September/October LD Resolution

I would like to thank my opponent for her insightful rebuttals, and my responses are as followsRe-Value & Value Criterion:Given the fact that the Constitution titled: “The Constitution of the United States of America”, and by assuming that the framers did take every single word inscribed on the Constitution solemnly, it is unreasonable to assume that the Constitution is not primarily intended for the United States citizens. Subsequently, it is reasonably to believe that the Federal government should always put national interests as their top priority and should be advised to actively pursue it. Therefore, I am not obligated to assume the truth of the universality in my argument on the ground that the Constitution neither explicitly stated nor implied that the justice is severed only if it possesses the universal property. My central assumption, besides my principles, is that if a particular action or a set of actions are considered to be at odd with the spirits of the constitutions, this particular action or the actions should not, therefore, be either encouraged. I did not discuss the justifiability of the Constitution and I was not required to do it either. Therefore, my opponents may misunderstand how I reach my conclusions and unfairly accuses me of assuming something that I am not obligated to assume.Re-Contention 1The rights granted by the Constitution are reserved to her people, and not the alleged suspects. In order to rebuttal my contention, my opponent has to assume the universality of the justices., the very thing I display neither approval or inapproval. As mentioned above, I will be assuming that the U.S Constitution was drafted to promote the national interest by realizing each point enumerated in the preamble it. By granting the rights enjoyed by the United States citizens to the accused aliens, the Federal government will have to spend the money that originally reserved to its people on trying the accused aliens, and such an activity may potentially harm the general welfare of its citizens. Given the seriousness of national debt, it is not unwarranted to assume that the citizens would be worse off if the money originally reserved to benefit their lives is instead utilized to grant accused aliens the due process protections. Moreover, the approval of the due process protections would undermine the justice enjoyed by the citizens. Simply put, why should the United States citizens sacrifice themselves in order to benefit the accused aliens who intend to do their harms? Would such an activity considered just?Re-Contention 2My opponent believes that the argument presuppose the guilt of the accused terrorists. The word “may” in my sentence, however, suggests otherwise. The completed sentence in support my argument is: “By granting the terrorists the right to enjoy the constitutional due process protections, the suspects may not be willing to talk...” The word “may” emphatically shows that there could be some falsely accused cases. Taken an analogy case, my contention can be compared to “preventative cares” or “immunizations.” Instead of waiting until the diseases infect people, medical cares are conjured to prevent it from happening. Federal Government should grant these accused terrorists the right of due process protections because some of them, if not all, would possess valuable intelligence information, and the intelligence gatherings are the keys to fight against the terrorism. The nation will face two choices: either granting the suspects the due process protections thereby potentially putting lives of her citizens at risk or deny the protections therefore prevent accused terrorists from continuing murdering the innocent citizens. Furthermore, to ease the worry of my opponent with respect to the false accusation, it should be noted that the accused aliens do enjoy some basic rights. The Detainee Treatment Act, signed by President George W. Bush on December 30, 2005, requires that “No person in the custody or effective control of the Department of Defense, or in a Department of Defense facility, be subjected to any treatment or interrogation technique not authorized by and listed in the United State army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.” DOD Directive 2310.01E is another one that address the right of accused alines.Re-Contention 3Please see my response to Contention 1 & 2Re-Rebuttal 1The last two sentences give me an impression that since “we believe our laws to be just”, then it is “just”. So according to my opponent, as long as we believe something is the case, then it is the case. And we should always fulfill what we believe, regardless whether it is right or wrong. By the same token, I can also say that any war is good because each nation is trying to do what they believe to be right. But should such a idea of “justice” be considered “objective?” Re-Rebuttal 2I do not take the phrase “in general” lightly. I purposely placed the phrase “in general” at the head of my sentences to show that there are many instances that my opponent proposal may work (not the resolution, but her reasoning instead). I highlight the word “as long as” to show that there is a boundary, however, for the application of her arguments. As I have repeatedly demonstrated throughout my argument, no one should transgress the rights of U.S. citizens granted by the U.S. Constitutions. When the inevitable collision between the national interests and the pursuant of the Justices happens, the U.S. Constitution should trump.Re-Rebuttal 3My opponent's statement “It is, however, the Untied States’...of U.S. citizens” is the underlying principle, and the “accused terrorists” is a realization of the principle above. Without assuming the principle, which is identical to the conclusion, my opponent may not be able to justify her conclusion properly.Re-Rebuttal 4Rebuttal 4 works in tandem with my contention 1 & 2. It is used to demonstrate that the United States Constitution does not presuppose any universality or natural rights. Given the fact that the Constitution is reserved to her people, it is hard to fathom how my opponent can extrapolate the spirits to other non-citizens. Thank you.