The US ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute CAH.

I affirm: The US ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity For clarity I would like to offer the following definitions: 1.Jurisdiction: area of legal power 2.Ought to: should 3.Crimes against humanity: A brutal crime that is not an isolated incident but that involves large and systematic actions, often cloaked with official authority, and that shocks the conscience of humankind; Among the specific crimes that fall within this category are mass murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts perpetrated against a population, whether in wartime or not. For analysis of the resolution I offer the following observations: 1.The affirmative burden is to prove that the US ought to submit. In turn the negative burden is to prove that we ought not to submit. 2.The definition and use of ought in the resolution implies that there is a benefit if the US joins. For example, I ought to brush me teeth because by doing so it has health and dental benefits. 3. For the purpose of clarity, the international court specified in this resolution will be the ICC, the international criminal court. The affirmative values Propoer US Policy. Link: Resolution asks the question: What the Us ought to do. Thus we msut value this foremost. The value of proper US Policy is achieved by the criterion of Protecting Americans. US Policy = Protecting Americans Contention I: Submitting to the ICC Helps Protect Americans A.Increasing US Protection Against Frivolous Prosecutions. Gary Dempsey, member of the war-crimes tribunal explains "For starters, there is the issue of the court's jurisdiction, which is unprecedented. In fact, the treaty's proponents have given the court the legal authority to try citizens of nations that haven't even ratified the document. As State Department spokesman James Rubin explains, "Never before has a treaty put itself over those who have not been included in it." What the treaty says is that even if the United States doesn't ratify the agreement, its citizens can be brought before the court as long as the nation in which alleged crimes took place has ratified the treaty. In other words, American troops stationed in foreign lands could find themselves arrested and prosecuted by the ICC." Essentially, by not joining the US is still vulnerable to prosecutions, thus it is more beneficial to join, then to remain out. B.Ability to Enact Policy. David Scheffer, ambassador on war-crimes issues, explains "The attitude of judges, prosecutors, and other staff of the ICC towards the United States and its official personnel would be more positive if the United States is a signatory than if the United States is either not a signatory or opposed to the ICC Treaty. This is a critical factor in protecting U.S. interests and discouraging legal action against U.S. personnel. The same principle applies to many other governments that would hesitate to initiate actions against U.S. personnel if the United States is a signatory moving towards ratification. Any such action against U.S. personnel might derail U.S. ratification - a consequence that would not be in the interest of most States Parties. Furthermore, joining gives the US the ability to recruit administrators, prosecutors and judges which would ultimately give the US the ability to influence and decide policy decisions in the ICC." [Rebuttal] V: Human Rights --> I have 2 responses: 1. He never once tells you what human rights are, thus there is no way to value a undefined term. 2. Proper US Policy is superior because I provide a clear inherent link, whereas my opponenet does not. VC: Cosmopolitanism --> He argues that ones moral obligation is to all human kind. 1. not once did he make a link between morality and the resolution. 2. I would argue that the affirmative better supports this because the affirmative is making one unviersal forum in which the international body can come for assistance. C1 - Abuse A. No Checks and Balances --> I have 2 responses: 1. This is actually a reason to join because the ICC has an internal check, called the body of nations. Thus, the Us ought to join as a mechanism of check on the court. 2. Cross-apply my contention I where I argue that the only way to influence policy decisions is if we join. Basically the member states are the check. B. Unchecked power leads to abuse --> I have already stated that its member states are its check. C2 - Local Context --> My opponent fails horribly on this point. The majority of crimes agaisnt humanity are done from the national government down agaisnt local entities, e.g. the Holocaust. Why would the locals be agaisnt foreign help, if they are the targets of a genocide, etc? The ICC is a necessary mechanism to protect local contexts agaisnt oppressive regimes. C3 - Hybrid Courts --> The affirmative is not agaisnt hybrid courts. My opponent is assuming uncondtionality on my side. Affirming does not mean that hybrid courts would not be used, rather affirming gives another option to the international community. Essentially affirming is more desirable because affirming leads to more chooses, whereas the neg paralyzes itself. Thus turn this point.