Pittsburgh+HM+Aff

toc =Organs 1AC=

Plan: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD MAKE T-VISAS AVAILABLE TO VICTIMS OF ORGAN TRAFFICKING AS VICTIMS OF SEVERE TRAFFICKING.

Observation 1: Inherency
1. Excluding organ trafficking as a severe form of trafficking under the TVPA prevents benefits to victims of organ trafficking and foreign aid to prevent the illegal organ market Francis and Francis 2010 (“Stateless Crimes Legitimacy and International Criminal Law: The case of organ trafficking, criminal law and philosophy)

In the United States, the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-507, forbids any sale of organs that affects interstate commerce; the penalty is 5 years imprisonment and/ or a $50,000 fine. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act, Pub. L. 106-386, first passed in 2000 and last reauthorized in 2008, applies to slavery, sex trading and forced labor; organ trafficking is not specifically included in this definition (22 U.S.C. § 7102(8) (2010)). Instead, the Act’s primary focus is the illicit trade in sex and in illegal immigration. This gap means that the benefits extended in the United States to victims of severe forms of trafficking generally, including Medicaid, would not be available to victims of organ trafficking in the United States (22 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(1)(A) (2010)). It also means that the measures required of foreign governments who receive non-humanitarian foreign aid to eliminate severe forms of trafficking are not explicitly extended to trafficking in organs (22 U.S.C. §7106 (2010)). Nor is the authorization for the President to use emergency powers to punish traffickers (22 U.S.C. § 7108 (2010)). Sex tourism abroad with children is also explicitly criminalized for persons residing in the United States (18 U.S.C. § 2423(c) (2010)).

Advantage 1: Commodities
Organ trafficking internationally reduces human beings into commodities to be exploited. Nancy Scheper-Hughes 2k (Current Anthropology volume 41 number 2 “The global traffic in human organs” Chancellor’s Professor in Medical Anthropology Head, Doctoral Program in Medical Anthropology, Critical Studies in Medicine, Science and the Body Director, Organs Watch at Berkeley)

George Soros (1998a,b) has recently analyzed some of the deficieinces of the global capitalist economy, particularly the erosion of social values and social cohesion in the face of the increasing dominance of antisocial market values. The problem is that markets are by nature indiscriminate and inclined to reduce everything—including human beings, their labor, and their reproductive capacity—to the status of commodities. As Arjun Appadurai (1986) has noted, there is nothing fixed, stable, or sacrosanct about the “commodity candidacy” of things. Nowhere is this more dramatically illustrated than in the current markets for human organs and tissues to supply a medical business driven by supply and demand. The rapid transfer of organ transplant technologies to countries in the East (China, Taiwan, and India) and the South (especially Argentina, Chile, Brazil) has created a global scarcity of viable organs that has initiated a movement of sick bodies in one direction and of healthy organs—transported by commercial airlines in ordinary Styrofoam picnic coolers conveniently stored in overhead luggage compartments—often in the reverse direction, creating a kind of “kula ring” of bodies and body parts. What were once experimental procedures performed in a few advanced medical centers (most of them connected to academic instititutions) have become commonplace surgeries throughout the world. Today, kidney transplantation is virtually universal. Survival rates have increased markedly over the past decade, although they still vary by country, region, quality, and type of organ (living or cadaveric), and access to the antirejection drug cyclosporine. In parts of the Third World where morbidity rates from infection and hepatitis are higher, there is a preference for a living donor whose health status can be documented before the transplant operation.

This commodification of people permeates the Poor/Rich division in order to protect commodities. This treatment of life destroys any possibility for a social ethic. Nancy Scheper-Hughes 01 (“The Global Traffic In Human Organs: A Report Presented to the House Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, United States Congress June 27”)

Unfortunately, there is no lack of desperate people willing to sell a kidney for a pittance, as little as $1,000. Many wait outside transplant units or in special waiting rooms and wards of surgical units reserved for them, in India, Iraq, and Turkey, begging to be considered and hoping for a good match with a prospective buyer. The sale of human organs and tissues requires that certain disadvantaged individuals, populations, and even nations have been reduced to the role of "suppliers." It is a scenario in which only certain bodies are broken, dismembered, fragmented, transported, processed, and sold in the interests of a more socially advantaged population of organs and tissues receivers. I use the word "fetish" advisedly to conjure up the displaced magical energy that is invested in the purchased living, and thereby strangely animate, kidney. The magical transformation of a person into a "life" that must be prolonged, saved, at any cost, has made life into the ultimate fetish as recognized many years ago by Ivan Illich. The idea of "life" itself as an object of manipulation, a relatively new idea in the history of modernity. The fetishization of life - a life preserved, prolonged, enhanced at almost any cost-erases any possibility of a social ethic.

The system of commodification brings out the worst aspects of capitalism while destroying ethical calculations. Nancy Scheper-Hughes 1998 (“the new cannibalism” Chancellor’s Professor in Medical Anthropology Head, Doctoral Program in Medical Anthropology, Critical Studies in Medicine, Science and the Body Director, Organs Watch at Berkeley)

