Abdulmutallab should be interrogated.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you; the propsition without a case. My opponent has brought forward a resolution with no clear definition, no conviction and that advocates nothing more than the status quo What did he initially argue for? An interrogation. He alluded to a possibility of a trial, be it military or otherwise, and to the possibility of torture. Of course, once that was pointed out my opponent quickly backtracked and stated he simply wanted Mr. Abdulmutallab questioned, which then brings us t the question; what does he think they're doing with him at preset? They are certainly not offering him crumpets and tea. But let's now, since my opponent has neglected to do it, define what we are talking about. He claims that I do not understand the differentiation between criminal and enemy combatant or between civilian and military courts. I understand these distinctions quite well and I would assert that it is my opponent who is confused. First, we must recognize where military tribunals are used. They are not merely a tool that we may employ whenever we feel like subverting civil liberties, rather, they are means of legally trying prisoners of war. This is immediately problematic, as we can see, because George Bush declared that Al Quedia forces are -not- prisoners of war but rather that they are a perverted definition of 'enemy combatant', so that he would not have to abide by the Geneva Convention. This, then, puts them in a legal limbo of human rights where they are barely considered people at all. My opponent was quite quick to bring up the example of German POWs, but he failed to recognize that those Nazis were given more rights than our current prisoners. I would argue that the Axis powers proved a much greater and more immediate threat to American lives than Al Queada, so why then were they afforded more rights than Mr. Abdulmutallab? Is Osama Bin Laden a more capable foe than Hitler? Hardly. So, then, my opponent wants Abdulmutallab treated as an enemy combatant, but he doesn't not want to afford the same rights to him as to previous POWs. So we can see that it is not merely an option of military vs. civilian trial, because to try Abdulmutallab in a military setting, he must first be declared as one with no rights, which is not an option for a civilian trial. My opponent merely takes for granted that the United States can and should absolve him of every right instilled by international and federal law. If he merely a despicable murderer, much in line with the Oaklahoma city bombers, the Unabomber or Richard Reid, then he should be tried with the full extent of the law but if he is truely a soldier of Al Queada and trying him in a military setting is worth the surrendering of the American way of life, then so be it. I, however, do not take such a decision as lightly as my opponent. Given historical fact, we know that the FBI/CIA likely already has extensive surveillance on Mr. Abdulmutallab, so what will get from him that we do not already know? Furthermore, how will we know if it's true? To focus too much on what he has to say vs. what he has done is not wise. Will the irrelevant evidence he may give us really supersede the basic fundamentals that the United States is founded on? Let's call it what it is; the proposed military tribunal, while legal under American law, is a gross violation of international law and human rights. It does nothing but obstruct legal efforts of American diplomacy and fuel the propaganda of the terrorists who seek to destroy order and justice in the West. I do not accept, nor has my opponent proven, that a military tribunal is worth it. But what my opponent would have us believe is that it is not a choice between civil and military trial, but of getting the information to save American lives vs. not having the information. This is a false choice. The truth is that Abdulmutallab is already being interrogated, and investigators are probing every possible lead to ensure that we receive every iota of evidence about his plan, contacts, method, etc. This is being done legally. He is being legally coerced to give information, much in the way any domestic terrorist would. To say that he is not worthy of rights is not a value judgment on the terrorist or the cause, but rather on the U.S. justice system. Say, for example, that an Irish national with IRA connections were responsible for the plot. Would that terrorist be declared an enemy combatant and have his human rights waived? No. Why then, would my opponent have you believe that the rights of an Arab are lesser than that of a European. We know that the American justice system is capable of investigating and trying terrorists, so why then would we risk international backlash and the compromising of fundamental values? It is merely not worth it. So we can clearly see that my opponent has no case. He is merely throwing terms around which translate to 'Abdulmuallab should be considered less than a human being.' While we are quick to agree with that from a moralistic standpoint, our rational selves should recognize the pitfalls of such vengeful actions. The truth is that the Western legal system is based on fact and logic, not on rash emotional decisions. We cannot set a precedent of off-the-cuff hatred, and we must not compromise our rational society for the hot-headed among us. We must proceed with caution because the decisions we make today will define our place in the world and our future legal precedents at home. Thank you.