The US ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

"Value: Independence- Independence puts the differences between different societies across the globe. In every world justice system it is necessary to give them independence from one another because of the change in them. And what may be tolerable may not be by others. " This value premise does not stand up to justice for many reasons. 1. Justice is more important than independence because a country can be totally unjust and still uphold his value. 2. This suggests that a country would completely operate on it's on no matter what. 3. This value would only work in a world that had limited to no interaction between countries. 4. It is an injustice to stand by and do nothing. This would mean that one country would have to stand by and watch another nation suffer and do nothing. 5. This value would not be able to maintain any ground if in fact countries did not operate on their own. We sign international treaties, we have the United Nations, and many other international groups that have the United States involvement. If we were to uphold this value, then we would be assuming that we would withdraw from the United Nations and any other form of international multilateralism that would in anyhow not uphold complete national sovereignty. 6. This would also imply that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were moral. The Constitution is only what the Supreme Court interprets it to mean. They are just 9 dudes who get appointed by former presidents. At one point the Constitution legalized slavery, preventing women from voting, and barring the purchase of alcohol. 7. This would also mean that the US would operate on it's own, even if it were to completely fail at doing so. "V. C. National Sovereignty- the U. S. constitution and Bill of Rights is what makes this country and its people, which make its power. By submitting to the ICC it is excepting a new court over it's own and devaluing the constitution therefore taking away the U. S. sovereignty. " This Value Criterion also falls for many reasons. "First they came for the Communists, but I did not speak up because I wasn't a Communist. And then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist. And then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a Jew. And then they came for me. .. And by that time there was no one left to speak up. " Pastor Martin Niemoller 1. This means that a country were to operate on it's own even if by doing so it would fail to maintain justice. 2. This means that an unjust country would have just as much of a right to operate on its own as a just country. 3. This means that the world should stand by and allow crimes against humanity as long as it happens in another country. Which would also mean that we do nothing in the Holocaust, Rwandan Genocide, Armenian Genocide, Sudan Genocide, and other crimes against humanity across the country. 4. This ideology allows for the destruction of the world one country at a time. 5. This means that the entire world could commit crimes against humanity as long as it wasn't our country. 6. This means that if our country were to commit crimes against humanity, if we were unable to stop them, that no other country would have to place to step in. 7. This idea also implies that if one country were to commit crimes against humanity, another country wouldn't be affected. The United States has the highest net-in immigration in the world, we take in thousands of political refugees each year, we are directly affected. "Contention 1- By the U. S. giving itself to the ICC (submitting) it will lessen its own existence. The U. S. constitution was mainly made for the purpose of protecting the people of the nation first and the nation itself. By allowing the ICC to come in and have power and influence the U. S. is no longer by itself but a larger country. .. " Contention 2- The ICC is not properly structured. A) The ICC does not try its defendants by a trial by jury. B) By joining we lose Right to a Speedy Trial. C) Even American citizens who get tried by the ICC can get tried again. " I would like to group his Contentions 1 and 2 because they both talk about the Unconstitutionality of submitting to the ICC. They are all just examples of how the ICC supposedly "goes against the ICC". It also speaks of how the United States would lose power because it is not Constitutional. Grouping these two contentions would make logical sense, and they both talk about the US losing power to the ICC because joining would be Unconstitutional. This falls for many reasons. 1. The United States still has the power to prosecute the offender. The ICC has only tried people who haven't been convicted in their own countries. 2. The Constitution allows for the United States to sign treaties in Article 3. 3. The Constitution is only what the Supreme Court justices interpret it to mean. 4. The Constitution does not definitely establish justice. At one point it meant justice was slavery, preventing women from voting, and barring the purchase of alcohol. 5. The Constitution should not be in the way of ensuring human rights. Now moving on to defend my case. My opponent attacked my value of justice by saying, "thats not really a valid reason to have justice for this debate. What are you bringing to justice also are you using Rawls justice. .. what? " I defined Justice as "The administering of deserved punishment or reward. " My opponent also says justice isn't a good thing to have in the round even though we are talking about a justice system. Really? My opponent never attacked my Value Criterion, and this is absolutely crucial to this round because we need to protect human rights in order to ensure justice. Since my opponent never refuted my VC, I can only guess that he accepts it as true, that by affirming the resolution we will in fact, protect human rights. My opponent never attacked my VC in his 1 NC, and this will be crucial in voting issues. Contention 1. A. My opponent refuted my point by saying that the ICC would hurt the US. He never addressed my point of how the US would help the ICC. B. My opponent is speaking of war crimes, and for this debate we are only talking about crimes against humanity. Big difference. C. We do not prosecute crimes against humanity because we are not part of the ICC. D. Same. Contention 2. My Contention 2 does not go against my first. Based on the phrasing of, "submit to the jurisdiction of," and my definition of jurisdiction, it would mean that we would surrender our power to the ICC in the basis that we would respect any ICC decision according to the resolution. The US would respect any ICC decision, and prosecute CAH's in countries that do not. For these reasons I prove that my case clearly stands tall, and that my opponent holds little or no ground. Especially with the value criterion.