What bothers Mr Soros most is the erosion of social values in the face of anti-social, market values. Not that markets are to be blamed, of course. By their very nature markets are indiscriminate, promiscuous and inclined to reduce everything - including human beings, their labor and even their reproductive capacity - to the status of commodities. But while a market economy is generally a good thing, says Mr Soros, we cannot live by markets alone. And the real dilemma, he points out, is that the global market has far outstripped the development of a mediating global society. Indeed, there is nothing stable or sacrosanct about the 'commodity candidacy' of things. And nowhere is this more dramatically illustrated than in the booming market in human organs from both living and dead donors. These organs are used for transplant surgery, a business driven by the simple market calculus of supply and demand. With desperation built in on both sides of the equation - deathly ill 'buyers' and desperately needy 'sellers' - local and religious beliefs in the sanctity of the body have collapsed under the weight of market demands. These demands are amplified by medical talk about the scarcity of organs. In the US, for example, there are close to 50,000 people currently on various organ waiting lists. But the very idea of organ scarcity has to be questioned. It's an artificially created need, invented by transplant technicians and dangled before the eyes of an ever-expanding sick, ageing, and dying population. And it's a scarcity that can never under any circumstances be satisfied, for underlying the need is the quintessentially human denial and refusal of death. Japanese sociologist T Awaya describes the trend more bluntly: 'We are now eyeing each others' bodies greedily, as a potential source of detachable spare parts with which to extend our lives.' And he calls it a form of 'social or "friendly" cannibalism'.

The state’s attempt to reconstruct the body is the root cause of totalitarianism – the creation of a perfect body is an attempt to establish a perfect community which justifies every atrocity in history Rogozinski, 2001 (Jacob, Department of Philosophy at the University of Paris, Bodies of Resistance ed. By Laura Doyle, page 30-33)

Nevertheless, like Rousseau, Marx does not explicitly recognize the decisive role of his reference to the body, nor does he clarify its status. His rare and vague allusions hardly permit us to refine our understanding of the "social organic body" of communist Man. It could be outlined as a quasi body, even more indeterminate and undifferentiated than the one in the Social Contract, which retains only a single attribute of the classical concept of the body: its undivided unity. It accentuates it more and more in the sense of a radical overstepping of all internal division, all distinc¬tion between the partially differentiated activities. This is the characteris¬tic indetermination of modern political thinking, incapable of rigorously determining the structure and status of the body, which it nonetheless cannot do without. This brings us to a paradoxical situation: at the mo¬ment it tries to restore the integral form of the Body against its “mon¬strous” disfigurations, modern political philosophy promotes an increas¬ing indifferentiation which deforms and disfigures it even more seriously: In this respect it proves its solidarity with the historical dynamic of mo¬dernity: all the attempts aiming to reconstitute the body, to reincorporate communities swept away by an irresistible movement of disincorpora-tion, only result in the unstable configuration of decomposing, phantasmic quasi bodies, giving birth to old obsessions of fragmentation, to the old hatred of the stranger. ¬Totalitarianism rises on this foundation as an attempt to knit again, with a yarn of death the precarious unity of a decomposing body. Having developed in the basis of and in reaction to democratic revolutions, the totalitarian phenomenon belongs to modernity far from externally rebelling against its social bond “archaic” regression, it tries to elicit a new answer to the apparent dissolution of community which accompa¬nies the flourishing of democratic individualism. The totalitarian threat originates from the very life of the flesh: if the quasi flesh of history re¬peats the pulsation of the primordial flesh, its incessant oscillation between the phases of disincorporation and reincorporation, then the eter¬nal return of the Body necessarily ought to create new totalitarian foci, unless a historical caesura took place, henceforth condemning to failure every attempt to return to the Great Body. For the classical political body is no longer reconstituted: not the Ancient City, nor the corpus mysticism of the Christian kingdom, nor even the "organic totality" of the Hegelian state. With totalitarianism a new figuration appears: a One-Body, a deformed and unstable body in which the Chief "becomes identical with the whole body whereas he is only its head;" and in which "each time an organ is at once both the whole and the detached part which makes the whole which institutes it," so that "the attraction of the whole is no longer disassociated from that of fragmentation.."" In its very monstrosity, this final convulsion of the Great Body has the value of a historical sign (in the Kantian sense) and attests that a point of no return has been at¬tained. It indicates that the disincorporation of collective bodies has be¬come- irrevocable forbidding all integral restoration of an exhausted rep¬resentation. Precisely because only a hypostatized fictional body, the pseudobody of community does not forever reproduce the continual disincorporation - reincorporation of the singular body of flesh: the two pro¬cesses of incorporation, the individual and the collective one succeed in disassociating from each other. Afterward, the crises of community ¬with the dissimilarities haunting it and the phantasms assailing it-would perhaps cease to be felt as a threat against our flesh, cease to awaken anguish and hate. From the drunken stammering of history, a new mean¬ing would emerge, with a destination still obscure but already irre¬versible. The aporia of modern political philosophy, powerless to overcome the old organico-political schema and incapable of resorting to it with¬out disfiguring it, testifies to this Total Body's defeat, to its irretrievable rending. I will not conclude, though, that Rousseau's Republic or Marx's Communism are accessory to the Terror or are the harbingers of totalitari¬anism. This hasty conclusion would underestimate their essential ambiva¬lence, apparent when modern natural law foregrounds the dignity of the rights of the individual over the ancient primacy of the political body; when Marx reaffirms, against all hypostasis of History, of Society, or of the State, that the "only real premises" are "living individuals"; and when he denounces their reabsorption into the monstrous body as a mutilation of their lives. All contribute to thwarting the phantasms of reincorpora¬tion and the morbid attraction of the One. Perhaps they also participate, in spite of their limitations, in an essential possibility of modernity, in what, in modern political philosophy, announces the emergence of new configurations closer to carnal truth. This affirmation may be paradoxical, if modernity is characterized, on the contrary, by the disincarnation of collective bodies and by abstract hypostases increasingly distant from their fleshly foundation. In opposition is the reactive countertendency struggling to reincarnate the social body, to rally, it around the carnal presence of a Chief, the structure ,and voice of a Guide. But it fails to attain the ultimate strata of the flesh. Both its desire for a One-Body, structured by a stable organic hierarchy, and its will to expel and annihilate the Abject haunting it only take root in secondary layers of incorporation, in those phantasms concealing the primordial truth of the flesh- a flesh rebellious to the One, always already divided, polarized by the Two of the chiasm, but still unaware of all hierarchy, all irreversible separation between a part which commands and an other which obeys. It doesn't yet touch a flesh receptive to the strangeness of the other pole, which it does not reject as the abjection of nonflesh, but recognizes through the grace of the chiasm as flesh of its flesh. In a world freed from hypostases a new figuring of community ought to correspond to this truth of an anarchical and plural flesh. It is not true that the modern disincarnation and disincorporation of the Total Body fatally implies a disintegration of community, the becoming-fleshless of its flesh, as predict those nostalgic for the One. They forget that the by¬postasis of the Body is built on a secret substructure, the carnal commu¬nity of the monads which underlies and animates it. Infinitely ramifying, this transcendental Life- the life of the individuals and their, innumerable poles of flesh-preexists this hypostasis and survival decline. Perhaps the ruin of collective bodies and transcendent totalities will finally free the living flesh of community. Perhaps this infinite Life will engender new figures less forgetful of their carnal truth where being will again enter into intentional communion with being where flesh will endlessly em¬brace flesh in order to beget itself eternally. For nobody knows yet what flesh can do.

