The Ld topic

I would just like for someone to point out the flaws in my case and give me some new ideas Edwin Markham -"By a divine paradox, wherever there is one slave there are two. So in the wonderful reciprocities of being, we can never reach the higher levels until all our fellows ascend with us." I agree with quote said by Edwin Markham that a problem can not come to a solution until every individual has come to an agreement to stop it. Therefore I must affirm today's resolution, Resolved: The U.S. ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an International Court designed to prosecute C.A.H. Def.: C.A.H.- as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion." ICC.COM Dictionary.COM Jurisdiction: the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies Submit: to give over or yield to the power or authority of another ICC International Court: Since the only International Court designed to prosecute C.A.H. is the ICC I will be using the ICC to define International Court. The paramount value in today's round is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number. Utili. Is the highest priority because by how much corruption there is in the United States such as Gitmo, the U.S. can more easily spread the greater good by having a third party step in and try those that have gone unpunished by committing C.A.H. in such areas. The best criterion to uphold my value is Protecting Human Rights. Only through this can the greatest good be achieved. Protection of Human rights should be protected as much possible and in any situation that the US has the opportunity to protect Human Rights should undoubtedly and willingly do it because it creates a more peaceful and livable society. Contention I: The United States does not want to prosecute C.A.H and needs a court that is designed to do so to step in. Eric Saar a soldier who spent three months in the interrogation rooms at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, tells Correspondent Scott Pelley of bizarre, even sadistic, treatment of detainees in the American prison camp. He told 60 Minutes about one interrogation in particular, in which he translated for a female interrogator who was trying to break a high-priority prisoner in which she used vial acts of sexual arousal that were against his religion. Saar says that she later turned off the water to his cell so that he could not clean himself to look clean in the eyes of his god. Saar also reports that he saw a detainee had been "gagged with duct tape that covered much of his head." The interrogator explained that the prisoner had been "chanting the Koran and would not stop." Also a report released by Massachusetts-based Physicians for Human Rights reached the conclusion that former terrorist suspects detained by the United States were tortured. The tortures included beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, sodomy and scores of other abuses. All the subjects told examiners that they were subjected to multiple forms of torture or ill treatment that "often occurred in combination over a long period of time," the report says. What is happening in Guantanamo shows that the U.S. does not care for the well being of their prisoners and they know that torture is happening which falls under a C.A.H. They choose not to recognize it and let it continue which is going against the Geneva Convention. The U.S. can easily prosecute the interrogators who are committing the torturous acts and they choose not to because they don't see them as either forms of torture or that since they are not P.O.W's though most of them are it "doesn't go against the G.C." To stop the injustice we need a third party, the ICC, to step and stop the inhumane acts, keep the U.S. in check, and to show the U.S. that it can not get away with whatever it so pleases just because it is a super power. Contention II: (United States) not submitting to the ICC is morally wrong because it is "looking the other way" to criminal acts. To let Crimes against Humanity that the U.S. recognizes continue is wrong and the U.S. therefore has an obligation to join to help stop them. With the United States's military and resources the International Criminal Court can increase efficiency and power to bring committers of crimes to justice. This would reduce the amount of crimes. The US has an obligation to join the ICC. The U.S. has been aware of crimes against humanity happening all around the world. For example, the U.S. has known about crimes in Darfur and has continually looked the other way. The LA times explains that Sudan's president Oman Bashir stands accused of masterminding the use of rape as a form of genocide against several ethnic groups in Darfur. The U.S. has stood idly by while these heinous modern warfare strategies have occurred. To join the ICC would not only protect the human rights of these international citizens, but would provide the most good. Contention III: Joining the ICC would better the American image. We could change the image from the selfish government that want to control everything to a country that seek to be equal and seek for justice and unity to be sought. By doing so we can tighten the bonds between allies because they would see us as trustworthy and caring. In conclusion, the U.S. will not prosecute C.A.H and need someone to step in. We have a moral oblig. To join, and can better the a.i. if we submit to the ICC, and by doing so we take a step further to bettering the wellbeing of, not just this countries humanity, but the world as a whole.