DDO LD Tournament: Due Process for Terrorists

Well, my opponent has broken the rules, which can be found here @ http://www.debate.org... of this here tournament by copy/paste arguments from his previous debate, which can be found here @ http://www.debate.org... http://imgur.com... for pics that cant be added to this EVEN IF this isn"t reason enough to vote for the negative I will still represent the neg. I negate the resolution? National security is the requirement to maintain the survival of the state through the use of economic, diplomacy, power projection and political power. accused a claim against My value will be that of Morality, but more specifically the classification of consequentialism VC national security To better define my value Harries, "94 writes, "in politics, it is "the ethic of responsibility" rather than "the ethic of absolute ends"" While an individual is free to treat human rights as absolute, governments must weigh consequences and the competing claims of other ends. Once we enter the realm of politics, human rights have to take their place in a hierarchy of interests, including such basic things as national security." Even if deontology is truly ethical, states must act as consequentialists C1 National Security out-weighs individual liberty A: TRYING TERRORISTS IN CIVILIAN COURTS MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO CONVICT THEM these rights make for more problems for the government when trying the detainee in conviction we should use military tribunals as they are better equipped to handle the situation, they can incorporate more into their cases to convict those on trial. B: TRIAL COURTS FORCE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION TO BE REVEALED Tung Yin2011 The appropriate course of action would be criminal prosecution. for those who want to exact lawful retribution, fear federal court trials will compromise national security by revealing classified information, the appropriate course of action might be prosecution in a military court. Due processs would better be served in military tribunals as they are more fit and would be more practical D: FAILURE TO PREVENT TERRORIST ATTACK THREATENS GLOBAL SURVIVAL Jan C. Ting, 2002 But, despite the appearance of normality, we remain fully engaged in a life-and-death struggle with international terrorism. No one can doubt after the September 11 attacks, the willingness of these terrorists to use nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons against us if, and as soon as, they can get their hands on them. C2: Equal protection when it comes to people accused of terrorism A: Habeas Protections Exist for Non-Citizens Marjorie Cohn, 2011 In 2008, the Supreme Court decided Boumediene v. Bush, upholding habeas corpus rights for the Guantanamo detainees. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that they have a constitutional right to habeas corpus Therefore the use of military tribunals is already in affect and is giving those accused of terrorism substantial due process protection. B:citezens and non-citizens have = protection against terrorists charges. National Defense Authorization Act section 1021 This states indefinite detention, without trial by use of AUMF of United States citizens if accused of terrorism So by definition citizens and non-citizens already have equal rights of due process when accused of terrorism C: This would devalue the status of citizen ship. We can"t give non-citizens an inappropriate requisite that us as Americans don"t possess, that would be unfair and not morally acceptable. now i will begin refutation my opponent defined accused as formally charged i have 2 arguments why this shouldnt be used first is using formally charged narrows debate and secondly we should use claim as not all accused are done so in a public, or formal, matter. they define Due process as protected under the constitution, i have 3 arguments to why we shouldnt look to the constitution for our proceedings 1 patriot act sections 206 and 215 which allow government to exercise powers that are "protected" under the constitution 2 NDAA '14 second 1061 (g) 1 that allow for unwarranted searches another thing "protected" in the constitution 3 as long as national security is involved, the constitution has historically been trashed, we can look to schenck v. united states i have 3 arguments to his claim on rights 1 rights can be the things he talks about but are not always true, we can look at the rights of women in middle eastern countries versus the large majority of the rest 2 rights are not trumps, historically, to utilitarian concerns especially when concerning national security, again schenck v. united states 3 we relinquished our duty to protect our rights when we entered into the social contract and gave that to the government his value of justice is defined as giving each their due by Aristotle i have 2 claims why this is not the right way to frame the debate 1 aristotle has said that equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally so each may have a due but that due may be of less entitlement to the gentleman next to him 2 Afsheen J. Radsan (1) writes, "Due process, however, does not demand judicial process to review the merits of executive action if this review"would"be"unreasonable"(and"thus"not""due")."" basically stating that due process does not equate to judicial process which is not "due" against their value criterion of respecting human rights, i am just going to cross apply my Radsan (1) card that states sometimes respecting a right would be unreasonable, in this case he was talking about due process, my aristotle equals = equality while unequals=inequality , my first and second arguments against rights and i will make 1 more arguemtn, the united states doesn't follow the UDHR or the other two fully therefore has no merit in this debate, for examples already used look to the due process refutations. his sub a of c1 starts with a radsan card but there are 2 reasons why we shouldnt look to this card 1 Afsheen J. Radsan (2) writes, "This holding should not, however, obscure that Boumediene itself instructs courts not to interfere with executive action abroad if such interference would be "impracticable" or" anomalous." In short, Boumediene can still be understood in light of a long tradition of judicial deference to executive action on foreign policy and national security." basically if we further develop their radsan card we would see that radsan only shows favor to practical and non anomalous court interference. 2 this contradicts his definition of ought which is desirability, as benefits are out weighed by cost looking from the consequanlists standpoint against the Loretta card 1 we can cross apply radsan (2) for the impracticabilities and 2 look to Schenck vs US for NS>Liberty sub b HR's against his emily card 1 she claims it is ratified in all nations when it is not, how can we trust her if she can not get simple information right but even if that not enough ignore this card 2 these are not constitutional due process rights so have no merit in the first place/ off topic , no link. Sub a of c2 detention entice terrorism 4 arguments 1 we have gotten crucial evidence in past 2 no link to c2 3 no longer torture so irrelevant info 4 old evidence from iraq sub b c2 1 violation of rights is for information purposes not deterrent 2 no link to c2 or value and value criterion because it doesnt uphold them against his sub c c2 i have but one argument to think that other countries haven't done what the US has done is ignorant and childish look to the uk for an example for sub d of c2 look to cops interrogating criminals, does that stop civilians from giving anonymous tips or prosecuting in a court its the same concept but to a lesser degree vote neg only because aff broke the rules of this debate but because neg has thoroughly broken down the aff case and shown why neg is the better vote thank you.