Advantage 2: Scarcity
This demand for organs is based on a medical discourse of scarcity which creates the conditions for harvesting – the ideology of organ trade creates a fetishization with the unnatural extension of life which makes a social ethic impossible Scheper-Hughes, 2001 (Nancy, Department of Anthropology at UC – Berkeley, The Global Traffic in Human Organs, June 27, http://www.publicanthropology.org/TimesPast/Scheper-Hughes.htm)

The "demand" for human organs, tissues, and body parts - and the search for wealthy transplant patients to purchase them - is driven by the medical discourse on scarcity. The specter of long transplant "waiting lists" - often we have found only virtual lists with little material basis in reality-has motivated and driven questionable practices of organ harvesting with blatant sales alongside "compensated gifting"; doctors acting as brokers; and fierce competition between public and private hospitals for patients of means. At its worst the scramble for organs and tissues has lead to human rights abuses and violations in intensive care units and in public morgues. But the very idea of organ "scarcity" is what Ivan Illich would call an artificially created need, invented by transplant technicians and dangled before the eyes of an ever-expanding sick, aging, and dying population. Bio-ethics creates the semblance of ethical choice (e.g., the right to buy a kidney based on a principle of individual autonomy) in an intrinsically unethical context. Unfortunately, there is no lack of desperate people willing to sell a kidney for a pittance, as little as $1,000. Many wait outside transplant units or in special waiting rooms and wards of surgical units reserved for them, in India, Iraq, and Turkey, begging to be considered and hoping for a good match with a prospective buyer. The sale of human organs and tissues requires that certain disadvantaged individuals, populations, and even nations have been reduced to the role of "suppliers." It is a scenario in which only certain bodies are broken, dismembered, fragmented, transported, processed, and sold in the interests of a more socially advantaged population of organs and tissues receivers. I use the word "fetish" advisedly to conjure up the displaced magical energy that is invested in the purchased living, and thereby strangely animate, kidney. The magical transformation of a person into a "life" that must be prolonged, saved, at any cost, has made life into the ultimate fetish as recognized many years ago by Ivan Illich. The idea of "life" itself as an object of manipulation, a relatively new idea in the history of modernity. The fetishization of life - a life preserved, prolonged, enhanced at almost any cost-erases any possibility of a social ethic.

The language of scarcity drives the illegal organ system. Nancy Scheper-Hughes 2k (Current Anthropology volume 41 number 2 “The global traffic in human organs” Chancellor’s Professor in Medical Anthropology Head, Doctoral Program in Medical Anthropology, Critical Studies in Medicine, Science and the Body Director, Organs Watch at Berkeley)

The demand for human organs—and for wealth transplant patients to purchase them—is driven by the medical discourse on scarcity. Similar to the parties in the international market in child adoption (see Scheper-Hughes 1991, Raymond 1989), those looking for transplant organs—both surgeons and their patients—are often willing to set aside questions about how the “purchased commodity” was obtained. In both instances the language of “gifts,” “donations,” “heroic rescues,” and “saving lives” masks the extent to which ethically questionable and even illegal means are used to obtain the desired object. The specter of long transplant waiting lists—often only virtual lists with little material basis in reality—has motivated physicians, hospital administrators, government officials, and various intermediaries to employ the questionable tactics for procuring organs. The results are blatant commercialism alongside “compensated gifting,” doctors acting as brokers, and fierce competition between public and private hospitals for patients of means. At its worst, the scramble for organs and tissues has led to the gross human rights violations in intensive care units and morgues. But the idea of organ scarcity is what Ivan Illich would call an artificially created need, invented by transplant technicians for an ever-expanding sick, aging, and dying population.

