BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is illegal by international law

We believe that this debate is about whether states should be able to temporarily violate the sovereignity of other states in order to achieve security. This question is especially important in the modern age, when the nature of warfare is changing and war is waged between states and non-state actors. When a suspected criminal or terrorist is located beyond the physical jurisdiction of the state and especially if the state where he is hiding is hostile, the state's capability to disarm and bring him to justice becomes limited. In these cases the state faces a trade-off between consideration for international law and sovereignity and individual human rights and it's own national security and the safety of it's citizens. We on the opposition side will defend the use of extra-territorial rendition as a legitimate and effective tool of self-defence. The propostion has only brought us examples of cases where prisoners have been mistreated, but they have not brought an analysis of why extra-territorial rendition is always absolutely bad. Their arguments have focused on how extra-territorial rendition often violates the human rights of the captive and on the cruelty of methods of extra-territorial rendition. We do not believe it is our burden to defend torture and shameful and horrible treatment of prisoners. Rather our argumentation will be focused on why it is justified to breach the sovereignty of another nation to bring to a national court a non-state actor such as a terrorist or a criminal and why extra-territorial rendition is a necessary tool in the combat against terrorism. But before we go on to our own argumentation, we will first analyze their case. Three obvious questions arise from the motion: 1. Why is extra-territorial rendition a war crime? 2. Why are leaders of the country responsible? 3. How are the trials going to be carried out and who is going to do this? We believe that they have not answered these questions. On the first issue they have brought us a list of conventions that extra-territorial rendition violates, but no clear justification why it is a war crime. ''International law condemns both extraterritorial abductions and irregular methods of rendition, either as a violation of customary international law, of a treaty obligation or of human rights duties owed directly to the individual.'' [[ http://www.upf.pf/IMG/pdf/5_Costi.mtc.pdf ]] But in cases of conflict between states and non-state actors such as terrorist organizations, we believe that extraordinary rendition is morally justified and sometimes necessary. On the second issue they have brought us an example about Hitler and Nuremberg trials and never explained why analogy applies to this debate. Individual complicity of leaders is different for different acts. They had to show us why leaders are responsible for extraterritorial rendition. The third question is important for framing the debate so practicalities of the application of international justice could be discussed. They made their case ambiguous and hence deprived us of opportunity of grounded discussion of international justice.
Response to rebuttal to non-state actors point

"'something should not be performed on specific grounds' IS grounds for that something to be outlawed" The proposition is saying that extraterritorial rendition should be declared a war crime when it leads to torture. Does the proposition agree that in cases where it does not lead to torture it should not be declared a war crime? The proposition has not proven that extraterritorial rendition always inevitably leads to torture. They are making a convincing case against torture, but this is not what this debate should be about. So our claim stands: if extraterritorial rendition can be done without leading to torture, then it is not a war crime. The article we cite and the proposition also quote implies in its conclusion that extraterritorial abductions are necessary and inevitable. It specifically says that there needs to be a legal framework that determines when and how these abductions can be done. The proposition implies that this article does not agree with our position, but they have not shown how that is, where we have shown how it supports our case. Here, as in many of their own arguments, the proposition also claims that extraterritorial rendition is already considered a war crime. If that were the case there would be no need to have a debate over whether extraterritorial rendition should be declared a war crime or not. The proposition is either misunderstanding or misrepresenting their sources.
THE WAR CRIMES ACT OF 1996

This point was handled under the previous point of rebuttal for coherence's sake. What remains to be said is that we in no way seek to undermine international conventions. When we say that there is a difference between conventions and law we do not mean the local law of the state, but international law. Some acts are so deplored in the international community that they are illegal to the full extent of the word. States that break these laws are deplored and punished to the fullest extent, because these crimes are so hideous that they are crimes against the entire international community, because they offend our common humanity. These are things like genocide and war of aggression. Conventions are agreements between the states, that are much like contracts between willing parties. First of all the conventions that the proposition pointed hold ambiguities on the issue of extra-territorial rendition, they don’t fundamentally decry it like they decry torture. This is why most of the copy pasted bits that the proposition brought are of little relevance, because they talk of torture. But furthermore Conventions are not fundamental truths cut into stone, they have an internal logic and a reason why they exist and should be obeyed. You did not show why extra-territorial rendition is something so horrid that it is fundamentally immoral to resort to it in every case, even when there is a terrorist abroad who may be planning a nuclear attack. In our substantive material we talked about how the world and warfare has changed since the second World War, the creation of the UN and the establishment of Hague and Geneva conventions. Non-state actors have emerged as a threat to the civilian population of states, a threat that is very serious because it employs surprise attacks and cannot be countered by any traditional methods. There’s no reason to think that in the context of that new emerging threat states shouldn’t be able to use tools to counter that threat and remain bound by old conventions that are ill suited to new situations. Ofcourse these tools have to be morally justified. That’s why we talked at great lengths of why extra-territorial rendition is justified as self-defence and pre-emptive strikes are, why it is a proportional tool and how if states where terrorists are hiding are unable to bring them to justice, the threatened state has a moral right to take matters into it’s own hands by employing extra-territorial rendition.
It is illegal by international law

