September/October LD Resolution

I wish to express my gratitude and thanks for Carpediem initiating this debate. Negative Constructive Definitions: The National Interests: No uniformed definition. In this argument, the phrase “The National Interests” is interchangeable with the phrase “The Purpose of the United States Constitution.” Aliens: non-citizens Value: The Purpose of the United States Constitution The preamble of the United States Constitution defines the purpose of the United State Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Value Criterion: No Actions or procedures shall be taken if the purpose of the United States Constitution is deemed to be harmed. Contention 1. Granting the accused terrorists the Constitutional due process protections would inevitably damage government’s Interest in preserving scarce government resources In this fiscal year, Federal Government plans to provide $27.1 billion in discretionary funding to the department of Justice, whereas United States Attorneys Office would get approximately $1.96 billion in funding. It is clear that these lawsuits do impose a significant amount of fiscal obligations on the federal government. If the accused aliens were allowed to be tried in accordance with the due process of the law, it would be the United States Attorneys Office, on behalf of the Federal Government, responsible for arguing the case. Moreover, given the gravity the situation, it is not impossible for the accused terrorists to appeal the ruling. Presumably, the case similar to this would end up in the Supreme Court of the United States, and It usually takes at least a year or two to get to there. In some extreme cases, if the case is remanded and sent back to the lower court, it could take even longer to have the final ruling. The prolonged legal fights would impose an unnecessary burden on the Federal Government and its people. Thus, to deny the grant of the Constitution due process protections to the alleged terrorists will therefore preserve scarce government resources, a legitimate government purpose. Hence the United States ought not to extend the Constitutional due process protections to the accused aliens. Contention 2. Allowing accused terrorists to enjoy the Constitution rights may damage national security. Federal Government has a unique interest in intelligence gathering, particularly in the case where any enemy is charged of terrorism. By granting the terrorists the right to enjoy the constitutional due process protections, the suspects may not be willing to talk, thereby impeding there intelligence gathering process where, in extreme cases, would cost many innocent lives. Moreover, the American law system is constructed to deter unlawful activities by punishing criminals. Aliens who are accused of terrorism, upon release, may rejoin the enemy and continuing to fight against America and its allies. Therefore, by protecting national interests, the accessed aliens should not be granted the Constitutional due process protections. Contention 3: Moral and Justice should not be unduly encouraged at the expense of national interests (The underlying principles of my argument) I believe that being the world only super sower, the United States do have the rights and the obligations to advocate Democracy, administrate Justice, and fight for the Human Rights whenever and wherever it is possible as long as the manner of conducts is compatible with national interests. It is not unreasonable to assume that by granting the accused aliens the constitutional rights is a step to encourage the Democracy and Human Rights. The procedure, if enforced, however, would present formidable practical difficulties. As mentioned in my proceeding contentions, by granting the accused aliens the constitutional due process protections, the government may be deprived of the resources granted to its citizens. As articulated by the framers, the very purpose of the United States Constitution is to promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourself and Prosperity. Allowing the accused aliens to enjoy the Constitutional due process protections would unquestionably violate the very spirit of the Constitution, i.e., “promote the general Welfare.” Moreover, allowing the accused aliens to access the Constitutional rights would interfere with the intelligence gathering process thereby putting our nation and allies in jeopardy. Besides, there is no provisions whatsoever, either implied or specially articulated in the U.S. Constitution, suggests that the United States should protect the right of aliens at the expense of her own people. Therefore, it is unwarranted to assume that the United States should grant the constitutional due process protections to the accused aliens. Rebuttals Rebuttal 1: Questionable assumptions with respect to the statement: “Justice is universal and objective,...,I think that we can agree that it is in fact wrong and unjust to do so.” I accept the fact that “Justice” is universal and objective, but how can we be know that the the concept of “Justice” articulated by the United States is the concept of “Justice” defined objectively? I would like to have some clarifications on it if possible. Rebuttal 2: Reacting to injustices justly (Contention 1) - General Principles In general, I do believe that U.S government should react to injustices justly. But like I have mentioned in my third contention, the United States have the rights and the obligations to advocate Democracy, administrate Justice, and fight for the Human Rights whenever and wherever it is possible as long as the objective of pursuance is compatible with national interests. If, however, the national interests are compromised, it would be improper for the United States to continue doing so. Rebuttal 3: Reacting to injustice justly (Contention 1) - Possible Circular Reasoning. I sense a circular reasoning in pro’s argument. Please correct me If I am wrong. To my understanding, Pro believes that since “we want justice for everyone”, then we “should not deny the rights we have given our citizens.” Compared with the resolution “The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism...”, I think we have to assume the conclusion in order to justify the contentions. The essence of the resolution is to prove that “we want justice for everyone.” Merely because the Justice is the a universal right, it does not imply that the United States ought to make sure that everyone enjoy this right. Shouldn’t we have to assume that the United States want to have everyone enjoyed the universal right? And that is why we are trying to prove. Therefore, it occurs to me that we might have a circular reasoning here. Rebuttal 4: Due process protections uphold natural rights and are therefore just (Contention 2) I believe that Pro invoked Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to justify her cause. Neither the Fifth nor Fourteenth Amendment, however, suggests that the due process protections, enjoyed by the citizens, should be extended to aliens, let alone the accused aliens. Fourteenth Amendment states, and I quote “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United State.” Therefore, I do not believe that either Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments can be applied to advance pro’s argument. Thank you. References Department of Justice, retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov... United States Constitution, retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org... In Defense of Marriage, retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com...