This discourse causes overproduction and waste of necessary organs. Nancy Scheper-Hughes 2k (Current Anthropology volume 41 number 2 “The global traffic in human organs” Chancellor’s Professor in Medical Anthropology Head, Doctoral Program in Medical Anthropology, Critical Studies in Medicine, Science and the Body Director, Organs Watch at Berkeley)

The discourse on scarcity conceals the overproduction of excess and wasted organs that daily end up in hospital dumpsters in parts of the world where the necessary transplant infrastructure is limited. The ill will and comepetitiveness of hospital workers and medical professionals also contributes to the waste of organs. Transplant specialists whom Cohen and I interviewed in South Africa, India, and Brazil often scoffed at the notion of organ scarcity, given the appallingly high rates of youth mortality, accidental death, homicide, and transport death that produce a superabundance of young, health cadavers. These precious commodities are routinely wasted, however, in the absence of trained organ-capture teams in hospital emergency rooms and intensive care units, rapid transorportation, and basic equipment to preserve “heart-beating” cadavers and their organs. And organ scarcity is reproduced in the increasing competition between public and private hospitals and their transplant surgeons, who, in the words of one South African transplant coordinator, “order their assistants to dispose of perfectly good organs rather than allow the competition to get their hands on them.” The real scarcity is not of organs but of transplant patients of sufficient means to pay for them. In India, Brazil, and even South Africa there is a superabundance of poor people willing to sell kidneys for a pittance.

This discourse cripples utilitarian calculation and relies on a biopolitical lifeboat ethical framework. Nancy Scheper-Hughes ’03 (“Rotten trade: millennial capitalism, human values and global justice in organs trafficking, Journal of Human Rights, vol 2:2)

But the very idea of organ ‘scarcity’ is what Ivan Illich (1970) would call an artificially created need, invented by transplant technicians and dangled before the eyes of an ever- expanding sick, aging and dying population. The resulting artificially created organs scarcity is ‘misrecognized’ (Bourdieu 1977) as a natural medical phenomenon. In this environment of ‘survivalist’ utilitarian pragmatics, the ethics of transplantation is modeled after classical ‘lifeboat’ ethics (Koch 2001). With ethical presumptions of scarcity, there appear to be clear choices to be made, namely who gets into the lifeboat (‘getting on the waiting list’); who will be shoved off the boat when it gets overcrowded (getting triaged while on the waiting list); and who will, in the end, be ‘eaten’ so that others may live (race and class disparities in organs procurement and distribution practices)?

Bringing social justice and ethical concerns to the forefront of the political arena can end the discourse of scarcity and reduce commodification of people. Nancy Scheper-Hughes ’03 (“Rotten trade: millennial capitalism, human values and global justice in organs trafficking, Journal of Human Rights, vol 2:2)

In his 1970 classic, The Gift Relationship, Richard Titmuss anticipates many of the dilemmas now raised by the global human organs market. His assessment of the negative social effects of commercialized blood markets in the USA could also be applied to the global markets in human organs and tissues. The commercialism of blood and donor relationships represses the expression of altruism, erodes the sense of community, lowers scientific standards, limits both personal and professional freedoms, sanctions the making of profits in hospitals and clinical laboratories, legalizes hostility between doctor and patient, subjects critical areas of medicine to the laws of the marketplace, places immense social costs on those least able to bear them – the poor, the sick, and the inept – increases the danger of unethical behavior in various sectors of medical science and practice, and results in situations in which proportionately more and more blood is supplied by the poor, the unskilled and the unemployed, Blacks and other low income groups. (Titmuss 1970: 314) The goal of our project is to bring broader social and social justice concerns to bear on global practices of organs procurement and transplant. This essay has been an attempt to delineate some of the contradictions inherent in a market-driven solution to the problem of ‘scarcity’ of human organs as well as a frank attempt to recapture the original biosociality inherent in the daring proposal to circulate organs as a radical act of fraternity and, finally, to bring a critical medical anthropological sensibility into the current debates on the commodifica- tion of the body.

Advantage 3: Biopolitics
The illegal organ market exemplifies biopolitics. The right to live trades comfortably with the need for more poor members of society to die. Nancy Scheper-Hughes ’03 (“Rotten trade: millennial capitalism, human values and global justice in organs trafficking, Journal of Human Rights, vol 2:2)

Commercialized transplant, a practice that trades comfortably in the domain of post- modern biopolitics with its values of disposability, individuality, free and transparent circu- lation, exemplifies better than any other biomedical technology the reach and the limits of economic liberalism. In transplant gifts of life and death (Parsons et al. 1969) promise to surpass all previous ‘natural’ limits and restrictions. And the uninhibited circulation of purchased kidneys exemplifies the neo-liberal episteme, a political discourse based on juridical concepts of the autonomous individual subject, equality (at least equality of opportunity), radical freedom, accumulation and universality (the expansion of medical rights and medical citizenship3). The commodified kidney is, to date, the primary currency in transplant tourism; it represents the gold standard of organ sales worldwide. In the past year, however, markets in part-livers and single corneas from living vendors are beginning to emerge in Southeast Asia.

Institutionalized exclusion of “illegal” and unworthy immigrants is the height of control over life. Dean, 02 (Mitchell Dean, Professor: Macquarie University, “Powers of Life and Death Beyond Governmentality”, Cultural Values, August 28, 2002)

Another example of an equally heterogenous set of powers is found in the treatment of those groups variously called asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and refugees. While we can map fundamental transformations in the national and international government of refugees (Lippert 1998), these governmental regimes are incomplete without decisions on who is to be included and who is to excluded from the juridical-political order. Some are thought worthy of inclusion in the citizenry; others are placed in the paradoxical situation of being included through their exclusion. In Australia, for example, those awaiting ª processingº are placed outside the political order within the perimeters of ª detention centersº. These sovereign decisions on the value of populations are a condition for a government of such populations, which regulates their movements across national borders, assigns them particular statuses and treats them accordingly.