"Abductions Breach the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of the State of Refuge: A state cannot send agents abroad to abduct an alleged criminal. An abduction carried out by agents instructed by the state within the territory of another state is a violation of international law." In exercising jurisdiction under this Convention, no State shall prosecute or punish any person who has been brought within its territory or a place subject to its authority by recourse to measures in violation of international law or international convention without first obtaining the consent of the State or States whose rights have been violated by such measures.[[Harvard research, article 16]] [[http://www.upf.pf/IMG/pdf/5_Costi.mtc.pdf]] Bosnia prosecuted for handing over her citizens to the united states[[http://www.interights.org/boumediene]] -"Their attempts to secure release from Guantanamo and return to their families in Bosnia and Herzegovina have repeatedly failed. Before the European Court the applicants complain that after rendering them into US custody in breach of the domestic courts orders prohibiting their forcible removal, Bosnia and Herzegovina failed to take any meaningful measures aimed at ensuring their release and thus failed to protect their rights under the Convention." If sellers are punished, why should buyers be let off the hook? Extra-territorial abduction and detention is illegal and therefore should not be practiced.
The principle of preemption and the need for expediency.

We, the affirmative are deeply sorry that WE unlike 'you',the negative/opposition have facts,authorities,celebrities and real-world events backing US up.There's no reason to whine about it. The opposition is just reiterating the point of 'preventing potential civilian casualties' and again has no real/actual authority or real-world example to back this claim with. Hypothetically 'extra-territorial/ordinary rendition can aggravate more terrorism, cause greater casualties, (vendetta/ revenge- motivator) just as much as it could 'hypothetically' prevent terrorism. This debate is not about philosophical hypotheses/possibilities but real-life FACTS. The opposition needs a reality-check. Reality: release of terror suspects has been grounds for terrorism many times. Reality: There is no proof/documentation that 'extra-territorial rendition' has curtailed/prevented terrorism in the least or even ceased the hatching of a single terror plot. 'We do not believe it is our burden to defend torture and shameful and horrible treatment of prisoners. Rather our argumentation will be focused on why it is justified to breach the sovereignty of another nation to bring to a national court a non-state actor such as a terrorist or a criminal and why extra-territorial rendition is a necessary tool in the combat against terrorism.'- Perhaps the opposition has a weak if not nonexistent understanding of causation. We the proposition, repeat once again that once extra-ordinary rendition is put in practice, Captor Countries excuse themselves from the laws of their nation as well as the nations of the suspects.We have given real-world examples of this FACT, earlier on in this debate. However international law binds them still, this debate is not about the legitimacy of conventions over laws. It is inarguable that 'international' conventions and convents carry much greater weight than 'local' laws. The question is not of the value/authority of a convention and how the opposition CLAIMS,(yet again without proof) that conventions can be casually put aside, since they aren't as 'important' as laws. Conventions illustrate exceptions in which they may be put aside, but those exceptions are not relevant to this debate ,as those exceptions have NOT occurred. One convention that WE quoted had no exceptions at all where it could(even theoretically) be breached.
International War Crimes Tribunal

" 16. The United States has violated and condoned violations of human rights, civil liberties and the U.S. Bill of Rights in the United States, in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to achieve its purpose of military domination. Among the many violations committed or condoned by the U.S. government are the following: * illegal surveillance, arrest, interrogation and harassment of Arab-American, Iraqi-American, and U.S. resident Arabs; * illegal detention, interrogation and treatment of Iraqi prisoners of war; * aiding and condoning Kuwaiti summary executions, assaults, torture and illegal detention of Palestinians and other residents in Kuwait after the U.S. occupation; and * unwarranted, discriminatory, and excessive prosecution and punishment of U.S. military personnel who refused to serve in the Gulf, sought conscientious objector status or protested U.S. policies. Persons were killed, assaulted, tortured, illegally detained and prosecuted, harassed and humiliated as a result of these policies. The conduct violates the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , the Hague and Geneva Conventions and the Constitution and laws of the United States. "-[[http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm]] "War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. "-[[http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm#p6]]
Response to rebuttal to proportion

