BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
On preventing terrorism

One could claim that the so called War on Terror, instead of decreasing the terrorist activities has in fact been counterproductive and lead to persecution of more innocent people than guilty ones. Extra-territorial rendition has time and again been used in this war, and we all know that this war has infact caused feelings of injustice and disillusionment against America.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terrorism#The_War_on_Terrorism_as_counterproductive]] It has also not been able to curb any of the terrorist groups, such as Al-Qaeda, which are still operating freely and as they wish. And are probably recruiting more people as a result of this. Therefore the proposition cannot see how this tends to be a victory for "us".
Harvard Law's eight yes-arguments

[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml]] 1.'Violation of Human rights', check [[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading96]] 2.'Extraordinary Rendition Violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights'[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading130]] 3.' Extraordinary Rendition Violates the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights'[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading199]] 4.Extraordinary Rendition Violates the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading209]] 5.Extraordinary Rendition Violates the Convention Against Torture[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading236]] 6.Vienna Convention (penultimately dealt with) 7.Extraordinary Rendition Violates the Geneva Conventions.[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading302]] The first affirmative point of this debate:[[http://www.debatewise.com/debates/317-america-is-the-world-s-biggest-human-rights-abuser#point_1317_headline]] is relevant here. 8.Concluding Observations Regarding Implementation of International Human Rights Protections. 'foreign policy in focus'-organization's critique[[http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5502]] Developing and simplifying points 2,3,4 and 5 in the 4 successive yes points(to follow):
The rise of non-state actors and the responsibility of sovereignty of other states.

While the affirmative stress the wealth of international law relevant to this debate, it must be noted that this law arose in a time in which nations existed as the only combatants on the battlefield. While we should not reject its moral underpinnings, the precise letter does need to be reconsidered for a time in which most enemy combatants do not don military uniform. Indeed, if a country had evidence that one of its leaders in government was plotting a large scale attack on its citizens, a pre-emptive strike would almost certainly be justified. And yet the affirmative would have us believe that countries should be made impotent when this plotter removes their military uniform and carries out their plots with non-State associates. Certainly there are questions of sovereignty involved. Nations have a right to rule and administer justice over their citizens as they see fit (to some extent). But that sovereignty only exists internally. Other nations do not have sovereignty over us. And yet when a nation is unable, or occasionally unwilling, to administer certain forms of justice to its people, namely that which prevents them from plotting or engaging in acts which take place beyond its borders, the effect is very much the same as a willful violation of our sovereignty, and should be responded to as such, by targetting those people directly whom the negligent state has failed to target. There is no moral justification for suggesting that the failure of a State to control its people should be paid for with the lives of our citizens, and we have every right to prevent that criminal transaction within the bounds of proportionality, even where this requires disregarding the sovereignty that the other state has cast aside through negligence.
For the same reason that Hitler is blamed for the acts of Nazis under him.

Even if we were to ignore the weight of argument justifying the morality of this act as we supply in our constructive arguments, there is still no intuitive justification for why it is the country's leader alone that should be held to account. The operations under discussion are conducted on an incredibly small scale. It is unlikely that they are all carried out with explicit authorisation. Even if a regime were to actively oppose their application, it would be logistically impossible to stop them being carried out by rogue actors within the military or other security agencies. Furthermore, even in circumstances under which a leader did authorise a rendition, it is entirely possible that the act is performed under duress. Because of the fine detail required in any such case, it would be relatively straightforward for an advisor to paint a picture wherein the act of rendition was necessary to prevent an existential threat to the state. Under these circumstances, surely it would be more reasonable to target those who actually organise and carry out the acts of rendition.
On preventing terrorism

To say that there is no recorded evidence of extraterritorial rendition preventing terror is unfounded. The fact that we can deprive an organization of the leadership and experience of the likes of Mohammed Haydar Zammar who was "believed to be al-Qaeda's top recruiter in Hamburg and to have helped form the Hamburg cell at the center of the September 11 attacks" (page 35) [[http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/rendition2.pdf]]. Of course the fact that a terrorist act never happened means there cannot be evidence of it. We make the claim that capturing leaders of terrorist organizations deprives the organization of their experience and unique abilities. That is a loss for the terrorists and a victory for us.
Extra-territorial rendition is a legitimate tool in the war against terrorist organizations.

