DDO LD Tournament: Due Process for Terrorists

The order will be Overview, NC, AC. OVERVIEW About the rules. .. Initially, the Mods, including myself, proposed the rule against copying and pasting in order to prevent debaters from stealing other people's arguments--yet the arguments I made were 100% my own. I think the spirit of the rules should be taken into consideration. Additionally, we can see that my arguments regarding the ICCPR were never copied/pasted, nor was any of my framework (Definitions, Observation, Value, Cirterion). I urge judges to consider this as well. I have taken this admonition to heart--I honestly forgot that I had used these arguments before on DDO. I apologize. However, I would ask that in light of these facts that only a conduct point be deducted. CON's CASE V: Morality - Con explains that he is defining morality is consequentialist in nature. However, I would argue that this is not what morality is. If I asked, is killing moral, the answer would be no. Why do potenital benefits deriving from an immoral act, suddenly make immorality morality? For example, if I have the option of killing on man to save 3, Con would say I should kill the one man. Doing so would be pragmatic, but not moral. Yes, I saved 3 people, but that doesn't change the fact that killing is still wrong. It was the best course of action in a no-win situation, but that doesn't make it right. The lesser of two evils is still evil, after all. Therefore, Con cannot uphold his own value, because it is deontological in nature. C: National Security (NatSec) - I have three points to make here: (1) I have already delinked this ends-based criterion from the value with the abovementioned analysis, (2) I can link to it regardless, (3) Con fails to justify why National Secuirity is the best criterion to use--why not some other edns-based funtion like plain-old utilitarianism or rights maximization. Why this criterion. C1: NatSec outwighs liberty Before I address Con's sub-points, it is important to note that his tagline is not supported by his sub-points. All his arguments show is the NatSec and liberty occasionally come into conflict--and this is a different issue than making the case for one being more important than the other. Moreover, there is a grave risk that if we take the line that NatSec is more important than liberty that we could devolve into an Orwellian state where we have no rights and where the state and its own survival is supreme. Finally, cross-apply my observation here; it explains that rights are trumps, meaning liberty actually outweighs NatSec, not the other way around. Sub-point A: Trying terrorists in civilian courts makes them harder to convict My opponents argument is basically this: "Military tribunals are so biased and unfair that accused terrorists don't stand a chance of being exonerated. Therefore, if we want to incapacitate accused terrorists--even thought they might be innocent--we shouldn't let them be tried fairly. " We cannot merely assume that ACCUSED terrorists are guilty (it's immoral to lock up innocents)--military courts should be avoided because they are more likely to lock away innocent people. Secondly. if you take this logic to its logical conclusion, a government should be able to try civilians without due process, because it will help us lock away more criminals. Such pure reliance on consequentialism can lead the state down the path to the Orwellian state. Sub-point B: Classified Information In fact, civilian trials have effective procedures in place to preserve sensitive information. Roth asserts that, "Congress enacted the Classified Information Procedures Act, empowering federal judges to review requests for classified information with the aim of sanitizing that information as much as possible or restricting its disclosure to only those defense lawyers with security clearance. The purpose of the act is to protect a defendant's right to confront all the evidence against him while safeguarding legitimate intelligence secrets"Judges who have tried cases under CIPA speak of it as a reasonable compromise between fairness and security. " Impact Turn: Con argues for Military Tribunals. Military tribunals will actually increase terrorist violence. Schulhoefer argues that "military tribunals allow terrorists to paint themselves as victims" and to encourage the belief that the U. S. is an unjust, cruel, and anti-Islamic regime. Such sentiments, only intensify anti-Americanism and help groups like al-Qaeda recruit. According to Kristen Lord, John Nagl, and Seth Rosen, "Since ideology unites and strengthens violent extremists, an effective strategy must undermine that ideology"s appeal. .. Countering the movement"s guiding narrative. .. and sapping it of popular support should be critical benchmarks of success. .. The US cannot capture or kill every violent Islamist extremist, and trying. .. would impair its ability to fight extremism ideologically. " My sub-point D can also be cross-applied