Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other

Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses. Value: Justice Criterion: The Just War Theory. Just war theory is probably the most influential perspective on the ethics of war and peace. The Just War Theory is used in the UN and Geneva conventions. But more specifically the United States fufills the just war theory. The Just War Theory is a theory in which in order to go to be justified in war all criteria"s of the Just War theory must be met. Or else the United States will not be justified in going to war. The Just War theory is the only way to achieve the value of justice and furthermore be justified in war. Using the just war theory there are three many contentions in which we see that the united states cannot fufill the criterion of the just war theory proving that we would not be justified in going to war. C1: The Jus ad bellum of the just war theory. This is justice before the war as started. If this criterion is not met the US is not justified and Aquinas says that state has committed a war crime if the criteria are not met. 1. A Just cause. We know that the just cause is obviously the human rights abuse. However there is more that needs to be met. 2. Right intention. A state must intend to fight the war only for the sake of its just cause. Having the right reason for launching a war is not enough. We have seen the US have ulterior motives with Iraq Ambassador James F. Jeffrey said that a main reason for invading iraq was for oil resources. Also our Ambassador of Afganistan James B. Cunningham said that a main reason for going in to Afgan was that American geologists discovered that there were a trillion dollars worth of metal in Afghanistan. This mineral deposit is perhaps the largest in the world, containing valuable metals like gold and silver, along with rare metals such as platinum and rhodium. Therefore the are ulterior motives for going to war other than stopping human rights abuse. 3. Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate states around the world. We already know that the UN Resolution stated that No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any State. The us must have respect for the international social contract in which the us in not justified in a unilateral decision. Making the us unjustified but also losing legitimacy. 4. Probability of Success. A state may not resort to war if it can foresee that doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation. We"ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years now. And we are still human rights abuses have not stopped! Therefore we know there is not a great chance of success. Also we make things worse. Nils Gleditsch, a Research professor at the International Peace Research Institute said intervention rarely works and countries never rehabilitate and change there ways it also results in a very weak relationship between the two countries this study was done through out 1931-2010. 5. Proportionality. Can we honestly say that America has been proportionate with Iraq and Afganistan. We are not being proportionate because we"ve been invaded these two countries for 10 years. C2: Jus in bello which is justice during the war. Again the US must fulfill all the criteria in order to be justified. 1. Discrimination and Non-Combatant Immunity. Soldiers are only entitled to use their weapons to target those who are abusing human rights. Unless the Aff can guarantee that no civilians will be killed. And that the only targets will be the people abusing human rights. America is not justified in going to war. 2. Proportionality. Soldiers may only use force proportional to the end they seek. We have seen this power abused in Afganistan and Iraq where once human rights were obtained we still occupied these countries. 3. Benevolent quarantine for prisoners of war. If enemy soldiers surrender and become captives, they cease being lethal threats to basic rights. They are no longer"engaged in harm." Thus it is wrong to target them with death, starvation, rape, torture, medical experimentation, and so on. However we have seen that America has abused human rights of these prisoners of war in Guantanmo bay and Abu Grahib. The red cross reported that there are ongoing torture, sexual degradtion, forced drugging, extreme torture, sleep deprivation, religious persecution, and medical experimentation. Thus we see that the just war theory criteria is not met making the us not justified in going to war. So we must negate the resolution.