The opposition's argument:'This point is irrelevant. The souring of political relations is a reason for a country not to perform a rendition on political grounds, not for it to be outlawed' Our appeal to sense: We think the opposition need to be educated on legislation. For they fail to comprehend the simple fact that 'something should not be performed on specific grounds' IS grounds for that something to be outlawed. "The article concludes that it will benefit the international community to codify exactly what will warrant extraterritorial abductions and specifically how such actions may be used. Given the likelihood that the United States and other countries will increase their use of extraterritorial kidnapping, the international community should act proactively to address the issue. Until the international community does codify the specific circumstances under which extraterritorial kidnapping is permissible, the United States is justified in exercising extraterritorial abductions under universal jurisdiction, passive personality, and finally, efficient breach."- [[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=961048 the opposition's source article]] The reason the author is appealing to the international community to create exceptions where Extra-Territorial/ordinary rendition can/may be permissible/legal in the future, is because PRESENTLY THERE ARE NO exceptions and it IS illegal. Perhaps the opposition should try and cite a source that actually agrees with their claims.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights violated

[[http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm]] Article 9 of the I.C.C.P.R states that: 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. point 2.Article9 states that: 'Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.' point 3.Article9 says: Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment. - both 2 and 3 are violated as prisoners are sold by governments for cash from 1000 dollars to 10 million dollars(In Egypt's case [[http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5502]], they are NEVER brought promptly before a judge even if they are 'informed' of the charges against them. point 5.Article 9: Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation. - Is freedom , compensation enough? Point4,Article12 "4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country", extra-territorial prisoners are not permitted to transfer to a local jail. There's nothing in Article 14 that isn't violated [[http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#art14]] Even though most of the Countries that practice extraordinary rendition, have signed the convention, they argue that since they detain prisoners in Countres other than their own , they are not technically violating it. However, the convention itself does not permit or make any such EXCEPTION.
For the same reason that Hitler is blamed for the acts of Nazis under him.

On page 4 (there are 30 pages in total) of this document[[http://www.caei.com.ar/es/programas/teoria/27.pdf]] the author reflects on the institutionalization of individual accountability and superior liability(the Nuremberg Charter), put in practice since WORLD WAR -II. This means that not just torturers from an important institution representing a Country and its interests but Leaders of the same country , who permit,allow and order the execution of these acts should face retribution. "The notion that individuals are criminally liable and can be prosecuted for the most severe violations of human rights was institutionalized with the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials following World War II. The principles of the Nuremberg Charter, which in turn were adopted by the UN International Law Commission in 1950, established that war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity were punishable under international law. In the last two decades, the model set by the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals has been used to create International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia. In 1998 the idea of a “permanent Nuremberg,” an independent tribunal for addressing gross violations of human rights committed by states, was finally realized with the passage of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."-excerpt from page4[[http://www.caei.com.ar/es/programas/teoria/27.pdf]]
Prisons harm offenders: all the available studies suggest that those who are given a custodial sente...

Prisons harm offenders: all the available studies suggest that those who are given a custodial sentence are more likely to reoffend than those given a fine or a community sentence, all other things being equal. There are good reasons to support this. Prisons isolate offenders from their families and friends so that when they are released their social networks tend to be made up largely of those whom they met in prison. As well as sharing ideas, prisoners may validate each others’ criminal activity. Employers are less willing to employ those who have been to prison. Such circumstances may reduce the options available to past offenders and make future criminal behaviour more likely. Rehabilitation becomes more difficult. In addition, rates of self-harm and abuse are alarmingly high within both men’s and women’s prisons. This suggests that imprisoning offenders unnecessarily is harmful both for the offenders themselves and for society as a whole.
Prisons should be reserved for those who are dangerous: in addition to the harms above, prisons are ...

Non-violent offenders can be a danger to society: those who commit property offences, particularly repeat offenders, cause considerable harm to society. A victim of burglary (where the offender breaks into a home to steal items) may be just as traumatised as the victim of an assault. Drug dealers may never use violence but they can ruin hundreds of lives. It is sometimes necessary to incapacitate non-violent offenders too to effectively prevent them from reoffending.
Prisons should be reserved for those who are dangerous: in addition to the harms above, prisons are ...

