U.S. ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity

I will begin with a 1AC and continue in LD style: Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. The Darfur genocide has killed more than 400,000 civilians and displaced 2.5 million people from their homes...In February 2003, frustrated by poverty and neglect, two Darfurian rebel groups launched an uprising against the Khartoum government. The government responded with a scorched-earth campaign, arming and bankrolling militias against the innocent civilians of Darfur. A small peacekeeping force run by the African Union is in place, but it is largely unsupported by the rest of the world. Civilian protection is desperately needed to stop the violence and end the genocide. Because I don't believe that the rest of the world can standby while these horrific acts are commited I affirm the resolution which states: Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity Value: Morality; The word ought as used in the resolution denotes a moral obligation. Meaning the United States has a moral obligation to submit to a national court to prosecute crimes against humanity. As we see in the case of Padilla and others that I will introduce shortly. The U.S. is abusing it's power in these cases and we need checks on the gov't to insure that they do their duty by for instance following the law of habeas corpus instead of sending U.S. citizens to solitary conefinment for three years with no trial because he is an "illegal enemy combatant." Criterion: Protecting Human Rights If protecting human rights is essential to justice (or morality), then prosecuting "crimes against humanity" is an obligation for all nations Before I move on I would like to clarify the resolution by defining certain key terms: Jurisdiction: A gov'ts general power to excercise authority over all persons and things within its territory International: Pertaining to two or more nations. Prosecute: To institute and pursue criminal action against Crime 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. I would like to submit the following observations First:: The U.S. has a moral obligation to submit to an international court to prevent genocide. Second: As long as we continue to allow countries to commit these crimes with no accountability they will assume that they know better than the world. The U.S. can lead the way to international justice. And Third: An international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity will not violate America's sovereignty Contention 1: The U.S. has a moral obligation to submit to an international court to prevent genocide. To prevent genocide and bring mass murderers to a court of law so that justice can be served, the United States has a moral obligation to submit to an international court. To fulfill the resolution the only thing required of the U.S. is that there be a willingness to use United States funds to bring those who are in the act of commiting genocide. Genocide is defined as systematic killing of a racial or cultural group. Examples of those throughout history who have commited genocide are: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Idi Amin. The following is taken from rwanda-genocide.org "The 1994 genocide in Rwanda resulted in the systematic massacre of 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in less than 100 days. The events occurred while the international community closed its eyes." If the United States were to join an international court atrocities such as these could be stopped in their tracks. Being the most dominant military force on the planet the court could call in the help of the U.S. to help prevent genocides. Yolande Mukagasana, 50 years old, survived the Rwandan genocide of 1994. She lost her three children as well as her husband, brothers and sisters. Afetr the genocide she said "Don't talk to me about reconciliation... talk to me about justice" The United States is one small step away from talking about justice. Contention 2: As long as we continue to allow countries to commit these crimes with no accountability they will assume that they know better than the world. The U.S. can lead the way to international justice. We have seen the affect of countries that think they know what is best for the world before. Adolf Hitler assumed he knew best and that we could achieve our greatest human potential under a Nazi rule. Millions of people died in a horrible conflict because of this. Joseph Stalin saw the "decadance of Western society" and thought that he should show his people the way, he thought he knew best and that Communism was what was called for. Millions of more people died in horrible conditions in prison camps being held with no charges more than that the officials didn't like them. Hundreds of more examples can be shown across history. These men did not consider themselves "the bad guys" they thought of themselves as the "one who knew best". When you allow a nation to commit crimes against humanity no matter how small without any repercussions they will assume they know best. Throughout history it has been shown that a nation that thinks it knows what is best for the world is not safe. Therfore we need some sort of accountability for nations that commit these crimes. For instance. You punish a child not because you dislike them or want to hurt them, but because you love them and you must show them that they are wrong. A child who gets away with doing wrong and is not punished will eventually assume he knows better than the parents and become more and more rebellious. We must stand up for justice and if the U.S. submits to the Jurisdiction of an international court we will lead others to do so and it will show the world we do not tolerate these injustices. That we value the safety of the human race enough to help an international court bring these men, and governments, to justice. Contention 3: An international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity will not violate America's sovereignty You will notice that here we are not talking about the ICC but a hypothetical court designed to prosecute specific crimes. If` United States were to agree that the court might have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that would lead to genocide it would fulfill the resolution. The United States as the leading military and economic power in the world has a moral obligation to do our utmost to put an end to horrible crimes such as the Genocide of Rwanda. We cannot stand idly by while countries tear themselves to peices and governments inflict horrible and inhuman punishments on their people. We must bring these criminals to justice. And when the world is brought justice. It will also be brought peace. In Conclusion I affirm the resolution for the following reasons first Issues of violation of human rights in the U.S. are affecting those who are U.S. citizens as well as those who are not. Second As long as we continue to allow countries to commit these crimes with no accountability they will assume that they know better than the world. And Third An international court is better equipped to prosecute crimes against humanity than any individual nation. Human rights violation is a very important issue in today's world. It is not a problem bounded within the borders of one certain country but takes in the entire human race with no discrimination in color, age or sex. These horrible crimes being commited by governments and individuals need to be answerable to a higher court. We need to hold the perpetrators accountable for their crimes and make sure that they are punished duly.