles Derber and June Sekera call a "public goods deficit" in which "budgetary priorities" are relentlessly pushed so as to hollow out the welfare state
and drastically reduce social provisions as part of a larger neoliberal counter revolution to lower the taxes of the rich and mega-corporations while
selling off public good to private interests.24 Debates

about the meaning and purpose of the public and

social good have been co-opted by a politics of fear, relegating notions of the civic good, public sphere, and
even the very word "public" to the status of a liability, if not a pathology.25 Fear has lost its social connotations and no longer references fear of social
deprivations such as poverty, homelessness, lack of health care, and other fundamental conditions of agency. Fear

is now
personalized, reduced to an atomized fear that revolves around crime, safety,
apocalypse, and survival. In this instance, as the late Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith once warned, modernity
now privileges "a disgraceful combination of 'private opulence and public squalor.'
"26 This is not surprising given the basic elements of neoliberal policy, which as Jeremy Gilbert indicates, include the: privatization of public assets,
contraction and centralization of democratic institutions, deregulation of labor markets, reductions in progressive taxation, restrictions on labor
organization, labor market deregulation, active encouragement of competitive and entrepreneurial modes of relation across the public and commercial
sectors.27 Under

the regime of neoliberal capitalism, the expansion of government and

corporate surveillance measures become synonymous with new forms of
governance and an intensification of material and symbolic violence.28 Rather than wage a
war on terrorists, the neoliberal security state wages a war on dissent in the interest of
consolidating class power. How else to explain the merging of corporate and state surveillance
systems updated with the most sophisticated shared technologies used in the last few years to
engage in illicit counterintelligence operations, participate in industrial espionage29 and disrupt and attack prodemocracy movements such as Occupy and a range of other nonviolent social
movements protesting a myriad of state and corporate injustices. 30 This type of illegal spying in
the interest of stealing industrial secrets and closing down dissent by peaceful protesters has less to do with national security than it has to do with
mimicking the abuses and tactics used by the Stasi in East Germany during the Cold War. How else to explain why many law-abiding citizens "and
those with dissenting views within the law can be singled out for surveillance and placed on wide-ranging watch lists relating to terrorism."31

Public outrage seems to disappear, with few exceptions, as the state and its corporate allies

do little to protect privacy rights, civil liberties and a culture of critical exchange
and dissent. Even worse, they shut down a culture of questioning and engage in forms of
domestic terrorism. State violence in this case becomes the preferred antidote to the
demanding work of reflection, analysis, dialogue and imagining the points of views
of others. The war against dissent waged by secret counterintelligence agencies is a
mode of domestic terrorism in which, as David Graeber has argued, violence is "often the
preferred weapon of the stupid."32 Modernity in this instance has been updated, wired
and militarized. No longer content to play out its historical role of a modernized
panopticon, it has become militarized and a multilayered source of insecurity,
entertainment and commerce. In addition, this new stage of modernity is driven not
only by the need to watch but also the will to punish. Phone calls, emails, social networks and almost every
other vestige of electronic communication are now being collected and stored by corporate and government organizations such as the NSA and
numerous other intelligence agencies. Snowden's exposure of the massive reach of the surveillance state with its biosensors, scanners, face recognition
technologies, miniature drones, high speed computers, massive data mining capabilities and other stealth technologies made visible "the stark realities
of disappearing privacy and diminishing liberties."33 But the NSA and the other 16 intelligence agencies are not the only threat to privacy, freedom and
democracy. Corporations now have their own intelligence agencies and data mining offices and use these agencies and new surveillance technologies
largely to spy on those who question the abuses of corporate power. The emergence of fusion centers exemplifies how power is now a mix of corporate,
local, federal and global intelligence agencies, all sharing information that can be used by various agencies to stifle dissent and punish pro-democracy
activists. What is clear is that this combination of gathering and sharing information often results in a lethal mix of anti-democratic practices in which
surveillance now extends not only to potential terrorists but to all law-abiding citizens. Within this

sinister web of secrecy,

suspicion, state-sanctioned violence and illegality, the culture of authoritarianism
thrives and poses a dangerous threat to democratic freedoms and rights. It also poses a threat to those outside
the United States who, in the name of national security, are subject to "a grand
international campaign with drones and special operations forces that is
generating potential terrorists at every step."34 Behind this veil of concentrated
power and secrecy lies not only a threat to privacy rights but the very real threat of
violence on both a domestic and global level.