This medical biopolitical power, in its efforts for eternal life, is the force behind genocide and war. Cynthia R. Nielson ’10 (10/11“Foucault on Modern Biopower and Its Attendant Narratives” PhD Philosophy Univ of Dallas)

How can modernity (and postmodernity) with all its scientific, economic, and medical advances produce tragedies such as the holocausts and gulags of the twenty-first century, ongoing war campaigns, chattel slavery, and publically accepted lawless spaces (Guantanamo Bay and the hypertrophic U.S. carceral system)? In the History of Sexuality, volume 1, Foucault provides an analytic account explaining how a new power configuration emerges—biopower and hence biopolitics—and produces the conditions for such blatant calculated thanatotic-elements within the (post)modern body politic. On Foucault’s reading, once Christian confessional technologies were translated from a sin and salvation paradigm into a scientific this-world-only paradigm, Christian pastoral power infiltrates society at large via psychiatry, schools, prisons, and medical practices. In other words, the new shepherds are school and prison counselors, police and military interrogators, psychiatrists, and medical doctors—those with specialized “secret” knowledge enabling them to decipher the “confessions” of those under their care and to categorize them according to norms in an effort to keep the population pure, safe, and functioning at optimum levels. With the transition from the ancient and medieval monarchical model of absolute power to the modern model of biopower, power is no longer centralized around the person of the king but is distributed in a net-like fashion operating, invading, and permeating the social body far more efficiently and effectively than the previous model. In its sovereign form, power “was essentially a right of seizure: of things, time, bodies and ultimately life itself.”[2] However, with the ushering in of modernity, or what Foucault calls the “classical age” (the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries), rather than operating chiefly through “deduction” (prélèvement) or taxation and other impositions upon and appropriations of the citizens’ wealth, goods, and labor, the new mechanisms of power in the West— while employing these “deductive” methods—constitute an altogether different power schematic. It is a “power bent on generating forces, making them grow, and ordering them, rather than one dedicated to impeding them, making them submit, or destroying them.”[3] Likewise, whereas in the ancient regime, the sovereign manifested his power over life through exercising his right to kill, now in the modern regime the focus is upon the “right of the social body to ensure, maintain, or develop its life. Yet wars were never as bloody as they have been since the nineteenth century, and […], never before did regimes visit such holocausts on their own populations.”[4] With these descriptions, Foucault emphasizes the dangerous side of productive power. In previous posts on Foucault I have been at pains to emphasize the positive aspects of productive power relations as manifest in pedagogical, parent/child, and other non-dominating asymmetrical relations, as well as the resistance possibilities inherent in power relations. However, Foucault’s account allows for and recognizes the other side of this new configuration of dispersed power on the body politic (which of course includes individuals). A new “power of death” expressed in the bloody wars, genocides, and holocausts of modernity now presents itself as the counterpart of a power that exerts a positive influence on life, that endeavors to administer, optimize, and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations. Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have become vital. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many men to be killed.[5] Having highlighted the death and life dialectic of the modern power configuration, Foucault discusses how mere survival rather than living well (eu zein) motivates modern war initiatives as well as their terminations. As he explains, the power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of the power to guarantee an individual’s continued existence. The principle underlying the tactics of battle—that one has to be capable of killing in order to go on living—has become the principle that defines the strategy of states. But the existence in question is no longer the juridical existence of sovereignty; at stake is the biological existence of a population. If genocide is indeed the dream of modern powers, this is not because of a recent return of the ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population.[6] It is not coincidental that a biologized notion of “race,” what philosopher Ron Mallon called “biobehavioral essentialism,” arose during the nineteenth century. Each specialized discipline has its own a classificatory system giving rise to the introduction of norms or standards and their correlatives, deviations.[7] This hierarchized biologized understanding of “race” can be (and has been) used in conjunction with nationalist religious or secularized narratives to further external and internal wars and genocide campaigns, to exterminate or at least confine and control the enemy within or the enemy without. With biopower and the asymmetrical knowledge-power relations of secularized pastoral power, we are dealing with an altogether different paradigm of self-knowledge—a paradigm in which ancient and medieval narratives of living well, care of the self, and eternal life have been translated into narratives of living healthily and as long as possible in order to be a productive, contributing worker-consumer of the globalized order. A second translation centers on purification. Whereas the Christian confessional technologies pursued ascetical practices in order to wage war on sin, modern confessional technologies are employed for the purpose of purifying and enhancing the species and thus can and do feed easily into modern “noble lies” about superior “races” which must be free of contaminating influences. In my current research, I show how narratives along these lines combined with Enlightenment and religious elements were very much at work in America’s chattel slavery system—a system aimed at producing docile disciplined bodies mainly for economic purposes, black bodies scripted as unworthy and subhuman and culminating in a new subjectivity—the American slave.

Observation 2: Solvency
The plan sends a signal of US concern over organ trafficking- this incentivizes worldwide action against organ trafficking and facilitates US cooperation Pubgliese 2007 (Elizabeth, J.D. candidate Catholic University of America, “Organ Trafficking and the TVPA: Why one word makes a difference in international enforcement efforts,” Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy, Fall, 2007)

