The United States Should Submit to the ICC to prosecute crimes against humanity

Alright, I'll start with the Neg case, then move back to my own. We can go ahead and accept Neg's definitions. Now look to her definition ought. Under that definition we must show the United States to have a moral obligation. Unfortunately for Neg, morality stands with me. Let's first look at Utilitarianism. If I want the greatest good for the greatest number, I immediately discard the notion of looking to the benefit of only the U.S. Therefore, I must act to benefit the world. By vouching for the ICC, I can prevent genocide, establish standards to protect all humans, and enhance multilateralism. Now let's use Kant's Categorical Imperative. Its first maxim states "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". If we go Neg, and all countries act in the interest of their national sovereignty, we lose international law. As you can see in my first contention, international law is important in protecting humans. If we go Aff, and all countries join an international court, then we have strong protection system in the world. Now let us examine her Value. Neg upholds the value of National Sovereignty. However, she fails to show her value is superior to mine. Maximization of Global Security definitely trumps Sovereignty. She states that the ICC violates National Sovereignty. However, not submitting to the court reduces security. This isn't an argument, just where our values clash. If countries wish to maintain their national sovereignty, then international institutions fail. Any institution joined by multiple countries will bind them in some ways. The Kyoto Protocol removes the national sovereignty of the countries that join it in some ways. But the Kyoto Protocol is a beneficial entity, as it betters the environment. It is perfectly fine to lose some sovereignty by submitting to an international entity. Also, submitting to the ICC does not mean the U.S. loses all decision-making power. It just means that any bad decisions it makes, in this case, possible crimes against humanity, can be punished. This is actually beneficial, as it makes the U.S. accountable for all its actions. Regular courts do not rob people of their right to self-determination. I can still make whatever decision I want, but if I act criminally I am punished. My sovereignty over myself is not violated by the judicial system unless I act unlawfully. Let's move on to Neg's first contention. "My first contention is that the ICC's powers...could subject individuals to penalties...that were never though punishable on the international level before." Basically, this is saying that there are acts which we consider criminal now. That is, our concept of justice is changing. Perhaps if Neg can cite an act which has recently been defined as criminal, can result in a life sentence, but should not be criminal or merit such a punishment, this argument will be salient. Until then, it is meaningless. "As an institution the ICC would act as police, prosecutor, judge, jury and jailer prohibiting the ability of a fair trial..." The U.S. government does much the same - it runs jails, the police force,and can prosecute and judge defendants. This still does not remove right to an impartial judge and jury. "the Rome Treaty would extend the ICC's jurisdiction to the citizens of countries that have not signed..." This is yet another reason to join. By joining the ICC, the U.S. can make its opinion heard on the international scale. U.S. citizens are open to prosecution, so we may as well have our say in things as well. "The Supreme Court has long held that only the courts of the United States, as established under the Constitution, can try such offenses..." Let's run through the Amendments. 1st (speech) - ICC doesn't prohibit freedom of speech 4th (search/seizure) - ICC will only investigate under sufficient suspicion, not under a mere 'complaint'. 5th-6th (rights of accused) - The ICC will try an defendant as speedily as possible while maintaining fairness. 8th - The ICC will hand out just as fair a verdict as any other court. Irrelevant Amendments: 2,3,7,9-27 On the topic of ICC protections, Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Assistant Professor at Stanford writes: "Consider, for example, the right to counsel, the presumption of innocence, and the privilege against self-incrimination. All ICC defendants "shall be entitled to have legal assistance assigned by the court where the interests of justice so require, and without payment if the accused lacks sufficient means to pay for it." The Rome Statute provides that every person "shall be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty before the Court." The presumption of innocence is given substance by requiring that the Pre-Trial Chamber approve a prosecutor-initiated investigation, at which time the accused may object, challenge the evidence, or present her own evidence. Moreover, persons suspected of committing a crime under ICC jurisdiction have the right to remain silent "without such silence being a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence." Indeed the Rome Statute provides more of a privilege than the Miranda rule, which requires warnings only when a suspect is in police custody. In contrast, the Rome Statute requires a warning whenever the prosecution has grounds to believe that the person being questioned has committed a crime." Finally, let's move to Neg's third contention. "(1) subjected Americans to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws" As I have shown, the ICC provides Constitutional protections. "(2) deprived us in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury" Neg herself admits that the ICC provides a jury. "(3) transported us beyond the seas to be tried for pretended offences." This was in an era in which naval transport was long and arduous. Now, a flight from, say Chicago to Amsterdam takes about 8 hours. I do not see this as a major problem faced by any defendant. There is also nothing stopping the ICC from having seats on each of the continents, making transportation much easier. As we see in my source cited above, defendants can protest their indictment if there is not sufficient evidence. Pretended offenses will not be brought to court. "..when the individual countries pick punishments on their societal norms that is personal, individual justice in their eyes..." That isn't to say we can't have over-arching norms. Remember, we're talking crimes against humanity here, not petty larceny. This is, under Neg's definition, murder, extermination, enslavement, etc. of a civilian population. I think the global community can agree that these are serious crimes and merit serious punishments. Now let's move back to the Pro case. It would seem that my opponent forgot to rebut my case. I shall extend my all my arguments. 1) International justice provides security for the world, by giving every human, regardless of their government, certain protections. 2) International courts can prevent genocide and atrocities by making national leaders accountable. 3) International courts encourage countries to work together for the benefit of all mankind.