Advantage 2: Race
Police dogs are woefully ineffective at detecting legitimate threatsinstead, they have been conditioned to respond to the whims of their
handlers
Brain Sumers, 2-15-2014, Bomb sniffing dogs at LAX a reliable tool-but not perfect, Daily
Breeze, http://www.dailybreeze.com/business/20140215/bomb-sniffing-dogs-at-lax-a-reliabletool-but-not-perfect
On a recent afternoon, for about 45 minutes, police at Los Angeles International Airport shut
down a stretch of the roadway connecting the airports nine terminals. Security screening at
Terminal 2 was closed and a perimeter was established. An unattended bag had been found near
a ticketing area. There was a bomb scare. In a statement to media, officials said that a K9
team had responded to the scene and deemed the bag suspicious. The Los
Angeles police bomb squad was called. Members soon determined it was merely a
suitcase on wheels, not dangerous at all, and the airport once again returned to
normal. A similar incident happened in January, when workers at a cargo facility
used by US Airways were concerned about an item and contacted police. The item
was upgraded to suspicious after a canine alerted on the item, Los Angeles World
Airports police Sgt. Belinda Nettles said that day. But it, too, was a false alarm.
Computer parts, according to Nettles. How might something like this happen? Did the dogs get
the scent wrong? Or might the error have been elsewhere? It turns out, some experts say, that
the dogs may not be reliable in these situations as some might expect. In 2011,
researchers at the University of California, Davis reported that many dogs in pressure-filled
situations take cues from their handlers and thus make mistakes. So if the dog
thought the handler wanted it to read an item as suspicious, the dog would react
accordingly. The overwhelming number of incorrect alerts identified across
conditions confirms that handler beliefs affect performance, the researchers, led by
Lisa Lit, wrote in a journal called Animal Cognition. Steven Nicely, who said he trained 750
police dogs and now runs K9 Consultants of America in Texas, said humans sometimes dont
even know what is occurring. The handler knows something is up and the dog reacts
to the handlers body language, Nicely said. The sad part is that the handlers
body language can be so subtle that unless you really know what you are looking
for, people probably arent going to see it. Nicely said that in the case of a suspicious
package when officers are already on edge it might make more sense to simply wait for the
bomb squad to arrive. The dogs, he said, could be more useful if allowed to roam the airport.
This way a dog could randomly search bags, and since the handler would not be alarmed, the
dog might not try so hard to make the right decision. At LAX, bomb-sniffing dogs also roam
the terminals on a regular basis, randomly checking items. Ross Feinstein, a spokesman for the
Transportation Security Administration based in Washington, said in an email that the agency
believes both its dogs and handlers are reliable. He said each dog/handler team undergoes 10 to
12 weeks of training before going into the field. He also said the dogs and the handlers are
constantly tested and retrained. The TSA trains both its own dogs and dogs used by Los
Angeles World Airports police. The handler is trained to read the dogs behavior that
indicates an explosives scent has been detected, often without the source being aware, Feinstein
said. The dog ultimately is trained to sit when the source has been identified. If a dog alerts, the
TSA handler will follow established procedures to resolve the alarm, which may include

notifying local law enforcement. There is another potential reason for a false positive. It might
be possible, experts say, that the dog could be reacting to a scent that was in the bag in the past.
In that case, the scent would be faint and no longer dangerous but it might still exist. Jeff Price,
the former assistant security director at Denver International Airport and now a professor at
Metropolitan State University of Denver, said dogs can be a useful tool for airport law
enforcement. But he also said they have drawbacks. The issue of the dog trying to please
its handler is well-documented and real, he said. The dog wants to please its
handler, so sometimes when the handler wants to believe its the real deal, their
voice and movements will change just enough that the dog sits, Price said. Price also
said that, like people, dogs can get cranky. Dogs are good for about 20 minutes of work, then
they have to take a break for about 40 minutes, Price said. If its hot outside versus cold, or if
the dog has been working a lot already throughout a shift and hasnt had enough playtime, then
it can be fatigued or unfocused. If its past time for it to eat, then that can have an impact, too.
Patrick Gannon, chief of Los Angeles World Airports police, which handles security at LAX as
well as L.A./Ontario International Airport, said dogs are important for his officers. But he said
they are not the only way to determine if something is amiss. Gannon often speaks of layers of
security having more than one way to solve a problem. They are just one layer,
Gannon said. Really, we dont take anything for granted. When a dog alerts, we take
that as something we have to take very seriously. But we have redundancies in place to make
sure that we dont overly rely on any one given tool to solve our problems.