Prisons should be reserved for those who are dangerous: in addition to the harms above, prisons are much more expensive than other sentences. They should therefore be used simply to incapacitate those who commit violent offences as these individuals are a greater threat to society. Violent offences are more traumatic for the victim and are less likely to stem from unemployment, poverty or a perceived lack of opportunity than property offences such as theft.
Prison is not necessary as a deterrent: it is often argued that prison is a necessary deterrent for ...

Prison is a necessary deterrent: the possibility of being sent to prison does affect whether individuals commit crimes. Whilst violent crimes might be committed in the heat of the moment, property crimes are often committed by individuals who have weighed up the chance of being caught and possible sentence, and still think that they have more to gain by stealing. Such individuals are more likely to commit crimes if prison is not available as an option to the sentencers. Furthermore, there are a considerable number of non-violent offenders who commit further crimes after receiving a fine or community sentence. Where the alternatives were an insufficient deterrent, prison may be necessary for repeat offenders. Finally, some offenders may try to avoid paying fines or completing their community sentence; in such cases the threat of prison is a necessary sanction to ensure that lesser punishments are respected.
Prison is not necessary as a deterrent: it is often argued that prison is a necessary deterrent for ...

Prison is not necessary as a deterrent: it is often argued that prison is a necessary deterrent for both violent and non-violent offenders. There are two ideas here. Firstly, the possibility of being sent to prison is thought to make people less likely to commit crimes. Secondly, those who have been to prison are less likely to reoffend because they don’t want to go back. However, the empirical studies (such as the Cambridge Study on Deterrence) show that offenders are much more affected by the likelihood of being caught than by the sentence attached to a particular crime – so deterrence is a policing, not a sentencing issue. A criminal record and the consequent difficulties, for example in the employment market, are an enormous disincentive for most people. In addition, for a prison sentence to deter people, they have to be aware that prison is the likely sentence; most members of the public are unaware of the sort of sentences received for crimes such as theft or burglary. Finally, many crimes are committed impulsively and deterrence has little impact here.
Non-violent offenders can be adequately punished by other means: sentencers have a wide range of opt...

Prison is necessary to punish some non-violent offenders proportionately: for those who commit serious fraud involving large sums of money, or who steal property with a high value, a community sentence may not be a sufficient punishment. Property offences can often be more serious than minor violent offences and excluding the option of prison for the former undermines the idea of proportionality. This not only means that non-violent offenders are not sentenced adequately, but also that violent offenders may feel that the system is unfair to them. Furthermore, the public may not feel that non-violent offenders are being punished sufficiently, undermining trust in the justice system. There is an element of class here as well – many serious non-violent offenders are middle-class “white collar” criminals whose fraud has impoverished tens of thousands of savers or investors, while violent offenders are more likely to be working class.
Non-violent offenders can be adequately punished by other means: sentencers have a wide range of opt...

Non-violent offenders can be adequately punished by other means: sentencers have a wide range of options. It is often argued that sentences should be proportionate to the crime committed: more serious crimes should receive more serious sentences. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, sentences are intended to convey moral censure and assist offenders in considering the implications of their actions. Secondly, hard treatment is needed to give individuals a prudential reason not to offend. Offenders are less likely to respond to the moral message if they think that they have been treated unfairly or that others who commit more serious crimes get less severe sentences. However, this does not require the availability of prison. Heavier fines, longer community sentences or curfews can be given to those who commit more serious offences.
Prisons harm offenders: all the available studies suggest that those who are given a custodial sente...

