Terrorists should have due process protections

My opponent did not present any rebuttals and only presented his case, so I will do the same. We will present rebuttals in the next round. The affirmative case presumes that it is the duty of the United States to try terrorist cases in its own courts. Thus, the negative cases attacks this presumption and proves that the United States does not have such an obligation, and thus should not be extending due process rights to foreigners accused of terrorism since it should not be trying the terrorists in the first place.Since the resolution questions what rights terrorists are due, my value for this round is Justice, defined as giving each his due. The value criterion for the round is fulfilling obligations. Any notion of “due” imposes an obligation on another party to provide. For example, if a bank loans money to a debtor, its due is the money that it loaned, and the debtor has an obligation to provide that due to the bank. Similarly, if someone is due the protection of his or her rights or due a guarantee that his or her rights will not be violated, he or she imposes obligations on others to provide protection and to provide a guarantee to not violate his or her rights. Justice is thus best weighed through an examination of whether obligations are being provided for. Fulfilling obligations is the metric through which all other criteria, such as rights, are evaluated and thus must be the primary criterion for this round. My sole contention is that the United States ought not try foreign terrorists in its own courts and instead become a party to litigation in international courts such as the ICC. First, in situations in which the rights are not violated no matter what course of action we take, we have a moral obligation to carry out the actions that are most beneficial. All actions have a purpose, and if no rights are violated in carrying out an action, the action that best fulfills the purpose in question is the most responsible action to take. The ultimate end of any action is to produce pleasure and minimize pain, and if two actions have the same purpose, the one that better fulfills that purpose better achieves pleasure and minimizes pain. Promoting pleasure and pain are the ultimate ends of humanity because actions that are desirable are not desirable in themselves, but are only desirable insofar as they maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Philosopher John Stuart Mill explains, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the and the prevention of pain.”Second, since trying terrorism in the ICC would not have any significant difference from trying terrorism in the United States with respect to rights, we must determine which action would be most beneficial. If we suppose that the United States made policy changes such that it would completely eradicate torture centers, black sites, enhanced interrogation, and deprivation of due process, the rights the the United States would be providing to foreigners accused of terrorism would be the same rights granted to individuals who are produced before the ICC. Thus, in order to determine which action we ought to take, we must determine which would be more beneficial. Third, submitting terrorist cases to an international court is more beneficial than trying the cases in domestic courts. Trying cases in an international court promotes multilateral action, stifles unilateral action, and thus increases national security. First, trying terrorists in domestic courts promotes unilateral action rather than cooperation; it emphasizes that the crimes committed by terrorists are harms to U.S. citizens and not violations of international law and human rights. Unilateralism fosters anti-Americanism. Uncooperative, unilateral actions against Iraqi dictators and Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups has not only served to alienate our allies, but has also increased anti-American recruitment against terrorist networks because unilateral action provides a single enemy on which America’s enemies can focus. Multilateral efforts that focused on providing the ICC with cases, however, would present the entire world as an enemy to terrorist causes rather than just the U.S. and would simultaneously force the United States to cooperate with other nations on questions of terrorism. Second, trying terrorism in international courts rather than domestic courts would facilitate the prosecution of terrorism. First, by promoting multilateral efforts against terrorism rather than unilateral action, an international court would promote evidence-sharing. The victims and criminals involved in terrorist acts transcend national borders, making it difficult to collect and share evidence. When terrorism is prosecuted unilaterally, each nation has a vested interest in prosecuting terrorists individually in order to demonstrate to its population that it is striving to protect the lives of its people. This thus reduces incentive for collaboration. An international court would unite victimized countries and provide for more effective trials. In addition, multilateral efforts would reduce a desire to not hand over suspects. Disunity amongst the international community has already harmed prosecution efforts. The United States, for example, refuses to share suspects with other nations such as Germany, and Spain has refused to hand over twenty four individuals suspected of carrying out the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Pursuing unilateral efforts against terrorism over multilateral efforts is absolutely foolish because it inhibits the prosecution necessary to bring terrorist networks to their heels. Since it would be more beneficial for the United States to submit terrorists to the ICC rather than trying them domestically, the U.S. does not have an obligation to provide due process rights to terrorists; rather, it has an obligation to hand them over to the international community for judgment. I strongly urge a negation of the resolution.