The United States is Justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objecti

As a brief roadmap, I will first start out by stating the Negative's side of the debate, and attacking my opponent. Dwight D. Eisenhower once said "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplace power exists and will persist we must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. Because I agree with our former president I must negate the resolution Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives. Since our founding the United States has been a country that has stood for Justice. In the name of this principle billions of men and women have died fighting for our country, they have willingly given up their lives because of how strongly they believe in this principle of justice. Knowing this I offer the value of "Justice", defined by Princeton. edu as the quality of being just or fair. If we wish to continue to live under democratic ideals, Justice is the highest value in the round; and we must look towards it. The criteria that we must use to determine if an action is just, has to be the legal system as outlined in the United States Constitution. There is simply no other structure to evaluate the actions of private and public citizens and groups outside of the US legal system as established by the Constitution. The only way to achieve fair and proper administration of the laws is to refer to the system of laws itself. That is, the US is not justified in using private military firms when those firms, by definition operate outside the legal system. CONTENTION 1) My first contention is that the private firms are violating international law. International humanitarian law (IHL) is the body of law that contains both human rights law and the law of armed combat (LOAC), and since its twentieth-century codification, it has consistently banned any person on the battlefield that might appear to be anything resembling a mercenary . Centuries of civilization have realized that war needs rules in order to be fought and survived even as war is transformed the necessity of the rule of law remains . America needs to take international law seriously and ban private military firms. The government is obligated to make sure their government and military is not corrupt. A lack of morality is corrupt and the private firms are not being moral. The private firms don't care about anything but the money so they will go against morality for money witch we cannot allow. The United States is not justified in sending private military firms abroad to pursue military operations because the military firms are not just. CONTENTION 2) Hiring private forces to escort NATO convoys has actually strengthened a dangerous network of Afghan warlords. In fact, NATO convoys that refuse to pay them for protection are sometimes threatened and attacked. The money that the United States pays to hire these private forces has actually found its way to the Taliban (based on a study done by the House Subcommittee for National Security). In fact, the money paid to these warlords actually strengthens the competing forces within Afghanistan that exacerbates the current power vacuum. As long as the US continues to use these PMCs in Afghanistan, there will be no peace or stability. [1]^ Dexter Filkins, "US Said to Fund Afghan Warlords to Protect Convoys," --------------------------------------------------------- My opponent's value is firstly, and foremostly, the value of life. Interesting value, one that of course is necessary. However, life on it's own, has little, if any meaning. In order to protect life, and in order to live it at its' fullest, one needs justice, the value that should take chief importance in the debate. The criterion, is more or less the same, living life at it's fullest' maximization of life. Once more, PMCs, actually hurt many lives, so how can we be stating that they do quite the opposite, when in reality, they do not? My opponent's Contention 1 is that private military firms solve conflicts. However, he gives us two very nice examples of when they have been helpful. My opponent cleverly avoids the times when private military firms have failed. However, that's not the main point that should be put up in this debate. Just because something has a success rate, DOES NOT mean that it is justified in any means. So, just because something works, it does not necessarily mean, that that something is something just. CONTENTION 2) My opponent has numerous arguments here. First, he states that the US military is overextended. Once more, just because something may be needed, it does not mean in any way that whatever is being hired to do the work, (in this case PMCs) are just. I stated the fact that, since military firms operate outside the legal system, this makes them unjust, basically bringing down my opponent's points. My opponent states however, that PMCs solve the problem. The problem is solved by the brave Americans fighting the war. Many times PMCs are involved, but they are not the main helpers, nor the main heroes in a war. So, in short my opponent thinks that since PMCs have a good success rate, they are justified. This is in no means true, since something that is good, is not always just. IN this case, military firms. Let's remember that we're debating whether or not military firms are just, not whether or not they are good. I believe that they are unjust, due to the fact that they operate outside the legal system, while my opponent thinks they're just, because they're good for USA. It is for these reasons, and more, that I must ask for a CON acquiescence. Thank you!