Prisons can provide an opportunity to develop important skills: it is especially clear in the case of non-violent offenders that criminal behaviour often stems from a perceived lack of alternatives. Offenders often lack educational qualifications and skills. Prisons can provide an opportunity to develop necessary skills for future employment through the provision of courses and education. Not all prisons have great provision at the moment, especially with overcrowding in a number of countries, but the solution here is to ensure courses are available, rather than not sending people to prison.
War is always unjust

The formulation of the just war doctrine, a moral framework for the institution of war, inadvertently serves to legitimise its activities and inherent barbarity. It undermines the intuitive norm against warfare by emphasizing the ‘just’ and undercutting the ‘war’, leading to a framing of public discourse whereby anti-war campaigners can be presented and ostracized as traitors. Bhikku War happens. Buddhism does not deny such facts. It tries to understand how war happens. But Buddhism never accepts or legitimizes war as necessary or “just.” One naturally defends oneself when attacked. One may prevent someone from doing harm to others. Neither, however, justify harming the alleged or imagined perpetrator/aggressor.
Just war doctrine is an anachronism

The ‘Global War on Terror’, according to the Bush administration and its legal team, ushered in a new ‘paradigm’ of warfare (Lukach, 2005). Characterised by non-state actors, acting across international borders, often from failed states, just war theory is arguably out of its depth in dealing with it. The United States’ war in Afghanistan was not proportional, had little prospect of success in eradicating the ideology of Al-Qaeda itself and certainly was not a last resort, but nevertheless many felt it was ‘just’ in 2001.
Right Intention

Reality is a lot murkier than theory. How are we to determine a state’s intent? Sometimes good intentions are bound up with bad; public justifications for war may not always represent the real reasons. And who is determine if a peace is just or a wrong has been committed? The nation initiating the war will use its own values to justify its intentions, and these values may be at odds with those of the other party to the conflict. Furthermore, the best way to protect innocent lives is by peaceful means, not by endangering them through armed conflict.
Proportionality

We have seen that a proportional response frequently doesn’t work. Suicide bombers continue to blow up victims in the Middle East despite the response. Why should a nation tolerate continued aggression for the sake of proportionality? And if a nation knows it is likely to be attacked, why should it wait to disarm the aggressor? Is not pre-emptive action justified to prevent the loss of innocent life? Finally, what of deterrence: a vigorous response to an aggressive act may not be strictly proportionate, but by making all potential aggressors think twice about future actions, it can be justified as saving more suffering in the long run
War is always unjust

War, as an institution and a human activity, has existed for as long as there have been political communities. The resort to force is therefore not one made due merely to a belief in its legitimacy but a belief in its utility. Just war theory acts therefore as a series of moral criteria to regulate the resort to warfare in order to prevent, rather than exacerbate, war for war’s sake. It recognizes the ‘war is hell’ mentality and is, if anything, born from it, encouraging a resort to force only in cases where diplomacy is unable to function. Even then, jus in bello principles apply to regulate the conflict itself, ensuring that an illegitimate war does not, by association, descend into the use of illegitimate means and methods of warfare. It does not purport to comment on the matter of the existence of warfare, merely recognises its occurrence and seeks to regulate both its regularity and bloodshed.
Empire in 'a fit of absentmindedness'

None the less the difference in motivation matters. Atrocity through absentmindedness to our current mindset is horrible but it should be remembered that Britain was until the end of the Victorian period (19th century) doing very little to help its own urban poor. There was no ideal of intervening with aid when there was a crisis somewhere as there is now and this showed in the continuing famines in India. Judging the British empire based upon today's standards is wrong. The empire fell as those standards changed after the end of the second world war in part because of the way it was becoming obvious that empire could no longer be justified as 'civilising/civilizing'. "This was in part due to a combination of a philosophy where by everything was up to the individual rather than government (why should government hand out food if the people are suffering from a natural drought?)" - this philosophy is new, "And son my fellow Americans;ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country"-JFK. Governments gathered tax revenue from their people just as they do now. They were fully aware of their responsibility.
Empire in 'a fit of absentmindedness'

There is much that is true in the saying that Britain created its Empire absentmindedly. It is also unfortunately true that it ran its empire in much the same way leading to a lot of atrocities by neglect that could have been fixed had the government wished to do something about it. This is not to excuse all atrocities as being simply bad management rather than evil (some like concentration camps were pretty barbaric) however many were simply mistakes that the government had little interest in rectifying. This was in part due to a combination of a philosophy where by everything was up to the individual rather than government (why should government hand out food if the people are suffering from a natural drought?) and in some cases racism as was the case in all the European empires the natives mattered rather less than the colonists.