The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecut

I Negate: Resolved the United States ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute crimes Against Humanity My Value for this Debate is National Security: National Security Refers chiefly to the protection of a state from aggression from other organizations of countries. National Security is an extension of the value of safety; the most basic of all values, but is extended to the safety of all citizens within a national border. National Security is a fundamental value because it preserves all other fundamental American values. In Order to clarify Justice I offer the criterion of Realist Pragmatism. Pragmatism is essentially the idea that we act upon the most practical consequences. Philosopher William James Explains "we need only consider what conceivable effects of a practical kind the object may involve" Realist Pragmatism then is the idea that we must act on the most practical consequences for our own country alone. Henry Hazlitt Explains "If the World were constantly governed by rational, enlightened and pragmatic egoism, the world would be a much better place than it is" This Best Upholds National Security, because in order for the U.S to uphold its security it must make its decisions based upon these Pragmatic Reasons. Clarification: The Court referred to the Resolution is Independent of any country or other organization, a Good Example is the Current ICC. The Court must either be the ICC or one with similar framework. Observation/Resolution Analysis: The Affirmative must prove an absolute necessity for the U.S to join an international court and that the Benefits outweigh the harms. This is because the United States should not submit to an outside authority unless it is absolutely necessary from a realist perspective. Contention 1: 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. 2nd Contention—Deterrence Value A. International courts have no deterrence value making them useless to the United States. Chief US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg trial, Justice Robert Jackson, stated that "[w]ars are started only on the theory and in the confidence that they can be won. To assume that genocidaires carry out their policies based on a cost-benefit analysis is a highly unlikely scenario." Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton Adds "[b]ehind their optimistic rhetoric, ICC proponents have not a shred of evidence supporting their deterrence theories. Why should anyone imagine that bewigged judges in The Hague will succeed where cold steel has failed?" Even Military Power has more of a deterrent value so submitting to the ICC would lower deterrence in fact and even maybe offer an incentive to crimes, knowing the only way they will be punished is by an inefficient and corrupt system. Contention 3: Submitting Actually Destroys World Peace According to Marc Grossman, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, "At any given time, U.S. forces are located in close to 100 nations around the world conducting peacekeeping and humanitarian operations and fighting inhumanity. We must ensure that our soldiers and government officials are not bound to politicized prosecutions" If we Join the ICC we would either but all of these soldiers at risk and cause a mass of politically motivated prosecutions of U.S citizens or we would have to pull out of these countries, causing Global destabilization. AFF CASE Value: National Security outweighs. The U.S is Obligated as a Government is to protect itself/its citizens. U.S National Concerns such as Security must be addressed. Without U.S National Security, the World Itself is void of any of my opponents conception of Justice. (look to NEG C3 in particular). Also International Justice as AFF defines is it essentially just restating the AFF Position, so National Security as a More Fair and better Value should be upheld. Criterion: The Logic in my Opponents value and criterion Structure is Circular. He defines International Justice as "International justice is the cooperation between countries to hold individuals responsible accused of dangerous human rights abuses" and his link to Human Rights is "International justice is best upheld by providing basic rights to every human being" This is Circular Logic and is a Logical Fallacy. Also I Show in my C2 International Courts have no deterrence value, and do not protect Human Rights. What Mill was suffering to in my opponents was not Human or Natural Rights but Civil Rights.... Also he was Addressing the Social contract, essentially a purely national system. C1. A. Since the Rwanda Genocide we have advanced... The U.N has war crimes tribunals that punished these offenders, that are more specialized and thus more effective... Also the Key to stopping some of these Genocides was Military Intervention. Cross Apply from my C1 and C3 regarding Military Restrictions and you will see that the effectiveness of the current system will be reduced. B. 1. No warrant for deterrence, NEG outweighs. 2. ICC would not have EX Post Facto Jurisdiction, Reparations would not happen. 3. Even if Reparations are Assumed it would do nothing for the U.S and provides no Pragmatic benefit to us. C. 1. AFF provides no sample size this could be a sample of 100 people. 2. unless 100% of the population was interviewed studies such as this do not reflect the American People. 3. Presidential Elections are not decided based on Polls, unless we join the ICC by national vote we cannot say that the people want anything. we are a representative government thus what the government wants/doesn't want is reflected by the people. C2. 1. American National Policy comes First 2. We have not joined, our interests are not undermines. No uniqueness. 3. National Laws must be held to be paramount. 4 Cross-apply deterrence 5. U.S already has little soft power due to IRAQ, Afghanistan, Trade Issues. Etc C3. Just Because the court has Jurisdiction does not mean it will help in punishment. the Iraqi government and the U.S and other countries that are cooperating to find insurgents have Jurisdiction, but they haven't fixed the problem. The U.S, having Military Power searching is also more efficient than an International Court this would be eliminated under an International court and thus joining would be a Step Back. I Urge Negation