The US ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

I would like to think my opponent and wish him/her luck Thomas Jefferson: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution." I agree with this because I believe that Americans deserve the rights that are stated in the Constitution and nothing should be put above it. And therefore I negate the resolution Resolved: The United States ought to submit to Jurisdiction of an international court design to prosecute Crimes against Humanity Definitions: 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." 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 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. Value: Independence- Independence puts the differences between different societies across the globe. In every world justice system it is necessary to give them independence from one another because of the change in them. And what may be tolerable may not be by others. V.C. National Sovereignty- the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights is what makes this country and its people, which make its power. By submitting to the ICC it is excepting a new court over it's own and devaluing the constitution therefore taking away the U.S. sovereignty. Contention 1- By the U.S. giving itself to the ICC (submitting) it will lessen its own existence. The U.S. constitution was mainly made for the purpose of protecting the people of the nation first and the nation itself. By allowing the ICC to come in and have power and influence the U.S. is no longer by itself but a larger country. Its Constitution becomes void because there is a higher power, which goes to that court system which can then prosecute the U.S. citizens freely. Then their laws can take power over the laws of the U.S and endanger the United States. Contention 2- The ICC is not properly structured. A) The ICC does not try its defendants by a trial by jury. Instead, the trial is done in front of a panel of three judges. If a US citizen were to be tried under the ICC, he/she would lose basic fundamental rights given to them by the government. Therefore, the US government has a moral obligation not to join, since losing the citizens rights is not protecting the citizen. B) By joining we lose Right to a Speedy Trial. The ICC takes a horrendously long time to actually try those accused. In fact, those being accused can sometimes be held up to 5 years. The US Constitution grants the citizens the right to a speedy trial, with 90 days being the limit. C) Even American citizens who get tried by the icc can get tried again. The Fifth Amendment of the American constitution says "… nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Article 20 (3) of ICC says: Persons acquitted by a national court can be brought to trial again if the ICC concludes that the original trial was "conducted in a manner which, in the circumstance, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person to justice." One purpose of American rules of trial evidence is to protect individual liberty, giving power to the purpose of the Bill of rights, which is designed to restrain governmental abuse. That results in the exclusion of evidence obtained illegally. But the ICC has lower standards for warrants and the legitimacy of evidence. Thus, a judgment of not guilty by an U.S. court because of illegally obtained or unreliable evidence might well be rejected by the ICC as being "inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice", resulting in a second trial by the ICC using the very same evidence that had previously been rejected by the U.S. court because it was considered unreliable or illegal under our Bill of Rights. In conclusion by giving away our jurisdiction, we our giving up our freedom. Negate I will now move onto attack my opponents case. Value Justice- First of all you dont really define why justice is a stable value for this debate you just say "Because the resolution states, The United States "ought", making it a moral debate. This debate also speaks of joining an international court, and a court is a justice system."- thats not really a valid reason to have justice for this debate. What are you bringing to justice also are you using Rawls justice...what? Contention I- A-The United States involvement into the ICC would further legitimize the court.- This statement is false and his whole contention 1 is false and i will prove how. By joining you are submitting to ones will therefore not having power in ones court to do anything. What your saying is that if we were to join we could go in and make things stable. In order to do so you need power which once submitting the U.S. will not have. What you are speaking of is more of taking over. Like an invasion you would say. Quote "The United States would lose soft power if we didn't join, and we would further legitimize the court if we would join." -True we lose power but not because we didnt join because we did join i proved that in my whole case. B-This is not even a valid reason. First of all if we were to join they would they could prosecute the us military for a crime against humanity while they were working for them and the icc could lessen the us military forces due to a danger to humanity. No way in any way is this a valid reason C-We dont prosecute crimes against h. in the first place. By basing off what you said it sounds like you want us not to submit but to go in and have complete control and therefore automatically losing because you fail to pass with the burden of proof and you go against the resolution. D-Is a repeat. 2- Your contention I goes against you second. You say really more that we should take over than submit. So why would we want to prosecute ourselves His case is poorly constructed and contradicts himself and goes against the resolution therefore is an automatic win-me/ loss-him Negated