Due process is more important than national security

Sorry for a late round.==Rebuttal== My Opponent concedes to my framework. His only response is that the purpose of the State is " 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". I'm glad my opponent decided to help me do my research for me, turn: You are violating the rights of the governed by coercing them into unsolicited "protection", protection that the government cuased the need for in the first place. Indeed, its fairly obvious that virtually every attack on the United States in history including Pearl Harbor, the Iran Hostage crisis and 9/11 were caused by the U.S. government meddling in the affairs of other nations in the name of 'national security". A positive correlation between interventionism and terrorism exists, according to CATO[1]. Indeed, presuming that the purpose of the State is to protect rights, the States just role would be to stop facilitating terrorism against the United States, not to become terrorists themselves. My framework stands, and since he's offered none of his own you already have to affirm by default. He argues further: " Government's definable role will alwas be the popular opinion of the time (saying that the action doesn't blatantly violate the Constitution)." This claim is problematic in three ways: 1. It's flat out false. If the purpose of the State was to follow the whims of the mob, we would be in an even worse situtation than we're currently in. The purpose of the State is to protect the rights of its citizens, not to bow to their irrational impulses--indeed, the historical illiberal results that follow from this "popular sovereignty" are all too clear, evils such as slavery, Jim Crow, and genocide. This is not just governence, it is mad brutality. Secondly, the problem of using the Constitution as the sole safeguard is that it is often completely ignored (note the 10th amendment in particular, which has been completely ignored out of existence because it contradicts the desires of the federal leviathan) or changed to suit the whims of the masses. Income Tax is a violation of property rights, but the masses wanted to steal from the wealthy, so the government passed the 16th amendment allowing it. The government was very close to passing an amendment to forever prohibit the right of same sex couples to marry because of bigotry from the masses, and while it was narrowly defeated, it would've passed by a landslide a mere decade before. The Constitution is no safeguard to liberty. Third, that's US specific and addresses around .5% of all the countries in the world.Interdependence of security and due processMy opponent makes a silly rebuttal to this point, arguing that massive and unwarranted governmental violations of private property rights do not violate due process. True, the government does not give you a trial before it decides to rob you of your livelihood and income, but that is a violation of due process in and of itself. Look to his definition: " one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property." Since he makes no real attack, I'll just extend that cleanly across and urge a vote for the affirmative. Later on, he makes a condescending ad hom against Hoppe. I can be rude right back. Apparently he hasn't heard of hyperbole, which is the strategy Hoppe was using. Since he's dropped the empirics and impact, you can cleanly extend the Hoppe card. He also asserts that people in the U.S. are "freeing[sic] than any country ever has." I find it astounding that he would make that statement while dropping clear evidence to the contrary. Nonetheless, my opponent evidently does not know what freedom is, but having ever part of your life regulated and re regulated, having your income stolen to support programs you didn't ask for, and being killed or imprisoned if you refuse to pay is the very defintion of tyranny. He drops the entire warrant behind the argument anyway, preferring to attack straw men--allowing the government to value "security" over due process leads to the government becoming the threat itself. I am no Reagan fan, but he was correct when he state "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem."Vagueness of N.S. My Opponent loses the debate right here. He tries to rebut that " National security is the instance of the State providing for the protection of its citizens from foreign or domestic attack"[emphasis mine]. Turn: He loses. If national security is to include protecting citizens from domestic attacks, using taxation (That is how governments pay for everything--legalized theft, they do not produce), than the very definition of national securiy is self contradicting and therefore cannot be upheld.He accuses me of taking the definition out of context, yet never explains how. He's right, the Nazi killed the Jews because they scapegoated them, bt he never addresses the fact that in principle the government could slaughter us all because we embarrass it. Vote Pro unless you favor genocide. He should lose conduct points for accusing me of not knowing history when I merely was using hyperbole, and the arguments for strawmanning everything and taking hyperbolic expression at face value.He's either flat out dropped or strawmanned the majority of my points, so you're affirming. ==Opponents case== Shifting threatsMy opponent throws out a few "new threats" but never explains what benefit we get from violating due process in order to meet them. Indeed, as you can see from my case an ultra powerful government of aggression actually increase threat levels, but I digress; my opponent needs to justify how violating the rights of citizens in order to keep them "safe" is a good thing. He has not, so ignore this point.Principle not rule He asserts "[a] military trial would better convict and incapacitate the defendant leading to better National Security". There's simply no warrant behind this at all. I can tell you that if you vote Con aliens will abduct you, but unless I prove it somehow it needs to be disregarded. His only impact is that military trials have a higher conviction rate (he asserts this without a card) but he never explains why this is good. Why presume that civilian courts let the guilty walk free as opposed to military courts more often condemning the innocent? We have no reason to blieve that, and impactless arguments get ignored. My opponent once again strawmans my rebuttal. It is putting National Security over due process to arbitrarily kill suspected terrorists without trial, so my argument still stands. His however does not since a military trial is essentially due process anyway-there is ot enough variation to grant him much offense. He brings up an isolated example of a terrorist who nearly walked free. Cool story, I can cite hundreds of innocents imprisoned without a trial for national security[2] which clearly outweigh.Safeguards Strawman. He does not dispute that a government that won't respect its due process boundaries wont respect its court boundaries either, so his safeguards are rendered useless. He says that since he courts supposedly define the constitution as living that makes it ok. Despite this being a complete fallacy (appeal to authority) it should be turned anyway, because making a "flexible" document essentially means making a scrap of paper. Contracts only work if they are binding. Vote Pro.Citations:1. http://www.cato.org...;2. http://www.rte.ie...