Law enforcement disproportionately targets minority groups

David A Harris, University of Toledo College of Law, ACLU Special Report, June 19 99,
Driving While Black: Racial Profiling on Our Nations Highways,
https://www.aclu.org/report/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highways
INTRODUCTION On a hot summer afternoon in August 1998, 37-year-old U.S. Army
Sergeant First Class Rossano V. Gerald and his young son Gregory drove across
the Oklahoma border into a nightmare. A career soldier and a highly decorated veteran of
Desert Storm and Operation United Shield in Somalia, SFC Gerald, a black man of
Panamanian descent, found that he could not travel more than 30 minutes
through the state without being stopped twice: first by the Roland City Police
Department, and then by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. During the second stop,
which lasted two-and-half hours, the troopers terrorized SFC Gerald's 12-year-old
son with a police dog, placed both father and son in a closed car with the air
conditioning off and fans blowing hot air, and warned that the dog would attack if
they attempted to escape. Halfway through the episode perhaps realizing the
extent of their lawlessness the troopers shut off the patrol car's video evidence
camera. Perhaps, too, the officers understood the power of an image to stir people
to action. SFC Gerald was only an infant in 1963 when a stunned nation watched on television
as Birmingham Police Commissioner "Bull" Connor used powerful fire hoses and vicious police
attack dogs against nonviolent black civil rights protesters. That incident, and Martin Luther
King, Jr.'s stirring I Have a Dream speech at the historic march on Washington in August of that
year, were the low and high points, respectively, of the great era of civil rights legislation: the
1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. How did it come to be, then, that 35
years later SFC Gerald found himself standing on the side of a dusty road next to a
barking police dog, listening to his son weep while officers rummaged through his

belongings simply because he was black? I feel like I'm a guy who's pretty much
walked the straight line and that's respecting people and everything. We just
constantly get harassed. So we just feel like we can't go anywhere without being
bothered... I'm not trying to bother anybody. But yet a cop pulls me over and says I'm weaving
in the road. And I just came from a friend's house, no alcohol, nothing. It just makes you wonder
was it just because I'm black?" James, 28, advertising account executive Rossano and
Gregory Gerald were victims of discriminatory racial profiling by police. There is
nothing new about this problem. Police abuse against people of color is a legacy of
African American enslavement, repression, and legal inequality. Indeed, during
hearings of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders ("The Kerner Commission") in
the fall of 1967 where more than 130 witnesses testified about the events leading up to the urban
riots that had taken place in 150 cities the previous summer, one of the complaints that came up
repeatedly was "the stopping of Negroes on foot or in cars without obvious basis." Significant
blame for this rampant abuse of power also can be laid at the feet of the
government's "war on drugs," a fundamentally misguided crusade enthusiastically
embraced by lawmakers and administrations of both parties at every level of
government. From the outset, the war on drugs has in fact been a war on people
and their constitutional rights, with African Americans, Latinos and other
minorities bearing the brunt of the damage. It is a war that has, among other
depredations, spawned racist profiles of supposed drug couriers. On our nation's
highways today, police ostensibly looking for drug criminals routinely stop drivers
based on the color of their skin. This practice is so common that the minority
community has given it the derisive term, "driving while black or brown" a play
on the real offense of "driving while intoxicated." One of the core principles of the
Fourth Amendment is that the police cannot stop and detain an individual without some reason
probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion to believe that he or she is involved in
criminal activity. But recent Supreme Court decisions allow the police to use traffic
stops as a pretext in order to "fish" for evidence. Both anecdotal and quantitative data
show that nationwide, the police exercise this discretionary power primarily against
African Americans and Latinos. No person of color is safe from this treatment
anywhere, regardless of their obedience to the law, their age, the type of car they
drive, or their station in life. In short, skin color has become evidence of the
propensity to commit crime, and police use this "evidence" against minority
drivers on the road all the time.

