Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed t

Since this is the current NFL LD topic, I would like to go by NFL LD rules for this round. You can find the rules at http://www.nflonline.org... Civil Rights Activist Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity." I happen to agree with this quote, therefore I stand in affirmation of the resolution; Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. Definitions Ought- Used to indicate moral obligation or duty. (American Heritage Dictionary) Submit- To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another. (American Heritage Dictionary) Jurisdiction- The extent of authority or control. (American Heritage Dictionary) International Court- A court extending across or transcending national boundaries. (American Heritage Dictionary) Crimes against Humanity- Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. (Nuremberg Charter) Value and Value Criterion My value for this round will be justice. Justice is the principle of moral rightness, and equality. This is the definition of Justice because a variety of sources including the United Nations use this definition. This means that equality and fairness must be what we are trying to achieve over anything else. This must be the case, since we are dealing with a court, where the principles of justice apply. Second, since the resolution is defined in terms of the word ought, which implies moral obligation or duty. This falls again under the principles of justice. Justice according to John Rawls is "the first and most important virtue of social institutions." This applies to both the United States, and the International Court. My value criterion for this round will be the Protection of Freedoms and Liberties. This means protecting Freedoms and Liberties for those who deserve it, and from those who do not. This should be the value criterion for this round because the resolution asks us what we ought to do, and we ought to protect freedoms and liberties morally. This measures justice because in order to have moral rightness and fairness we must protect freedoms and liberties we are due. It again relates to moral rightness as Thomas R. Dye, Director of Policy Studies said in 1990, "Human beings cannot choose between right and wrong if they cannot choose at all. Thus freedom is essential to a moral life." This shows again how my value criterion measures my value, and how Freedoms and Liberties are necessary for Justice. Contention One: The international court not the United States better protects freedoms and liberties The international court not the United States better protects freedoms and liberties in cases of crimes against humanity. First of all, the United States does a poor job in these cases, and second of all, the international court will better protect freedoms and liberties. Contention One A: The United States has done a bad job in protecting freedoms and liberties in cases of crimes against humanity In cases of crimes against humanity the United States will not do a better job than an international court. The United States has shown on numerous occasions, in cases of crimes against humanity, that they will not do an adequate job protecting freedoms and liberties. First of all, in the case of Japanese internment after Pearl Harbor, the United States violated the freedoms of many legal Japanese immigrants. The Pearl Harbor attack falls under the case of crimes against humanity, and the United States punishment violated freedoms and liberties. The United States denied these citizens their freedom by imprisoning them in camps without being allowed to leave. They did it in the hopes of protecting society, and in supposedly punishing those who were responsible for the Pearl Harbor attacks. They felt that these Japanese immigrants were all spies, and responsible for the attacks. The United States did this again recently in the giving of approval to CIA operatives to water board prisoners. They felt these prisoners were responsible for crimes against humanity in Iraq, and were threats to the United States citizens. However, they imprisoned them without setting a trial and violated their basic liberties by torturing them. Their responses to crimes against humanity show that the United States cannot protect freedoms and liberties. In turn, the United States cannot achieve Justice by themselves in these cases. Contention One B: An international court does a better job of protecting liberties and freedoms in the cases of crimes against humanity In cases of crimes against humanity, an international court will do a better job of protecting liberties and freedoms. This will lead to the achievement of Justice. Over the years, international law has become more effective. Michael P. Scharf (J.D.) in Law and Contemporary Problems in 2001 stated, "Customary international law on the definition and scope of war crimes and crimes against humanity has been clarified and crystallized." He further states the fact that international law will be effective, and will help the court punish effectively. As well, Madeline Morris (J.D.) in Law and Contemporary Problems in 2001 stated, "Where that international court is controlled by a large number of states, the various states parties may provide checks and balances against abuses being perpetrated in the interests of one state or a small group of states." This shows that the court will in fact have appropriate measures to prevent abuses. This leads to a better protection of freedoms and liberties. Therefore, by joining the international court, the United States and its' citizens will have its' freedoms and liberties protected. This will lead to Justice. Contention Two: The international court has sufficient legal safeguards The international court has sufficient legal safeguards, which will increase the protection of freedoms and liberties. First of all, the current international court in the ICC has provided the sixth amendment right of confronting witnesses of the prosecution, by allowing the right to "examine such witnesses". As well, according to the Rome Statute the defendants are allowed "to be tried without undue delay." This means they still have the right to a speedy trial as well. Finally, according to Adrian T. Delmont (Author) of the Journal of Legislation in 2001 said, "Before the prosecutor could begin an investigation she must present her intentions, and supporting evidence, to the Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC." This means that the prosecutor cannot start any investigation without evidence. All these safeguards and the non-bias which has been shown previously, allow the ICC and future international courts to protect freedoms and liberties effectively. Even though it may not contain all rights of the constitution, the constitution will still not apply to those U.S citizens who commit crimes against humanity abroad, or foreigners committing crimes against humanity on U.S. soil. As well, we can only assume that international courts will improve as time goes on, then it will always have these sufficient legal safeguards. This shows how an international court protects freedoms and liberties. Therefore, it will achieve Justice as well. I wish good luck to whoever takes this debate.