LD Jan/Feb Topic, International Courts

I affirm today's resolution "The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity" Before I would like to offer some definitions: International Court – a collection of nations that are responsible for prosecution Ought: an obligation or duty Submit - yield to the control of another Jurisdiction - the right and power to interpret and apply the law Crimes against humanity - as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum "constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority." My Value for this debate is Human Rights. Human Rights are the Paramount Human Value and thus are intrinsically valuable. Without Human Rights any society ceases to be legitimate and humanity itself will degrade into a Hobbesian state of nature. The resolution explicitly states that this international court is designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. Human rights are seen to be those rights that are intrinsic in humanity itself, they do not leave when you cross borders but are rather the essence of humanity These include Life, Liberty, Happiness and other rights that philosophers such as Locke held to be "natural rights". The value criterion for today's round will be Justice because is justice is increased than we ensure human rights. Justice is defined as giving each his due. All people are due human rights and violators of human rights are due a punishment. If the United States does not do this then it actions are unjust and must be prosecuted in a just manner. Contention 1- United States frequently commits crimes against humanity. Although the United States considers itself to be an advocate of justice and human rights, our government continues to commit crimes against humanity. Guantanemo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and U.S rendition are examples of human rights violations and crimes that have been committed by the United States. President Bush signed a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention, regarding the treatment of enemy prisoners taken in wartime, did not apply to members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban. In other words, he ordered that human rights are not due to individuals based on their religious and political affiliation. That signature led directly to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and U.S Rendition. Subpoint A. U.S Rendition Extraordinary rendition is the extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another, especially in the case of alleged transfer of suspected terrorists to countries known to torture prisoners or to employ harsh interrogation techniques. The United States has operated an extensive rendition program since 9/11, involving the transfer of detainees from and to holding centers and prisons in several other countries. It has also been found that some of those detainees have been tortured with the knowledge, acquiescence or even participation of United States agencies. In such cases, the prisoners are tortured into signing a confession linking them to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. U.S. Representative Rohrabacher stated that he would fight any efforts to end the practice. Subpoint B. Even though Abu Ghraib has recently been shut down, the abuse policies of America are still in place. The Abu Ghraib prison, also known as the Baghdad Correctional Facility, became internationally known as a prison for war criminals. United States military's torture of Iraqi detainees was revealed in a series of photographs published in worldwide news media. Major General Taguba stated that there were numerous instances of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees was perpetrated by soldiers and members of the American intelligence community. Although Abu Ghraib closed in 2006, Executive Director of the American civil liberties union stated, "To this day, the Bush administration has refused to hold high-level officials accountable for creating policies that resulted in the abuse of detainees. Instead, only low-ranking soldiers have been prosecuted." Contention 2: U.S can't prosecute human rights violations justly by itself The United States government openly has openly violated human rights and has abrogated the Geneva Conventions designed to protect human rights. However, high-ranked officials have yet to be prosecuted because it is the government themselves that are committing the crimes. The American decision to engage in counterterrorism beyond the reach of national or international law arose from a desire, a need as Washington saw the matter, to avoid the restrictions of the US law and constitution, which protect individual rights. A resolution was passed by congress saying that, "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001... in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." Therefore, United States law has been manipulated and the Constitution has been breached in order to allow for these human rights violations. Even if the United States decides to prosecute the high-ranking officials who authorized, encouraged, and even ordered these crimes against humanity, these charges will either be dropped or the punishments will be minimal because it is the government themselves who have committed these crimes. An example is the Scooter Libby case. Scooter Libby was the Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs to the Bush Administration from 2001 to 2005, was indicted by a federal grand jury on five felony counts, perjury, and obstruction of justice. Libby was convicted but his sentence was commuted by President Bush. It is apparent that relying on our own government to prosecute criminals who are a part of our government is impractical because they are not tried and convicted justly. The international court, which derives its' general principles of law from the national laws of State in question, would lead to the just prosecution of criminals where the states fails to do so. Since a majority of our nation's crimes against humanity reside in governmental policies and actions, it is imperative for the United States to submit to an international court. Before me can aide other countries in need, we must fix the human rights violations within out own country. This is done by submitting to an international court; therefore I urge an affirmative ballot.