Advantage 3: Anthropocentrism
Let me tell you a story of what a police dogs life is like:
1. It is born in squalor and miserable conditions after tens of
thousands of years of rape and forcible eugenic manipulation to
fit human purposes.
Melissa Smith, Sept. 27 2015, Why its cruel to keep dogs as pets,
HubPagesAnimal Ethics and Philosophy,
http://melissaasmith.hubpages.com/hub/dogssuffer
An unnatural existence Stolen from your mother as a youngster, confined,
controlled, surgically altered, and bored for hours on end. Imagine yourself
as a "pet" dog. You retain many of the instincts of your wild ancestors such
as the desire to run free at your own will, eat fresh food as nature intended,
and to have the constant company of your own family members as you
explore your territory and take in the sounds and smells of the natural
world. Now place yourself in a small Manhattan apartment, enduring the intermittent
company of your beloved master with your ability to see the world and even use the
bathroom remaining on their terms only. You only occasionally get to meet members of
your own species, many of which have been so strangely altered due to selective breeding
that the natural order ceases to exist. Your range consists of wherever your owner
takes you, on a leash of course. It is a confusing, distressing and unnatural
existence. Sad Animals in Zoos Exploring the phenomenon of people thinking animals
are "sad" in zoos because of the expression on their faces. Can you read an animal's mind
by looking at it? Facts about the dog trade There are Approximately 83.3 million owned
dogs in the United States. 70% of dog owners own one dog 6-8 million dogs enter
shelters each year, and an estimated 3-4 million healthy cats and dogs are euthanized
yearly. Across the country, privately-held dogs held have escaped from their fenced in
yards and have attacked humans and other animals with sometimes fatal results.
Many dogs can transmit deadly diseases including MRSA, lyme disease and
salmonellosis to humans. The CDC states that "Nearly 4.5 million Americans are
bitten by dogs each year, half of these are children.1 One in five dog bites results in
injuries serious enough to require medical attention." Puppy mills are breeding factory
farms that hold dogs in cramped cages and force female dogs to breed every time they
are in heat (a 5 year old dog gives birth to 10 litters). Dogs are often kept in crates
Source: Melissa Smith Domestication is cruel Many owners of dogs think that
they love their pets and that they are members of their families, but the
reality is that these animals are being denied their freedom that people
mistakenly think they no longer desire because they have been
domesticated. All too often, people think that because a practice has been
around for ages, it can't be unethical. It is true that dogs have evolved with
mankind for centuries, but the relationship started as a symbiotic one
where wolves would accompany humans free-ranging in a wild and natural
existence. Eventually, the reciprocal relationship of humans and dogs
devolved to exploitation and abuse.

