interveening in human rights abuses

Before I begin, I would like to address my opponent's definitions. 'Justified' does not mean permissible. By my opponent's definition, officials at Guantameno Bay are justified in penetrating men, women, and children with sharp objects as long as the American public doesn't create a stir. I believe that justification is independent of the whims of any society, so I will offer another definition. According to Google definitions, 'justified' means 'marked by a good or legitimate reason.' Con therefore has to prove only that the US has no good or legitimate reason to intervene, while Pro has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the reasons are good or legitimate. I will show how my opponent's own definitions and standards make his position untenable. Since all my arguments will be interconnected, I will not organize them in contentions, but they will address three main issues: - the hypocrisy entailed when the US intervenes for human rights - the effectiveness of US intervention - who has the responsibility to intervene in international human rights abuses "The first proposition is that states have a responsibility to protect their own populations from mass atrocities," states my opponent. The US has failed to do this in the areas of public education and urban development. According to Jonathan Kozol, author of "Savage Inequalities", the poor districts of New Jersey have school in an abandoned and decaying roller rink, with 1000 people crammed into a space worthy of 700. The poor districts of East St. Louis have lead levels of 10,000 parts per million in the soil. These poor districts often border wealthy districts with schools that have the luxury of building three or four football fields, and where any detectable trace of lead could lead to a lawsuit. Pennsylvania Law defines abuse as the 'intentional injury of.' The disparity in the fundamental rights of educational opportunity and livelihood between the rich and the poor may not be intentional, but it is certainly not unintentional, as one case to redistribute school funds in Texas has not reached a conclusion after 23 years. The wealthy continue to vote down any effort to redistribute funds. The US certainly has no cause to intervene in human rights abuses elsewhere when it has problems of the same nature. As Mark Twain once said: "It is no use to travel 5 miles to fish when you can count on being just as unsuccessful near home." If we were to intervene, how effective would we be? We've been somewhat successful at maintaining order while we keep a military presence, but historically once we retreat our military all of our effort in that foreign nation collapses. We can certainly keep a military presence, but how long would the patience of the US public last? To make intervention meaningful, there would need to be fundamental change in the ideology that caused the abuse in the first place. We haven't succeeded in selling the concept of equality to our own citizens. How are we to sell humanitarian beliefs to foreigners? Changing traditional beliefs of a society is already a challenge. Our inequality at home only exacerbates the difficulty. Indeed, are we even the people who are responsible for selling these beliefs to the international community? The US leads the West, but does that make intervention its responsibility? International human rights abuses demand an international response. Due to our state of inequality, whether the US should lead the international effort is questionable. Though intervention done right can create international cooperation, intervention led by a nation that violates the very principles the intervention supports could debase international relationships. Therefore, I challenge my opponent to provide a good or legitimate reason why the US, of all nations, should intervene in international human rights abuses.