The 7/7 attacks on London, The British using local espionage, local detention caught these guys before a lot more damage could've occurred. All the examples previously cited for 'Sold prisoners', count as local authorities catching international criminal suspects. However, 'selling' these people to be detained in foreign human rights violating detention centers has, in itself never deterred any terrorist plot in the making, if there were a single case where/when a terror plot was foiled via extra-ordinary/territorial rendition, the opposition would/should have the grace to cite it. But there isn't(the umpteenth time I'm repeating this) The opposition states that: ""The majority of terrorist events OCCUR to get terror-suspects RELEASED or their captors avenged" This is an unfounded claim. There are many reasons terrorist events occur, release and retaliation are only a few of them[1]" - we wrote 'avenge' and 'majority' :this does not necessarily translate to 'in response to' and 'in all cases'. The point is, that 'Most' of these terrorists claim that they are 'avenging' a superpower when they commit terrorism. I repeat once again that, that superpower gives them excuses by BREACHING INTERNATIONAL LAWS,COVENANTS and CONVENTIONS.
THE WAR CRIMES ACT OF 1996

The act introduced during Bill Clinton's presidency requires that if an American National is the victim and/OR 'PERPETRATOR' of a violation/breach of the GENEVA Conventions, the penalty maybe life imprisonment or death. That a breach of the aforementioned CONVENTIONS DOES QUALIFY AS A WAR CRIME, as long as an AMERICAN NATIONAL IS IN SOME WAY involved. WE QUOTE: "The law defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions", specifically noting that "grave breach" should have the meaning defined in any convention (related to the laws of war) to which the U.S. is a party. The definition of "grave breach" in some of the Geneva Conventions have text that extend additional protections, but all the Conventions share the following text in common: "... committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health." The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a member of the U.S. armed forces. The penalty may be life imprisonment or death. The death penalty is only invoked if the conduct resulted in the death of one or more victims."-[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996]] We the proposition have already proved/substantiated/urged that the Geneva Conventions HAVE been breached. The opposition in response merely and mostly without relevance, 'attempted' to UNDERMINE 'international' conventions in the face of 'local' laws, instead of actually arguing against the breach.
The case of M.I.T undergrad Dr.Aafia siddiqui

"Aafia remains in a US detention facility in New York, in poor health, subjected to degrading and humiliating strip searches and cavity searches whenever she receives a legal visit or appears in court. She has subsequently refused to meet with counsel. It has been reported that she may suffer from brain damage and that a part of her intestine may have been removed. Her lawyers say her symptoms are consistent with a sufferer of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. " [[http://www.cageprisoners.com/prisoners.php?id=1367]] Even though her case has been out in the open, for quite some time, what has been done to help her? and if this is the result of help and growing/continued international support , then verily, conditions of her detention would have been much EVEN worse if this situation wasn't hugely propagated. "Aafia's eldest son, Ahmad, is believed to be in custody in Afghanistan. Despite the fact he is a US national he was not extradited along with his mother to the US. The whereabouts of Aafia's two youngest children, missing for the past five years, remain unknown"-[[http://www.cageprisoners.com/prisoners.php?id=1367]] When international LAW is allowed to be breached, then there's no drawing the line(on revolting evil behavior).
The principle of preemption and the need for expediency.

While a terrorist act is still being planned and resources and arms are being acquired to execute it, it is possible to prevent it. Sometimes the target state will know that a terrorist act is being planned, because of intelligence and infiltration of the terrorist organization. It is then it's duty to prevent it. Preemptive strikes are morally justifiable and are often used in conventional warfare. We believe that they should also be a legitimate method in the war between states and non-state actors. The preemptive strike however has to be conducted expediently. Extra-territorial rendition is the most expedient method of capturing key actors of the terrorist organization in order to prevent the act. Waiting for other states who might not be incentivized or might not have the means to capture the terrorists is a time-consuming process. Invading a country that harbors terrorists is also time-consuming and can be ineffective to the prevention of a terrorist act, because such an operation is long-term, it is focused on the long-term objective of destroying the terrorist organization and not on the short-term need of disarming key-players. When conducted properly extra-territorial rendition can capture key-players expediently, because it can be conducted by surprise. It is thus effective as a preemptive mechanism and is sometimes a necessary tool, because it is the most expedient. In the age of nuclear proliferation when non-state actors can acquire nuclear weapons, expediency is especially important and everything possible must be done to prevent a nuclear attack by a terrorist organization.
Response to rebuttal to proportion