2. A lifetime of psychological conditioning teaches it that human

beings are the unquestioned masters to be obeyed above all else.
Gary Francione 12, (s an American legal scholar. He is the Distinguished Professor
of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law & Philosophy at Rutgers School of
LawNewark.[1]) July 31, 2012, Pets: the inherent problems of domestication,
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/pets-the-inherent-problems-ofdomestication/#.VhNrlXpVhBc
As a practical matter, there is simply no way to have an institution of pet
ownership that is consistent with a sound theory of animal rights. Pets are
property and, as such, their valuation will ultimately be a matter of what
their owners decide. But you might ask: What if it were possible? If, as a
hypothetical matter, we changed the legal status of dogs and cats so that
they were no longer property and they had a legal status closer to that of
human children, would our continued production of dogs and cats (or other
nonhumans) and our keeping of pets be morally justified? My answer to this
purely hypothetical question is no. We cannot justify the perpetuation of
domestication for the purpose of keeping pets. Domesticated animals are
dependent on us for everything that is important in their lives: when and
whether they eat or drink, when and where they sleep or relieve themselves,
whether they get any affection or exercise, etc. Although one could say the same
thing about human children, the overwhelming number of human children mature to
become autonomous, independent beings. Domestic animals are neither a real
nor full part of our world or of the nonhuman world. They exist forever in a
netherworld of vulnerability, dependent on us for everything and at risk of
harm from an environment that they do not really understand. We have
bred them to be compliant and servile, or to have characteristics that are
actually harmful to them but are pleasing to us . We may make them happy in one
sense, but the relationship can never be natural or normal. They do not belong stuck
in our world irrespective of how well we treat them. We cannot justify such an
institution, even if it looked very different from the situation that now
exists. My partner and I live with five rescued dogs, including dogs who had health
problems when we adopted them. We love them very much and try very hard to provide
them the best of care and treatment. (And before anyone asks, all seven of us are
vegans!) You would probably not find two people on the planet who enjoy living with
dogs more than we do. And we both encourage anyone who can to adopt or foster as
many animals (of whatever species) they can responsibly have. But if there were two
dogs left in the universe and it were up to us as to whether they were allowed to breed so
that we could continue to live with dogs, and even if we could guarantee that all dogs
would have homes as loving as the one that we provide, we would not hesitate for a
second to bring the whole institution of pet ownership to an end. We regard the dogs
who live with us as refugees of sorts, and although we enjoy caring for them, it is clear
that humans have no business continuing to bring these creatures into a
world in which they simply do not fit. I understand that many people will be
bewildered by my argument about the inherent problems with
domestication. But that is because we live in a world in which we kill and eat

56 billion animals a year (not counting fish) and where our best justification
for that practice is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products.
Most of you who are reading this right now are probably not vegans. As long as you think
it is acceptable to kill and eat animals, the more abstract argument about domesticating
animals to use as pets is not likely to resonate. I understand that.

3. The dogs are worked to exhaustion, put first into the line of fire,
and when its all over, if they manage to survive, we put them
back into loving homes where they get to waste away as
domestic servants and succumb to the myriad genetic ailments
that human beings have bred into them.
FBI 99, About Our Dogs-Text Version, https://www.fbi.gov/fun-games/kids/aboutour-dogs-text-version
You ask, What is a working dog? Is it a dog that does more than hang out
at the house all day and bark at the mailman? Is it a dog that gets in the car like
Mom and Dad and goes to the office? Well, sort of... Working dogs are amazing
animals specially trained to protect people and to make life easier for them.
Some working dogs act as eyes for blind people, ears for the hearing impaired, and
helpers for the physically challenged. They also protect sheep from wolves, and they can
help a police officer catch criminals. These special dogs can find victims of disasters
under lots of rubble, and they can find people lost in the woods. They are awesome. The
FBI has some very special working dogs. Hannah is one of the newest additions to the
group of Working Dogs in the FBI. Her job is to sniff out bombs, explosion debris,
firearms, and ammunition. Other FBI Working Dogs find drugs, money, and people. Just
how do they do it? Dogs instinctively know how to find things. A Handler, the
dogs human partner, teaches the dog what to search for. A dog can use all of
his/her senses, like hearing, seeing, and smelling to find a specific person or
thing. To do this, though, requires a lot of training. They are always
practicing, but the dogs love it because it is what they were born to do. At the
FBI, the Handler is usually an FBI Special Agent or an FBI Police Officer. The Agent or
Police Officer and his or her dog work together as a team. The Handler teaches the dog to
find very specific things in all kinds of weird places like in a tree, in the woods or a field,
in a suitcase, in a car, on a street, in a closet, under rubble, or in the water or under snow.

---AND--FBI 13 K-9 Units At the FBI, http://www.fbiagentedu.org/2013/04/k-9-units-atthe-fbi/

