LD Jan/Feb Topic, International Courts

V-Firstly, "domestic tranquility" can be preserved if we submit to an international court because we are prosecuting the human rights violators what the US court system has obviously failed to prosecute. But second, international justice show be valued higher then domestic justice because, as I stated, this can lead to a situation in which non-citizens do not deserve justice. In comparison, submitting to this international court would be saving the lives of many while the injustice my opponent is speak of is breaking insignificant and changeable details of the Constitution. While the governments primary duty does lie with its people, by submitting to an international court we save American and foreign citizens from human rights violations committed by US officials. VC-The fact that the constitution is a living document is the reason we cannot look to it as a value criterion. This debate is not about the current times or the current president, it is about the ideas and meanings behind what we are discussing, so the fact that my opponent sites the Constitution as the weighing mechanism in this debate is faulty because it can change and therefore cannot be viewed from a nonspecific point in time. To look at the ideas behind the Constitution is one thing, but to argue the specifics of it is invalid in this debate. If we look, as we should, to the ideas and valued behind the Constitution, I will show that my opponent's value criterion can be turned to the affirmative side. The main ideas behind the Constitution are the values of equality and justice. Equality is not really a relevant topic in this debate so I will proceed to the value of justice. Firstly, my value criterion for today's round is, in fact, justice, therefore I am already upholding at least one of the main values of the Constitution throughout my case. If we do not submit to an IC than human rights violations committed by the government in the United States will continue to go unpunished and in no way is this justice. My opponent argues that we may violate the changeable details of the Constitution by submitting to an IC but I am arguing that we violate an unchanging core value of the Constitution by NOT submitting. Contention 1- Obviously, if the Supreme Court cannot uphold justice by correctly prosecuting human rights violators, something is wrong. As I have shown in my case the US cannot justly prosecute and therefore we must make a change, the best change is to submit to an IC. Contention 2- Although my opponent never said "this IC will would try cases involving human rights violations and only when the state cannot justly prosecute the [criminal] itself" this is the structure of ICs and not only the ICC but all so this argument is important when it comes to weighting the round. The evidence he sites is solely against the ICC and since as we both agreed we cannot look to things claiming the ICC does not work. He talks about the Rome Statues but we are not discussing the Rome Status. These "mistakes" are not inherent in an international court. And the article from which the first piece of evidence is from is purposely left out of my opponent's argument because it is titles, The Constitutionality of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 3C and 4C- Again, my opponent supports his arguments with the nitty gritty of the US Constitution, as I have shown, the framers of the Constitution wrote it in such a way as to best aid the country at that time, but left it a living document. If the US Supreme Court or the President cannot do their job in protecting the people of America by justly prosecuting people who violate Human Rights, I believe it is time for another amendment to be added to the Constitution allowing these problems to be fixed by submitting to an IC. My opponent tries to place a burden of proof saying that Obama will not commit human rights violations during his presidency, which I have already show it is too early to tell, but this argument is not valid. As my opponent mandates that we cannot look to the current international court, I mandate that we cannot look to the current president. This is a LD debate, we are not PF debaters here, we look to the morality and the ideas behind ideas not the current situations, which is why this argument not valid. Please excuse my oversight of this attack against my contention 1 subpoint A, but I believed we had bigger issues to discus. But I will respond now since it is obviously extremely important. Extraordinary rendition is, in fact, a human rights violation. A human rights violation is not categorized by a number but by the selective Human Rights violations, often committed by a government, against a group for a reason such as, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. and my opponent has agreed that his is the relevant definition. The US government is not choosing one out of every one million people for this torture. The government is selectively kidnapping Muslims and people of Arabic decent for this human rights violation because OBVIOUSLY all Muslims and Arabic people are part of Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Finally, before I finish, some Voting Issues 1)I have shown that Human Rights and international justice is more valuable than domestic justice 2)My opponent basis his entire case on the changeable details of the Constitution but cannot uphold the ideas and values behind it, while I can. 3)I have shown that the US commits human rights violations 4)I have shown that the US cannot prosecute those crimes themselves, and therefore must submit to the jurisdiction of an international court.