The federal TVPA and the international Trafficking Protocol approach the same problem in different ways. The TVPA takes a purpose-based approach. The purpose for which the person is trafficked is the focus of the law. It is concerned with the reason for the trafficking-- the victim is subjected to forced labor or services, or commercial sex acts through force, fraud or coercion. n110 Under the Trafficking Protocol, the approach is more centered on the relationship between the trafficker and the victim. It is about exploitation of the victim, whether for labor, services or other reasons. n111 The trafficker takes advantage of the vulnerability of the victim to exert control. n112 Regardless of the approach, the two laws should be reconciled in order for the United States to continue its goal of leading the fight against all forms of human trafficking n113 and to enhance international enforcement efforts. Although the Trafficking Protocol was ratified and signed in December 2005, n114 Congress must still domesticate it (make it federal law). In order to become domestic law, the Protocol must either be a self-executing treaty n115 or Congress must implement it through appropriate legislation. n116 The [*197] Protocol is not self-executing, as it contains the specific clause "[e]ach state party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences the conduct set forth in article 3 of this Protocol, when committed intentionally." n117 Therefore, by its own terms, the United States must enact statutes to implement the object and purpose of the Protocol. The TVPA already complies with most of the requirements of the Trafficking Protocol. All that remains is to include organ trafficking in the definition in order to domesticate fully the Trafficking Protocol. A. Uniformity is Essential to Collaborative International Efforts The only way to address this crime, wherein the actions tend to be the movement of organs from poor to rich countries, n118 is through international cooperation and the development of a common, transnational strategy. n119 The United States must work with other countries to stem the flow of organs and stop the travel undertaken solely to save money on the transplant. The U.S. Department of Justice works with law enforcement in other countries to aid nations in building the capacity to prosecute traffickers and aid victims. n120 The questions asked by the United States before formulating a capacity building plan do not even begin to take into account organ trafficking. n121 The questions approach the issue from the U.S. perspective of [*198] labor or sex trafficking. n122 Although labor and sex trafficking are the largest types of human trafficking, a nation may have a significant organ trafficking problem that it might lack the capacity to address. By not even recognizing that organ trafficking is human trafficking, capacity building efforts may fail to be as comprehensive as they could be to address all forms of trafficking. This problem is exacerbated by the efforts of the U.S. Dept. of Justice that concentrate on only three themes: 1) sex trafficking; 2) labor trafficking; and 3) sex trafficking of children. n123 Therefore, coordination, capacity building, and eradication will focus on the causes and results related to these themes. If the issue is not considered a priority, enforcement of organ trafficking laws may be lacking due to limited resources. Further stretching limited resources in poorer countries that are struggling to address such a large problem is the United States' annual report assessing the efforts of other nations to combat trafficking. n124 The assessment is based on minimum standards as established in the TVPA. n125 These minimum standards require that a nation prohibit severe forms of human trafficking, punish it appropriately, provide protection to the victims, and cooperate with other nations to prevent and punish trafficking. n126 The definition of severe forms of trafficking is governed by the definition given in the Act. n127 As noted, this definition does not include organ trafficking. The State Department report ranks each nation, placing them in three tiers. Tier One is nations that are meeting the minimum standards set by the [*199] United States; Tier Two is those that are "making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance;" Tier Three is those nations that are not attempting to fight human trafficking. n128 Nations in Tier Two may be placed on a Special Watch list if they are in danger of slipping to Tier Three. n129 Being placed on the Special Watch List means that nation is not progressing adequately towards reaching the minimum standards set by the United States. n130 A nation on this list is subject to mandatory sanctions if it does not being to make adequate progress within the next year. n131 A nation desirous of avoiding the Special Watch List would be more willing to focus on those forms of trafficking found in the U.S. definition of trafficking rather than the international one in order to be removed from the Watch List. Regardless of its own problems with organ trafficking, which might be quite severe, a nation seeking U.S. aid in capacity building will put its limited resources towards ending practices which concern the United States and form the basis of the report. Resources will be focused on labor and sex trafficking. Resources will not be focused on the area of organ trafficking. A nation must prioritize its resources and the United States should not compound the difficulty of a nation's decisions regarding where to focus its limited resources by an overly restrictive definition of organ trafficking. The U.S. Senate passed a resolution on February 20, 2005, calling for ratification of the Trafficking Protocol stating that ratification would "enhance the ability of the U.S. government to render and receive assistance on a global basis in the common struggle to prevent, investigate, and prosecute trafficking in persons." n132 This shows that the Senate understands the need for a common basis to coordinate activities in order to fight a transnational and growing problem. A unified definition that includes all forms of trafficking currently troubling nations would reinforce this common basis.

Exposing issues like organ transplant treatment works to critique the biomedical model. Tierny 98 (“theory and Event, 2:1. Thomas. Associate Professor of Philosophy and Political Science at Concord College in Athens, West Virginia)

Foucault discussed one facet of the potential disruption that late-modern medicine faces in an interview on "social security," which was first published in 1983. He pointed out that modern strategies for promoting health and minimizing risk have developed to the point where decisions must be made concerning "what illness, what type of pain, will no longer receive coverage - a point at which, in certain cases, life itself will be at risk." 115 What Foucault emphasized about such decisions was that the exposure of this close relationship with death threatened to disrupt the juridico-medical rationality according to which modernity is governed. Of such decisions to expose certain populations to health risks, Foucault claimed: Such choices are being made all the time, even though it is not being admitted. They are made in the logic of a certain rationality and are then justified in various ways. . . . There is a paradox here: this strategy is acceptable, in the present state of things, providing it remains silent. If it is given voice, even in the form of a more or less acceptable rationality, it becomes morally unbearable. Take the example of dialysis machines: how many patients are being treated in this way, how many others cannot benefit from them? Supposing the choices by which one ends up with this inequality of treatment were revealed: the exposure of such guidelines would cause a scandal! In this area a certain rationality becomes a scandal. 116 In developing this Foucauldian perspective on the relation between anatomy and governmentality, I hope to have heightened the sensitivity for scandal in regard to the governing medical rationality. Issues such as physician assisted suicide, or the efforts to remedy the shortage in transplantable organs, have the potential for bringing the historical relationship between death, medicine, and governmental rationality to the fore. Consider, for instance, the recent scandal that developed when the Cleveland Clinic announced a policy of harvesting organs shortly after the donors's hearts had stopped beating, rather than following the prevailing standard of death and waiting until all brain activity had ceased. Although a recent study found that one-third of the 500 U.S. hospitals studied already remove organs from donors who are not clinically brain-dead, the Cleveland Clinic drew attention because its proposed policy not only authorized the removal of respirators before brain-death, but also required the injection of two drugs that would help preserve and prepare the organs for transplant. Since there is some question about whether one of these two injections might also speed the failure of the donors's hearts, a county prosecutor accused the Clinic of proposing to hasten the deaths of patients in order to harvest their organs, and the Clinic ultimately abandoned the proposed policy. 117 When one takes into account the close and shifting relationship between death, medicine, and political power in modernity, one can glimpse beyond the individual health risks posed by issues such as organ shortages, and recognize in them indications of the role that medicine has played, and continues to play, in ordering the experience of death in modernity. For despite the claims of medical associations and professional groups concerning medicine's overarching concern for life and healing, when issues such as palliative care, assisted suicide, or fetal tissue research are viewed from this genealogical perspective, they raise the question of how the particular ordering of death that underlies the framing and resolution of these issues supports the larger juridico-medical order that spawned them. Furthermore, approaching such bio-ethical issues with a sense of their historical trajectory provides certain tactical advantages over an approach which confronts these issues solely as matters of life and death for individuals. For just as the fear of dissection was manipulated by the sponsors and supporters of the Anatomy Act, the many fears that have emerged around recent bio-ethical dilemmas, such as the fear of languishing in a vegetative state or dying for lack of a transplantable organ, may also be readily turned to the advantage of modernity's medicalized order of death. The most effective preventative against this manipulation is an awareness of the historical dimensions of that order.