Key personnel in the FBI come with four legs and partner with skilled
handlers. These highly trained FBI team units are dogs with such high levels of training
that they can detect about 19,000 different combinations of explosives. They are team
members so highly valued that when killed in the line of duty, they are buried in child-

sized steel coffins. Labrador Retrievers Versus German Sheppards Readers of

metropolitan police department annual reports that discuss K-9 units may be familiar
with the analyses of bites per apprehension. That is not the case with the FBIs special
K-9 units. These dogs go out in public and interact with people. For this
reason, Labrador retrievers are the chosen breed for this task. This
generally mellow type of dog thrives on the attention it receives from
passersby. These dogs are rewarded with food given by hand whenever they
apprehend explosives. Thus, training takes place every day. The dogs are part
of the family and even go on vacation with their handlers. The FBI started its K-9
unit in 1999. Before that, they contracted dogs for this purpose. The handlers
of the dogs are FBI Special Agents who frequently come from backgrounds in fighting
terrorism, all too often conducted with explosives, or working with the bomb squads of
local law enforcement agencies. The sense of smell of dogs is so sensitive that they can
detect one teaspoon of sugar diluted in a swimming pool. This keen sense is highly useful
in detecting explosives. Ranging from gun powder to TNT, todays criminals use a
sophisticated array of chemicals for nefarious purposes. FBI Service Canines Getting the
Respect they Deserve While most of the dogs retire into a life as the family pet
(although wary of eating from bowls), several of the FBIs prized K-9 units have
been killed in the line of duty. The loss of these K-9 units is treated as the loss of an
officer, and they are memorialized on a wall in Quantico. Despite his wearing of a
bulletproof vest, tactical Czech German shepherd Ape was shot and killed in
March, 2013 during an FBI raid in Herkimer, NY. His sacrifice prevented
deaths of the human members of the team. In October 2009, Freddy, a Belgian
Malinois, was killed during a raid of an organized crime ring and radical Islamic
sect in Dearborn, Michigan.

The subjugation of animal life justifies genocide

Sanbonmatsu 11. John SanbonmatsuProfessor of Philosophy, Worcester Polytechnic
InstitueCritical Theory and Animal Liberation 2011
The constantly encountered assertion that savages, blacks, Japanese are like
animals, monkeys for example, is the key to the pogrom. The possibility of pogroms is
decided in the moment when the gaze of a fatally wounded animal falls on a
human being. What is crucial to bear in mind, however, as Victoria Johnson points out in
her chapter here the very power of such animal metaphors depends on a prior
cultural understanding of other animals themselves, as beings who are by nature
abject, degraded, and hence worthy of extermination . The animal, thus, rests at the
intersection of race and caste systems. And nowhere is the link between the human and
nonhuman clearer than in facist ideology for no other discourse so completely authorizes
absolute violence in the weak. In our own contemporary society too, Johnson
emphasizes, we find daily life and meaning based on elaborate rituals intentded to
keep us from acknowledging the violence we do to subordinate classes of beings ,
above all the animals. So numerous in fact are the parallelssemiotic, ideological,
psychological, historical, cultural, technical and so forth between the Nazis

extermination of the Jews and Roma and the routinized mass murder of
nonhuman beings , that Charles pattersons recent book on the subject despite its strengths,
only manages to scratch the surface of a topic whose true dimensions have yet to be fathomed.

