The united states ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC

Alright, thank you for starting this debate. I will first post my arguments, and then move on to refute my opponent's. Resolved: ï¿½€œThe United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.ï¿½€ï¿½ As I will show you, the idea of an international court would not be beneficial to the United States. Because the United States would be better off without submitting to the jurisdiction of an international court, I must negate. As a quick observation before I enter my case: The US has a moral obligation to its citizens first, and then the world. The US has a contract with its citizens. The US has agreed to protect and serve the citizens. Because the US has such a contract, the US has a moral obligation to protect and serve its citizens. We don't have a contract with the rest of the world saying we will serve them and protect them. Therefore, the citizens of the US come first. In order to offer clarity to the round, I offer the following definitions: Ought ï¿½€" Used to indicate moral obligation or duty. (American Heritage Dictionary) Submit ï¿½€" TO GIVE IN: To yield oneself to the will or authority of another. (American Heritage Dictionary) Jurisdiction ï¿½€" The extent of authority or control. (American Heritage Dictionary) International Court ï¿½€" A court extending across or transcending national boundaries. (American Heritage Dictionary) My value for this round will be that of justice. Justice is the quality of being just; equitable, and moral right. The ultimate result of any action taken by the US should uphold justice, as it is what we strive for. My value criterion will be upholding a moral obligation to our citizens. This is just because a country must first establish rights for its own citizens, before trying to help others. This brings me to my first contention. Contention 1: US Citizens will lose rights if we adhere to an international court. The ICC does not try its defendants by a trial by jury. Instead, the trial is done in front of a panel of three judges. If a US citizen were to be tried under the ICC, he/she would lose basic fundamental rights given to them by the government. This is unconstitutional, and hypocritical. This hypocrisy is unjust, and does not uphold our moral obligation. Therefore, the US government has a moral obligation not to join, since losing the citizens rights is not protecting the citizen. US citizens also have a right to a public and speedy trial. The ICC takes a horrendously long time to actually try those accused. In fact, the standard time leading to a hearing is 5 years. The US Constitution grants the citizens the right to a fair and speedy trial. Again, this would be hypocritical, and unconstitutional. Contention 2: Submitting to the ICC Compromises National Security A. As noted by Senior Policy Analyst Jack Spencer, "one of the key reasons that the United States rightfully declined to become state party to the ICC was because of harassment by international anti-American activists continually making accusations against the US in the court." (2003) Spencer goes on the say that the ICC "represents an unacceptable legal bureaucracy that invites political manipulation." (2004)" The Problem With any court such as the ICC is it is an unlimited outlet for abuse. It has no sufficient checks and is completely self-determinant. In an age where our enemies go to any ends to hurt us who is to say that our enemies will not manipulate this court to their own ends. B. According to the American Policy Center, "Unlike any other treaty in history, the International Criminal Court ignores national laws. The ICC defines as a war crime, any attack by our soldiers with knowledge that collateral deaths or injuries "to civilians or damage to civilian objects or damage to the natural environment" may occur. In other words, you can have a war, but don't break anything, hurt any civilians, or the environment. It is physically impossible for the military to comply with those restrictions and still achieve its mission to protect our National Security." The First Purpose of any government is protecting itself and its citizens. The ICC places us in a situation where we have almost no way to defend ourselves. We are currently engaged in a war not against countries, that may also submit but against organizations that present a much larger threat. As I have shown, an international court would not fare well for the United States. We must uphold justice, protect our citizenï¿½€™s rights, protect our borders, and adhere to our constitution. Because an international court in unconstitutional, I stand in absolute negation of todayï¿½€™s resolution. I will now refute my opponentï¿½€™s case. --HIS VALUE-- My opponent values governmental legitimacy. While this is valid, it is not in fact upheld through the affirmative case. Answer me this: How is a government legitimate if it fails to uphold the very document that it was based on? How is it legitimate if it fails to protect its own borders? --HIS CRITERION-- His criterion is maintaining a states power. Please see my previous attack, and apply it also to his criterion. How would we be furthering our power? --CONTENTION 1-- His contention 1 is his criterion, saying how the ICC would further his criterion. Please again see my previous attacks. --CONTENTION 2-- He says future CAH will only be able to be punished through the ICC. How is that? Why cannot we punish crimes against humanity through our own court system? What about the ATCA? For these reasons, I can only negate the resolution. The ICC would simply weaken the United States. I urge a negative ballot. Thank you.