"substantiating that the Geneva convention IS violated if and when extra-ordinary rendition is practiced." The proposition misrepresents us here. What we are saying is that if countries no longer have the option to commit extraterritorial abductions the only options left that they will likely use are ones that cause inproportionaly high harms to the target state (sanctions, war). Having the option to abduct a suspect would remove a threat without harms to non-involved civilians. "the majority of terrorist events OCCUR to get terror-suspects RELEASED or their captors avenged." This is an unfounded claim. There are many reasons terrorist events occur, release and retaliation are only a few of them [[http://www.meteck.org/causesTerrorism.html]] The proposition claims no terror plots were ever foiled by extraterritorial rendition but many were foiled by "Local espionage, the local capture and detention of a suspect", without providing proof for either claim. If the proposition agrees that capture of terror suspects can foil terror plots then they agree that capture of terror suspects by anyone can foil their plots. Of course, where possible, it is preferable that the local government capture international terrorists on their soil. The problem is: "Local espionage, the local capture and detention of a suspect" are not done everywhere. We brought the examples of Mohammad Ali Hamadi and Imad Fayez Mugniyah who are currently hiding in Lebanon while the Lebanese government denies their presence. Also: "Some governments are hostile, not weak, and here renditions become vital. In the spring of 1998, intelligence officials plotted to render bin Ladin from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, an operation made necessary because the Afghan regime supported the terrorist leader. No standard legal measure would have worked in place of a rendition."(page 34) [[http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/rendition2.pdf]]
Extraordinary Rendition Violates the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

Article 36 of the Vienna convention requires that detainees be informed of their right to communicate with consular officers of their Country. This requirement has been reportedly violated twice by government officials involved in extra-territorial/Extraordinary Rendition. "In September 2002, the United States detained M.A, who holds dual Canadian and Syrian citizenship.[215] For one week, detaining authorities denied M.A access to Canadian consular officials, and after his transfer to Syria, the United States refused to acknowledge the transfer to Canadian authorities.[216] In November 2002, officials detained British citizen W.A.R in the Gambia.[217] While being interrogated at the headquarters of the country’s secret police, he requested and was denied consular access.[218]" -[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading283]]
The rise of non-state actors and the responsibility of sovereignty of other states.

The only reason Countries like the U.S.A and Israel get away with extra-territorial rendition is because of their strong military base. It is the act of bullying away international laws , which other Countries that are much weaker militarily CANNOT dare/dream to breach. Another thing, the never-ending 'ifs'. The opposition is continually deviating from the FACTS and working/developing/basing its argument on hypotheses and erroneous practically untrue unproven assumptions. We've already addressed 'sovereignty', it was our first point? , jargon appears to be the only thing the opposition has going for them. Our feeling is the opposition is lost about the meaning behind the terminology that they love to tout. We have repetitively argued that a State should control her own borders and not be overruled by another Country or State. Another point the opposition made was that they don't understand why a country's leader 'alone' is liable, we think the opposition needs to read the motion,its definition and the argument that they answered to with that, again. There is no mention of 'alone/just' anywhere. We are not here to debate whether only the leader or all people involved including the leader should be tried for war-crimes. We are here to debate on whether the leader of a state practicing extra-ordinary rendition should be punished for war crimes and we the proposition feel s/he should, period.
Italy- U.S relations spoiled over Nasr's abduction

'But for now, there is no word on Nasr's whereabouts other than the corroborating information he relayed to his Italian wife in a 2004 phone call from Egypt that spurred Italy into investigating the CIA operatives.'-[[http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/for_the_cia_one_extraordinary_rendition_too_many/]] The article professes to the criticism from the United Nations and condemnation of extraordinary/extra-territorial rendition. Human rights violation and all the other points already addressed. We cite this example to share how relations between countries are damaged because of the act(of extra-territorial rendition) and accounting leaders that wrongly permit it, should certainly superglue/tether tattered ties.