Due process is more important than national security

Rebuttal 1: The purpose of government is to provide for the protection of its citizens In response to my opponents case: “first observe that the only justifiable role of the State is to protect the rights of its people. Give the State the arbitrary authority to revoke the rights and harm its people, and you've destroyed its purpose." This would be in contradiction the purpose most legal scholars have assigned the State. As John Locke once said, "Government being for the preservation of every man's right and property, by preserving him from the violence or injury of others is for the good of the governed." He explicitly states that the rights of men are preserved by the Government by protecting them from harm. In and of itself Government is an institution created by The People, for the People's desire. To that end, Government's definable role will alwas be the popular opinion of the time (saying that the action doesn't blatantly violate the Constitution). For that reason our Government has complete interest in limiting some Due Process in the necessary pursuit of National Security. Rebuttal 2: National security is necessary to secure Due Process It's been stated that there are two philosophies to come at this from, and that's true, but my opponent fails to take into account that this isn't early America, it's 2012. They brought in a quote talking about how citizens in the Founding era hardly noticed the effects Government played on their lives. I would like to argue irrelevancy. The quote is referencing how large the Government is, not whether it supposedly tramples on Due Process. It applies to the same of the second quote. The topic of this debate is National Security and Due Process, not how the government controls our economics more and more. Furthermore I would like to provide an indictment of unreasonable on the author. He stated "Now, year in and year out the American government expropriates more than 40% of the incomes of private producers, making even the burden on slaves and serfs seem moderate comparison." Slaves kept none of their profits, but rather were owned, fed, and subject to any abuse their masters gave them. Quite simply they had no rights, no due process, they were property not people. Remember this from History Class? The same applied to Serfs, the kept enough of their profits to feed their family, and maybe trade for some there supplies. While technically free, they were 100% dependent on their Lord. This doesn't sound like American society today. Yes there is dependency, but even in that we're freeing than any country ever has. This author should not be considered further in this debate due to unreasonably and presented false facts. Then my opponents final point, "why would one want to sign a contract with an entity granting them power to take away from property, liberty and even life." I'm not sure of the relevancy of this... Almost everyone would, has, and will continue to. My opponent failed to support how both Due Process and National security fail if Due Process isn't upheld. Rebuttal 3: National security My opponent attempted to distort the definition of National Security. The definition of National Security is actually quite reasonable. National security is the instance of the State providing for the protection of its citizens from foreign or domestic attack, preserving the National Image by stopping the leaking of classified documents, etc. This is a common man definition, and my opponent’s points simply don't apply. They took the definition out of context, it's embarrassing the nation my releasing classified information. Furthermore they brought up an argument saying that the Jews were slaughtered because the Nazi's were embarrassed by them... This is such a distortion of history it isn't even funny. The Nazis blamed the Jews for their loss of WW I and the Depression. They made them out to be communists in disguise attempting to overthrow and destroy all that was German. For THAT reason, and the fact that the Nazis considered the Jews sub-human they proceeded to murder them along with Homosexuals, Christians, the mentally and physically weak, Russians, Poles, etc. Let's at least get history right. Response to my opponents Rebuttals: Shifting threat You'll see my mention this a few times later. My Opponent isn't sticking to the definitions provided at the beginning of this debate. I also defined Due Process as the rights provided under the Constitution, so quite plainly, yes they have a duty to argue Due Process through the Constitution. I suggest my opponent look at definitions more carefully. Secondly, for examples of shifting threats: 1. Weapons of Mass Destruction 2. Interlinked Global Terrorism 3. Technology Now you might wonder, technology? Due to technology the world is shrinking, what once took months to travel across the world take a day. New that once took months to deliver takes seconds. The world is shrinking, while threats are growing. And I would agree due to this shrinking, Due Process should be limited in some instances. Response to my opponents Rebuttals: Principle not Rule (See second rebuttal for first part). It matters where he's tried because Military trials have a better conviction rate that Civilian trials do. In the exact same case of a proven terrorist, the military trial would better convict and incapacitate the defendant leading to better National Security. They attempted to distort the point by saying that Military trials convict 100% of the time therefore it isn't Due Process. This was a miscommunication, not 100% but they convict where Civilian trials don't because Military judges and juries are more experience than Civilian Judges and juries. Also it is completely unique the case. The 6th amendment (Due Process) guarantees the right to a Civilian Trial; denying them that upholds National Security but violates Due Process. This is the definition of my case. Also, my opponents argument that we can't determine whether or not a terrorist is actually a terrorist fails to understand the criminal process. The Courts are where his guilt is determined, not whether he is a terrorist. For instance Ahmed Ghailani was tried in a civilian court. He pled twice to participating in U.S. embassy bombings, and working with Al Qaeda, yet he was found not guilty on over 200 charges except the intent to commit terrorism. [1] Thirdly, I'm not arguing that Justice is weakness, so that argument doesn't have any sway. Finally as stated, one of the definitions of Due Process are Constitutional Amendments (6th amend.), and trying U.S. citizens would violate the 6th amendment, therefore violating Due Process, as a result my opponent’s "turn" doesn't apply due to Resolutional misinterpretation. Now on the resolution. The question is whether Due Process SHOULD be valued over National Security. If I can show that one shouldn't be valued over the other, I've upheld my burden. I ask my opponet to look more closely at the resolution. Response to my opponents Rebuttals: Safeguards First, it is not foolish to trust in the Courts of the United States, they are more responsible for the retention of rights than any other government entity. I ask my opponent to actually prove why the Courts wouldn't uphold, instead of stating unfounded opinion. Precedence shows that the Courts would protect rights if they were blatantly violated. Secondly, the Constitution is a living document, as defined by the Courts. The Courts interpret the Constitution and its application to modern events, take the Interstate Commerce Clause as an example. And finally, my opponent has misinterpreted the resolution, and it's role. 1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...