The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objecti

The resolution (topic) is: Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives. Before I begin I would like to tell my opponent that my case is structured in a Lincoln-Douglas debate format; basically, I have a value and value criterion, and my case ties in with my value. As the resolution, or topic, is a National Forensic League LD resolution, I would prefer to debate in the Lincoln Douglas format. If my opponent requests not to debate in the LD format, I will simply omit my value and value criterion from the debate (act like it isn't there). Also, if my opponent agrees to debate in LD format, the cross-examination rounds will be omitted. Thank you. First I will lay out some definitions: Definitions: United States: North American republic containing 50 states. Dictionary.com Justified: to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded. Dictionary.com Use: to employ for some purpose; put into service; make use of. Dictionary.com Private Military Firms: Legally established international firms offering services that involve the potential to exercise force in a systematic way and by military or paramilitary means, as well as the enhancement, the transfer, the facilitation, the deterrence, or the defusing of this potential, or the knowledge required to implement it, to clients. Privatemilitary.org Military Objectives: A military objective is a clearly defined desired result in a given campaign, major operation, battle, or engagement set by the senior command for their formations and units to achieve. Military objectives can be set within a three-tier scale of combat structure of tactical, operational and strategic management of the conflict, and the conduct of its combat operations process. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_(military) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Value: My value for this debate is Justice. Justice means giving each person his or her due, and is the equal legal liberty for all. It is the highest of all rights a person can have, and makes everybody happy because it is a fair and moral right. Criterion: My value criterion is Constitutionalism. The constitution of the United States is very relevant to this debate as the US is stated in the resolution, and the constitution is the law of the land. Therefore, if the affirmative can prove that private military firms are constitutional, the United States is justified in using private military firms, and the affirmative should win the debate. This leads me to my first contention. Contention 1: The United States' use of private military firms is constitutional, and so it is warranted. In Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal," which, according to progress.org, basically means to authorize a private person, not in the US armed forces, to conduct reprisal operations outside the borders of the US. (Reprisal means an action taken in return for some injury. A reprisal could be a seizing of property or guilty persons in retaliation for an attack and injury. It could include forced used against the perpetrators for the redress of grievances. A reprisal could even involve killing a terrorist who is threatening further harm and cannot be captured.) Because the US's use of private military firms is constitutional, it agrees with my value, justice. Contention 2: Sub Point A: Although the general public believes that private military corporations are unregulated companies that employ mercenaries, "Reconsidering Battlefield Contractors," an article from an edition of Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, proves otherwise. The article describes how the private sector has a long history with supporting US military operations and objectives. Private military companies do not employ mercenaries who run around killing civilians, either; rather, private military firms come in three main varieties: Nonlethal Service Providers (NSPs), Private Security Companies (PSCs), and Private Military Companies (PMCs). NSP's provide air and ground transport, building military and refugee camps, and other small services such as water purification. PSC's provide protection for people and places, such as politicians and important buildings. And PMC's provide police and military training, as well as other small services. Sub Point B: Private military firms are also very beneficial to conflicts. According to the foreign policy research institute, (http://www.fpri.org...) private military firms are able to rapidly deploy personnel, equipment, and munitions, known as "surge" capacity. Without the time needed for political or bureaucratic lead to mobilize military forces, PSC's (and private military firms as a whole) can quickly accomplish a variety of tasks. And just as fast as they can appear, they can disappear. Also, according to "Reconsidering Battlefield Contractors," private military firms are cost efficient – meaning they are cheaper than using military aid. Because private military firms are so useful, have a long history with the US military and cause no harm, the US's use of them is justified and constitutional. In conclusion, because of these contentions and sub points, I have laid out, the United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue military objectives. I urge an affirmative vote.