Resolved: The United States ought Submit to Jurdict an international court design to prose CAH

i would like to do this lincoln dougls debate style The actual resolution states Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court design to prosecute crimes against humanity I affirm the resolution Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity before I begin I would like to define some key terms from the Resolution, Definitions Crime against humanity- an act of persecution or any large scale atrocities against a body of people, and is the highest level of criminal offense Ought- used to express duty or moral obligation Observation of the resolution to give both the affirmative and negative equal ground and make the debate more fair the affirmative and negative don't have to be specific on what court is being used because the resolution states an international court it not saying we should use an existing court Value Criterion Because of the wording in the resolution, mostly the inclusion of the word ought. We must ask ourselves if joining an international court is moral. My value for the round will therefore be Morality, which is defined as the practice of the moral duties, in order for the US to uphold Morality This fundamental concept is stated in the framework of the Declaration of Independence, when it points to the fact that the "self- evident" "truth" is that "all men are created equally" and "they are endowed by their creator" with these "inalienable rights". The rights were created before any form of Government or political power. And these rights are "inalienable" because no power should take them away and all people should respect them. When it is taken away then Human Rights are violated, thus becoming immoral. The standard for which the round should be weighed is by the Protection of Human Rights. By Protection of Human rights I mean that all people rights should be protected as much possible and in any opportunity that the US has to protect these human rights. Which is the very essence of morality Contention One Right now under the current system of the United States, the protection of human rights is not fulfilled. The US has failed multiple times to protect the human rights of both its own citizens and other people who are not citizens in the US. A good example to look at is the very controversial topic of Guantanamo Bay, where people untouchable rights are thrown out the door. Gregg Bloche and Jonathan H. Marks, agree that these rights are being violated when they state, "There is no scientific answer to the question of which interrogation strategy is more effective. For obvious ethical and legal reasons, there is unlikely to be one. At Guantanamo, the fear-and-anxiety approach was often favored. The cruel and degrading measures taken by some, in violation of international human rights law and the laws of war, have become a matter of national shame. " Thus the United States is in fact acting immoral not only to those of Non-US citizens but also through the violation of the rights of its own citizens. The International Human Rights watch gave an article on 2005 which tells the story of a man, Jose Padilla, who was indicted on criminal charges. The Bush administration decision to bring Padilla into the civilian criminal justice system means that the Supreme Court likely will no longer hear Padilla's challenge to an appellate court ruling that the president may subject American citizens to indefinite military detention without criminal charge or trial. The reason for his arrest is based on an alleged link to AL-Qaeda, and because of this link he has spent over 3 years in solitary confinement. So it is not only non-us citizens whose rights are being violated but it is also our own citizens. (If the above example is not enough to convince you judge let us look at another horrific incident inside the United States which demoralized a race of people including both foreign and US citizens. The internment camps of World War II are a great example of America protecting rights gone bad, with regards to Human Rights. After Pearl Harbor, the United States set up multiple camps in order to hold supposed Japanese spies, both American citizens and foreign citizens were held up in terrible conditions, which included basically shacks to live in and almost no clothing and food, when during the winter the cold became an enemy because of the poor protection provided for these "dangerous citizens"). The cases continue on throughout the history of the US with examples such as Abu Ghraib and the Japanese American Internment camps, these examples showing the United States priority or, more realistically, the lack thereof. According to Carole Vann/Juan Gasparini/Human Rights Tribune, "the US has shown very little commitment to human rights in general. The working group against arbitrary detention gave up going to Guantanamo last month because Washington would not allow its members to have face to face meetings with detainees. For its part, the Rapporteur against racism, Doudou Diene, has fought for years to be able to pay a visit and only recently got permission." So it has become clear that the United States has been unable to protect the rights of others and its own citizens. The Impact being that the United States cannot protect human rights and even US citizen's rights, so in order to truly be moral the US needs to give jurisdiction to an international court that would protect human rights better, in order to fulfill its moral obligation. By keeping a system of checks and balances to help keep nations in an international court to full its obligation to protect it citizen and give them a fair trial Contention 2 International court can better protect human rights Because an international court has jurisdiction over the world not just individual nations it can better interfere with nations that do not prosecute or even try to stop these crimes against humanity so therefore an international court might have the ability to interfere with a nation and be able to stop these crime them shelves with the help of the United states which is my Sub-a an international court needs the united states to better prosecute crimes against humanity This being that an international court needs the support of the US. In order to be effective, an international court needs the support of the US in order to truly utilize its ability to prosecute crimes against humanity. Now, let's go into the first point, an international court would need assistance of the United States to help enforce their policies and regulations, let's use the ICC as an example because it is one of the best examples of a court to model. From the words of Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch's International Justice Program, "The ICC has no police force of its own, so it needs robust political backing to bring accused war criminals to trial". So in order for the United States to fulfill its moral obligation it needs to defend human rights, it needs to give its support to an international court in order to fulfill the moral obligation to protect the rights of all humans. there for because of everthing i stated you must afirm