TheU.S.oughttosubmittothejurisdictionofaninternationalcourtdesignedtoprosecutecrimesagainsthumanity.

For a brief road map, though I'm sure you don't need one, the Negative's case shall be examined first before moving on to the Affirmative Case. =) V: Security through Realism V CASE TURN: "According to realism, a nation would never give up an opportunity to become a hegemon or gain power in the international system due to their insatiable fear of being conquered or killed by a potential rival." The US must not give up the opportunity to gain power in the international system for it will be beneficial by eliminating powerful human rights abusers. V: National security; strong must do what they can to ensure existence (Thucydides) V Counter 1: By joining an int'l court, the US can minimize and eliminate the suffering of the weak while ensuring that the stronger states are capable of ensuring int'l safety and promoting global peace. Cross-apply the Affirmative's Contention 3 with the Lantto card which states that the power of the ICC will increase along with the admission of the US VC: Preservation of National Sovereignty VC Counter 1: No Connection exists between the negative's contentions to his VC weighing mechanism; the negative side provides no link determining how the rule of the national government is harmed by joining international courts VC Counter 2: ICC does not destroy national sovereignty Sub Point A: the ICC acts only when local courts are unwilling or unable Elizabeth Wilmhurst from the Gale Cengage Learning Center states, "The ICC has jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and takes cases only if there is no local judicial system willing or able to deal with them." Executive Officer of the US Navy Brian A. Hoyt adds, "The ICC is a court of last resort…the ICC complements, rather than competes with, national judicial systems." As we see here, the ICC does not harm the US government's rule because it allows for the US government to apply its own judicial efforts first. In the case that the national government commits crimes against humanity, if our national government refuses to stop such committing crimes against humanity, and refuses to prosecute, only then will the international court take a stand. Sub Point B: the ICC is not a threat to US sovereignty From here, we can cross-apply the affirmative's contention 4 that states that members of the US will be protected from prosecution. Megan E. Lantto from the Transnational Law Review stated in 2008 that "The principle of complementarity of the Rome Statute requires that the ICC first deter to national legal systems," and Tom Madison from the Washington University Global Studies Law Review commented in 2006, "The primary objection to the ICC is that US nationals would face prosecution before the court. This objection is completely unfounded because the statute explicitly state that the US would retain jurisdiction over the nationals." C1: Failure of int'l organizations and institutions C1 Counter 1: In his contention the negative fails to address any flaws within international courts. Instead, he simply creates a blanket argument that attempts to generalize all international organizations as incapable of operating effectively. From here, we can cross-apply the affirmative's contention 2, which states that international courts such as the ICC are, in fact, effective, and extend the four examples with their cards in which the ICC was effective in eliminating crimes against humanity C1 Counter 2: Besides for the obvious fact that the ICC is not the League of Nations and is not the UNHRC, other logical flaws of the negative's argument can be examined. As the American President, Woodrow Wilson established the League of Nations with his 14 Points; however, the Senate refused to allow America to join the institution, and as a result, it failed. The ICC was not created by an American President, and the ICC has yet to fail, if it does indeed fail. We can further cross-apply and extend the affirmative's Contention 3, which states that the ICC will be prevented from failure if the US joins because it will become stronger. The ICC is neither the UNHRC nor is it controlled by the UN. Here the negative states that the UNHRC has not led to complete world safety and democracy. This statement contradicts the negative's entire case. By making this statement, the negative institutes his belief that international safety and democracy should have value, which can best be achieved through the affirmative's Contention 3 of allowing the US to join the ICC because it will increase the ICC's abilities. Joining the ICC also will promote international democracy through the extension of the quote from The Economist, which states that the ICC will continue to gain more power through the admittance of even more countries. C2: The ICC potentially harms our own citizens in the world of realism C2 Counter 1: The ability to fight the war on terrorism in the same manners will be changed as a result of the election of President Obama. Whether this is for good, or for bad, is not the affirmative argument here. Simply, George Bush may have effectively fought the war on terrorism, but US foreign policy changes with the change of the presidency. We can ensure the benefits of minimizing, if not eliminating, any potential harms by cross-applying the affirmative's Contention 4 and the affirmative's attacks against the negative's VC, which states that the US will retain jurisdiction over its nationals SPA: US government's purpose is protection of its own citizens C2 SPA Counter 1:The negative's use of quotes without analysis or reason for acceptance of the author create the appeal to a higher power logical fallacy C2 SPA Turn 1: Joining the ICC creates an international authority figure with increased power, which the negative side advocates through his favor for the institution for higher powers and authoritative figures. Cross apply the affirmative's Contention 3, which states that international courts will become stronger with the addition of the US C2 SPA Counter 2: The negative claims that "State constitutions" make no provision for foreign welfare; however this argument is obsolete for there is no specific example presented, and is just a general observation. He also claims that the US Constitution does not provide this welfare; however we can look to the 4th affirmative contention later in this rebuttal to understand that the US Constitution was created under the principle of upholding the limitation of biopower(the affirmative's VC). C2 SPA Turn 2: George Washington's and Thomas Jefferson's words are different from their actions concerning foreign affairs and conflict with each other. George Washington and Alexander Hamilton were in firm support of the Jay Treaty which allowed for a peaceful alliance with the British during the times of the French Revolution. Thomas Jefferson strongly supported the French who supported the Americans during the American Revolution. During his presidency Thomas Jefferson purchases the Louisiana territory from Napoleon, providing him with funds for his war against Britain. C2 SPA Counter 3: The negative side provides no logical analysis, no warrant to his claim, deducing how his supposed neutrality would have saved hundreds of thousands of human lives. As we can see, by going down the flow, the negative's entire offense has now either been turned or countered through logical reasoning and application of contentions and blocks from the affirmative case. As we look to the offense of the Negative side against the Affirmative Case, it is clear that the Negative's comments are countered because US national sovereignty will not be harmed, and the value of national security through realism is turned. I apologize. The remainder of the rebuttal will have to be posted in the comments section due to the length of the argument. I hope it shall be accepted as part of the round, and yes, it will be posted within the time limit.