Non-state alternatives have tried and failed. Nancy Scheper-Hughes 2 (SIAS Review, 22:1)

The only dissident voices raised against the dominant transplant narrative come from far afield and are expressed in unpalatable forms that are all too easily discredited. These alternative bioethical [End Page 62] positions have been expressed, perhaps somewhat "primitively," in the context of the discourse of organ theft that represents the underlying fears of the poor and other socially marginalized groups. To a great many of those living on the fringes of the new global disorder, the scramble for "fresh" organs and tissues increases their profound sense of ontological insecurity in a world that values their bodies as a reservoir of spare parts. 3 The rumors of blood and body parts theft have provoked strong popular resistance to new laws of presumed consent recently passed in such countries as Brazil and Mexico. Opponents of presumed consent laws contest the state's right to claim dead bodies for organs and tissues harvesting. Yet their limited resistance is unable to forestall the rapid growth of the international organs market as those on both sides of the transplant equation are beginning to accept these still largely covert transactions, protected by transplant medicine's coyly averted gaze.

Even if the state is bad we should use the state to prevent the worst aspects of capitalism. Chomsky1997 (Noam, Interview with David Barsamian, Z Magazine, March)

I don’t know if you recall that in a previous interview with you I made some comment about how, in the current circumstances, devolution from the federal government to the state level is disastrous. The federal government has all sorts of rotten things about it and is fundamentally illegitimate, but weakening federal power and moving things to the state level is just a disaster. At the state level even middle-sized businesses can control what happens. At the federal level only the big guys can push it around. That means, that if you take, say, aid for hungry children, to the extent that it exists, if it’s distributed through the federal system, you can resist business pressure to some extent. It can actually get to poor children. If you move it to the state level in block grants, it will end up in the hands of Raytheon and Fidelity—exactly what’s happening here in Massachusetts. They have enough coercive power to force the fiscal structure of the state to accommodate to their needs, with things as simple as the threat of moving across the border. These are realities. But people here tend to be so doctrinaire. Obviously there are exceptions, but the tendencies here, both in elite circles and on the left, are such rigidity and doctrinaire inability to focus on complex issues that the left ends up removing itself from authentic social struggle and is caught up in its doctrinaire sectarianism. That’s very much less true there. I think that’s parallel to the fact that it’s less true among elite circles. So just as you can talk openly there about the fact that Brazil and Argentina don’t really have a debt, that it’s a social construct, not an economic fact—they may not agree, but at least they understand what you’re talking about—whereas here I think it would be extremely hard to get the point across. Again, I don’t want to overdraw the lines. There are plenty of exceptions. But the differences are noticeable, and I think the differences have to do with power. The more power and privilege you have, the less it’s necessary to think, because you can do what you want anyway. When power and privilege decline, willingness to think becomes part of survival. I know when excerpts from that interview we did were published in The Progressive, you got raked over the coals for this position. Exactly. When I talked to the anarchist group in Buenos Aires, we discussed this. Everybody basically had the same recognition. There’s an interesting slogan that’s used. We didn’t mention this, but quite apart from the Workers Party and the urban unions, there’s also a very lively rural workers organization. Millions of workers have become organized into rural unions which are very rarely discussed. One of the slogans that they use which is relevant here, is that we should "expand the floor of the cage." We know we’re in a cage. We know we’re trapped. We’re going to expand the floor, meaning we will extend to the limits what the cage will allow. And we intend to destroy the cage. But not by attacking the cage when we’re vulnerable, so they’ll murder us. That’s completely correct. You have to protect the cage when it’s under attack from even worse predators from outside, like private power. And you have to expand the floor of the cage, recognizing that it’s a cage. These are all preliminaries to dismantling it. Unless people are willing to tolerate that level of complexity, they’re going to be of no use to people who are suffering and who need help, or, for that matter, to themselves.