Only a shift away from anthropocentric practices can restore

harmony with life and avert ecological catastrophe
Seed 08 [2008, John Seed is an Australian environmentalist and the founder of the
Rainforest Information Centre , Beyond Anthropocentris,m
http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/deep-eco/Anthropo.htm]//AA
"But the time is not a strong prison either. A little scraping of the walls of dishonest contractor's
concrete Through a shower of chips and sand makes freedom. Shake the dust from your hair.
This mountain sea-coast is real For it reaches out far into the past and future; It is part of the
great and timeless excellence of things." (1) "Anthropocentrism" or "homocentrism"
means human chauvinism. Similar to sexism, but substitute "human race"
for"man" and"all other species" for "woman". Human chauvinism, the idea that humans
are the crown of creation, the source of all value, the measure of all things, is deeply embedded
in our culture and consciousness. "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every
beast of the earth , and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth on the earth, and
upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hands they are delivered".(2) When humans
investigate and see through their layers of anthropocentric self-cherishing, a most
profound change in consciousness begins to take place . Alienation subsides. The
human is no longer an outsider, apart. Your humanness is then recognised as being merely the
most recent stage of your existence, and as you stop identifying exclusively with this chapter,
you start to get in touch with yourself as mammal, as vertebrate, as a species only recently
emerged from the rainforest. As the fog of amnesia disperses, there is a transformation in your
relationship to other species, and in your commitment to them. What is described here should
not be seen as merely intellectual. The intellect is one entry point to the process outlined, and
the easiest one to communicate. For some people however, this change of perspective follows
from actions on behalf of Mother Earth. "I am protecting the rainforest" develops to "I am part
of the rainforest protecting myself. I am that part of the rainforest recently emerged into
thinking." What a relief then! The thousands of years of imagined separation are over and we
begin to recall our true nature. That is, the change is a spiritual one, thinking like a
mountain (3), sometimes referred to as "deep ecology". As your memory improves, as
the implications of evolution and ecology are internalised and replace the outmoded
anthropocentric structures in your mind, there is an identification with all life, Then follows the
realisation that the distinction between "life" and "lifeless" is a human construct. Every atom in
this body existed before organic life emerged 4000 million years ago. Remember our childhood
as minerals, as lava, as rocks? Rocks contain the potentiality to weave themselves into such stuff
as this. We are the rocks dancing. Why do we look down on them with such a condescending air.
It is they that are immortal part of us. (4) If we embark upon such an inner voyage, we may find,
upon returning to present day consensus reality, that our actions on behalf of the environment
are purified and strengthened by the experience. We have found here a level of our being that
moth, rust, nuclear holocaust or destruction of the rainforest genepool do not corrupt. The
commitment to save the world is not decreased by the new perspective, although the fear and

anxiety which were part of our motivation start to dissipate and are replaced by a certain
disinterestedness. We act because life is the only game in town, but actions from a disinterested,
less attached consciousness may be more effective. Activists often don't have much time for
meditation. The disinterested space we find here may be similar to meditation. Some teachers of
meditation are embracing deep ecology (5) and vice versa(6). Of all the species that have existed,
it is estimated that less than one in a hundred exist today. The rest are extinct. As environment
changes, any species that is unable to adapt, to change, to evolve, is extinguished. All evolution
takes place in this fashion In this way an oxygen starved fish, ancestor of yours and mine,
commenced to colonise the land. Threat of extinction is the potter's hand that molds all the
forms of life. The human species is one of millions threatened by imminent
extinction through nuclear war and other environmental changes. And while it is
true that the "human nature" revealed by 12,000 years of written history does not
offer much hope that we can change our warlike, greedy, ignorant ways, the vastly
longer fossil history assures us that we CAN change. We ARE the fish, and the
myriad other death-defying feats of flexibility which a study of evolution reveals to
us. A certain confidence ( in spite of our recent "humanity") is warranted. From this point of
view, the threat of extinction appears as the invitation to change, to evolve. After a brief respite
from the potter's hand, here we are back on the wheel again. The change that is required of us is
not some new resistance to radiation, but a change in consciousness. Deep ecology is the search
for a viable consciousness. Surely consciousness emerged and evolved according to the same
laws as everything else. Molded by environ mental pressures, the mind of our ancestors must
time and again have been forced to transcend itself. To survive our current environmental
pressures, we must consciously remember our evolutionary and ecological inheritance. We must
learn to think like a mountain. If we are to be open to evolving a new consciousness, we must
fully face up to our impending extinction (the ultimate environmental pressure). This means
acknowledging that part of us which shies away from the truth, hides in intoxication or busyness
from the despair of the human, whose 4000 million year race is run, whose organic life is a mere
hair's breadth from finished.(7) A biocentric perspective, the realisation that rocks
WILL dance, and that roots go deeper that 4000 million years, may give us the
courage to face despair and break through to a more viable consciousness, one
that is sustainable and in harmony with life again. "Protecting something as wide as this
planet is still an abstraction for many. Yet I see the day in our own lifetime that reverence for the
natural systems - the oceans, the rainforests, the soil , the grasslands, and all other living things
- will be so strong that no narrow ideology based upon politics or economics will overcome it".
(8) Jerry Brown, Governor of California. The term "deep ecology" was coined by the Norwegian
professor of Philosophy and eco-activist Arne Naess, and has been taken up by academics and
environmentalists in Europe, the US and Australia. "The essence of deep ecology is to ask deeper
questions... We ask which society, which education, which form of religion is beneficial for all
life on the planet as a whole." (9)