Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court...

I beg Pro's indulgence as I am still learning the LD format. I hope I will nonetheless provide a good workout of his case. I accept the definitions of "ought", "submit", "jurisdiction", and "international court." I accept "Crimes against Humanity" with the exception of "political persecution" which is undefined and dangerously vague. can someone claim "political persecution" if they merely lose and election that they think they should have won? It seems to me that item can be deleted without changing the sense of the debate. I accept justice as the value, and human rights as the criteria. However, human rights are not explicitly defined, and there are conflicts among human rights. For example, the right to free speech may be in conflict with a need to keep secrets from an enemy. It should therefore be recognized that conflicts among human rights will be ordinarily resolved by different value criteria according to each nation's criteria. An International court will presumably resolve conflicts among human rights according to the majority opinion of the Court, which may be at great variance with that of an affected nation. I ask that Pro further define what he means by "International Court." What countries would be represented on the Court? How would countries be selected for representation? Would authoritarian regimes be represented equally with democracies? Would there be weighting by population? Would populous countries like India or China have more sway than Belgium or Luxembourg? How would jurists be selected within the countries? Such matters are extremely important because they determine what values are used to resolve conflicts among human rights, and whether justice would prevail over the interests of individual countries. ---------------------------- 1. Contention 1 is false. The United States does do its duty to protect human rights. (a) With respect to the example, there is no evidence that any prisoner was ever tortured at Guantanamo Bay. Allegations have been investigated by Congress, and nothing found. Inspectors from the International Red Cross are permanently on site and have found nothing that could be reasonably thought to be torture. Waterboarding was used a total of three times by the CIA, not at Gitmo, and in two of the three instances produced information that saves the lives of at least dozens, and perhaps hundreds of American lives. (Waterboarding does no permanent mental or physical damage. It is applied by the CIA to its agents for training, and a general in the US Army was waterboarded in a fraternity initiation.) The value criteria at issue is whether the value of the lives of American citizens, being a human right, outweighs the right of terrorist to escape temporary discomfort. Pro presumes that an International Court would value more highly. that is sufficient reason to reject the Resolution. (b) The issue of Constitutionality ruled upon was that the prisoners could not be held without review by a military tribunal. The military tribunal serves to identify captured prisoners of war from potential innocent bystanders. I agree that the Court's ruling was proper. A law was subsequently passed with the support of both the Administration and the Congress that provided for a tribunal system. Note that internationally, many countries permit holding prisoners for varying periods of time without charges being filed or judicial review. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that an International court would bring greater justice. Contention 2 fails because nations will use the Court to further their interests, not provide justice. (a) That there should be "liberty and justice" does not confirm any particular concept of justice. In World War II, about 500,000 prisoners were captured by US forces and held under a military tribunal system. Requiring full trials with forensic evidence and testimony would have forced most prisoners to be released. Doing so would have been unjust, because the Allies and their soldiers have a greater human right to life and liberty than captured combatants. (b) There is no reason to believe that an International court would subscribe to Cromwell's rights or the Declaration of Independence, nor attempt to provide rights fairly. For example, alleged, but false, accusations of torture at Gitmo are condemned by international organizations. However, terrorists cutting off heads on television barely causes a raised eyebrow. The reason is that International Courts reflect the agendas of the countries they represent, not justice. Thus we could not expect justice from an International Court. (c) Pro claims "it seems obvious that the most fair, accurate, and unbiased judgment would come from a conglomerate of nations." Reviewing the actual experience, it is clear that no such thing has ever happened. The United Nations is a conglomerate of nations. They elected the Sudan, a country that actively practices slave trading, to head up its human rights organization. The most egregious violations of human rights are going on in Darfur and Zimbabwe and nothing whatsoever is done. the UN cannot even pass a resolution condemning the human rights violations in Zimbabwe http://www.newzimbabwe.com... The International Court in the Hague allowed the trial of Milosovic http://www.washingtonpost.com... for genocide to drag on for 14 years, with the result that he died of natural causes without ever receiving justice. The reasons are that individual nations put their own narrow interests above achieving justice. International organizations include authoritarian regimes who will never allow justice to prevail. Even democratic countries have interests that conflict with justice. Many European nations have a mindset of appeasement that precludes confronting obvious injustice. The resolution fails because there is no way to constitute an International Court so that it's main concern is justice rather than the interests of the nations making the appointments to the Court. Moreover, even each appointed judge sincerely placed justice as the highest priority, concepts of justice vary so widely that the United States would suffer a loss of human rights. For example, repression of women's rights is considered just in much of the world, so the United States could be forced to tolerate such widespread oppression and abuse. To preserve and advance human rights I urge the resolution be rejected.