=2ACs=

Politics
2. Link Turn A. Congress Trafficking policies are popular – would be spun as anti-immigration Haynes 04 (Dina Francesca Haynes, prof at the Center for Applied Legal Studies at Georgetown, “Used, Abused, Arrested, and Deported: Extending Immigration Benefits to Protect the Victims of Trafficking and to Secure the Prosecution of Traffickers,” 26 Hum. Rts. Q. 229 2004) Trafficking is a low priority for ... or illegal immigrants.37

Congress wants the plan PUGLIESE 07 (Elizabeth, B.A., Holy Name University, Oakland, CA, 1988: M.A., St. Mary's University, San Antonio, TX, 1998; J.D. Candidate, The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, May 2008, “Organ Trafficking And The TVPA: Why One Word Makes A Difference In International Enforcement Efforts,” 24 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 181, Fall) It is clear that Congress ... with the findings of the TVPA.

B. McCain

He likes the plan UPI 8 (May 7, 2008, “McCain outlines 'human dignity' agenda” Lexis, JAK) Society has a "moral obligation" to fight ... assistance to trafficking victims."

He’s key to the agenda Cilizza 08 (Chris, Political Reporter – Washington Post, “What’s Next for McCain”, Washington Post, 11-17, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/republican-party/whats-next-for-mccain.html) In many ways, McCain is in uncharted ... is headed over the next few years.

C. Winners win – political leadership in tough fights builds capital Singer 09 (Jonathan, My Direct Democracy editor, My Direct Democracy, “By Expending Capital, Obama Grows His Capital”, 3-3-9, http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428, accessed 7-8-9) From the latest NBC News-Wall Street ...to ending the war in Iraq.

D. Fiat is immediate means no political capital is lost

E. The Disad isn’t intrinsic

1. Do the plan and ___

2. Standards:

a. Reciprocal burdens: aff advantages have to be intrinsic of plan action. Neg disads should be as well.

b. Real world: Congress can always take both actions.

c. Topic-specific eduation: non-intrinsic disads are nowhere to be found in any topic lit and moot out the topic.

3. No Internal Link

A. Political capital isn’t finite Mann 09 – Senior Lecturer of Governance Studies @ Brookings Institute (Thomas, “After the 2008 Election: Politics and the Governance in the United States,”, 4/21/09, http://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2009/0421_governance_mann.aspx,) In reality, each presidency has its ... the life of his administration.

B. No spillover between issues Edwards 04 [George (prof of Poli Sci at TAMU, director of the Center for Presidential Studies), 2004, “Riding High in the Polls: George W. Bush and Public Opinion,” Congressional Quarterly Press] JK Passing legislation was even more ... in deference to a widely supported chief executive.

C. Obama doesn’t get the blame

D. Party solidarity overwhelms political capital Yglesias 09 [Matthew (Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund), June 15, 2009, “The Limits of Political Capital,” Think Progress Organization, http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/the-limits-of-political-capital.php] JK I think the answer to the ... than airy considerations of capital.

E. Finite constraints and reciprocity ensure logrolling doesn’t occur Hahn & Mühe 09 -- PhD Economics & Professor at Center for Economic Research (Hahn, Volker & Mühe, Felix January 2009. “Committees and Reciprocity.” Mathematical Social Sciences 57:1, 26-47.)

One might wonder whether ... help the other player.

Cap K
1. Turn : Biopower is the cause of capitalistic regimes where bodies become mechanisms of production Chin. 2006 Lawrence C., competed his BS in philosophy at the University of Long Beach, California, and completed some post-graduate work at the University of Montreal, Canada, A Thermodynamic Interpretation of History CHAPTER 2: Foucault's Bio Power: His Genealogy of Racism and Psychoanalysis http://www.geocities.com/therapeuter2002/thermhch2.html The rise of bio-power is intimately ... its "immediate" origin (middle-class) turns on the first two.

2. Extend Scheper-Hughes 98, the illegal organ market is the epitome of Capitalism. If anything we result in a net decrease in capitalist thinking

3. Extend Scheper-Hughes 02, no solvency, non-state alternatives have tried and failed.

4. Discourse that works within institutions actually work to destroy biopower’s control. Only by adopting a system of Batesian mimicry can we prevent co-option and still deconstruct the system. Peter Atterton 1994 philosophy professor, University of California San Diego, HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES JOURNAL, p. http://www.acusd.edu/~atterton/Publications/foucault.htm. Thus Foucault rightly urges us to give ... struggle' - are constantly flaring up to take their place.

5. Rejection fails - capitalism co-opts resistance to create more insidious means of oppression. My using batesian mimicry we fool the system and avoid co-option. Menand 3 [Louis Menand, Distinguished Professor of English, CUNY Graduate Center, January 27, 2003 New Yorker] "Animal Farm," George Orwell's satire, which ... is a distortion of what he really thought and the kind of writer he was.

6. Local resistance fails, only by proposing a global action can we challenge capitalist systems Hardt and Negri 2k [Michael Hardt, Literature Professor, Antonio Negri, former political science professor, U Paris, 2000 (EMPIRE, http://textz.gnutenberg.net/text.php?id=1034709069754&search=hardt+negri+empire) (PDOCSS2367)] Our study set out from the hypothesis ... be met with a counter-globalization, Empire with a counter- Empire. 7. Turn: Representations of capitalism as monolithic and all powerful create a capitalist hegemony that destroy the possibility of an alternative Gibson-Graham 96 [pen name of Katherine Gibson, Senior Fellow of Human Geography at Australian National University, and Julie Graham, professor of Geography at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It), U of Minnesota Press p. 2-3] Representations of capitalism are a ... to populate that world with exotic

8. Plan Solves: Assuming the interconnectedness of each system of oppression creates a transforming conceptual. THIS is the truly radical movement. Collins 90 [Patricia Hill, Associate Professor of African American Studies University of Cincinnati, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. p.225] "What I really feel is radical is ... the rethinking of basic social science concepts.