here to emphasize this point. Sub-point D: Terror threatens global survival There are a few things to say here: (1) Con never says how likely it is that terrorist will acquire WMDs, and (2) terror attacks are rare. Foriegn Affairs Magazine (2005) states: "Since September 11, international terrorism has killed only a few hundred people per year around the globe. .. the lifetime probability of any resident of the globe being killed by terrorism is just one in 80,000, the same chance of being killed by a comet. " (3) My impact turn shows how Con is promoting terrorism himself. Contention Two: Equal Protection Sub-point A: Habeas Corpus Habeas Corpus lets you have a day in court, but if that day is in front of a biased court, then HC is pretty useless. Military tribunals are indeed unfair: Prof. Richard Pious states, "In many respects due process protections were lacking [in tribunals]. No definition of "international terrorism" was provided. .. Group association and membership, rather than commission of concrete acts, could be the basis for detention and trial, and there was no requirement of "probable cause" that a crime had been committed. " Sub-point B: Already are = If you believe this, and if you believe that this should be the case, then you should affirm. Con has to argue against = protect, but he just gave arguments for it. Sub-point C: Devalue Citizenship All people are equally human, and we all have equal human rights. Certain societal rights, like voting, are retained for citizens exclusively, but due process is not such a right--it is one granted to all people in equal measure. PRO's CASE Definitions: Accused - Con's only reason for rejecting my definition is that it "narrows the debate," yet he never explains why that's bad. Secondly, if accusations aren't formal ones, then I could--as a civilian--accuse any random person of being a terrorist and that random person would suddenly fall under the topic. That's way overbroad. DP - points 1 and 2 that Con cites are not DP protections, they are DP process exceptions. The actual protections are in and derived from the Constitution. Point 3 basically argues that we should toss out the Constitution. .. need I say "Orwellian State" again? Observation: Rights 1. The ME example falls short. Simply because women's rights aren't recognized, does not mean that those women do not have those rights. Con employs this fallacy. 2. Prominent utilitarians like Singer disavow the notion of rights. Utility is not a theory of rights, and Con is confusing it in this way. Moreover, just because rights (which a moral trumps) are violated in pragmatic interests, does not mean that rights are not moral trumps. It doesn't follow. 3. We relinquished only some rights in our social contact. We have other rights enshrined in that very same contract--just read the Constitution. The SC is not license for the government to go wild in pursuit of security. V/C Everyone is due HR as per my C1 analysis. Moreover, Con's Radsan card is talking about judicial review of executive actions, not DP itself. Clearly, the courts have found this review to not be "unreasonable" b/c they have made rulings on it. As for the claims about the UDHR, (1) I never cited the UDHR, (2) I cited two LEGALLY BINDING treaties that the U. S. is not compliant with. Because it is violating the law, it ought to change its actions to ensure it conforms to such agreements. Just saying that because "the united states doesn't follow" something, does not mean that the U. S. shouldn't follow something. Con's point is therefore an invalid non-argument. C1: SA 1. Radsan is talking there about actions "abroad. " This resolution is domestic, and so Con's point is not topical. 2. It doesn't contradict ought because we ought to follow the law/the Constitution. Desirability does not necessarily imply what is consequentially best as Con asserts. For example, it is not desirable to violate rights because it is immoral. SB 1. Zechenter is talking about HR in general--all nations do recognize their existence. 2. The Constitution is not "off-topic" in a resolution about the U. S. C2: SA Firstly, Con provides no warrants for his claim. 1, 4 - The evidence provides insight into how detention centers appear to terrorists, and so they are valid quotes. 2 - It links to your C and turns it 3 - prove that the U. S. doesn't, and that terrorists believe it doesn't SB Concedes w/ point 1. Con says the justification is getting info, but he gives no examples of how effective the U. S. is at that. If it's not effective, Con can't link to his C. SC Con doesn't address my argument, he just insults it. Many nations don't want the bad reputation, because the U. S. is infamous for it. SD In cases where the police are mistrusted, they also receive few tips. The U. S. is not trusted in areas that recruit terrorists, so it doesn't get tips. CON DROPS 1. ICCPR - never rebuts its content 2. Detention = more terrorism 3. Cole: detention = more anti-U.