TheU.S.oughttosubmittothejurisdictionofaninternationalcourtdesignedtoprosecutecrimesagainsthumanity.

Value Premise: National Security through the prism of Realism Realism is the belie f that all countries always act in their own interests due to the lack of true authority in the international system. Individual states never behave on moral principles and mirror the fallen condition of human nature stated Hans Morgenthau. Machiavelli wrote that all people are, "Insatiable, arrogant, crafty, and shifting, and above all else malignant, iniquitous, violent, and savage." According to realism, a nation would never give up an opportunity to become a hegemon or gain power in the international system due to their insatiable fear of being conquered or killed by a potential rival. Thomas Hobbes explains that all people are born equally and expect equal privileges. As a result of the inequality of power in life, people and states will inevitably clash to gain those rights due to competition and quest for glory. Even though it may seem impossible to get along, Hobbes acknowledges the fact that states are rational actors which will find ways to peacefully cohabitate. If they did not, "The life of man would become solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." In order to protect oneself from the violence of world affairs, the government is in a constant quest for power in order to guarantee safety. Machiavelli wrote, "Men never do good unless necessity drives them to it." Thucydides, the Greek philosopher, sums up the realist perspective perfectly as he wrote, The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." For this reason, national sec urity is the prime value under the realist world view, which has been substantiated for thousands of years from great thinkers around the world. Value Criterion: Preservation of National Sovereignty Understanding the key concepts of realism will directly force one to acknowledge the national security threat this country faces by allowing other countries or international courts to dictate the policy of the United States. If the United States were to allow an international court to have jurisdiction over United States' leaders, the United States, a government ruled by and for the citizens of the US, would cease to exist. Furthermore, those that took advantage of the system and situation would prosper not moralists. It is a naive position at best to think that an international court can solve the United States' human rights problems. Contention 1: Failure of international organizations and institutions League of Nations - an utter failure orchestrated by the European powers and Woodrow Wilson United Nations Human Rights Council - They have not truly led the world to a safer and more democratic place. (Wiki) On 29 November 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticized the Human Rights Council for disproportionate focus on violations by Israel while neglecting other parts of the world such as Darfur, which had what he termed graver crises. Kofi Annan said, "the selectivity and politicizing of its activities [were] in danger of20bringing the entire U.N. system into disrepute. (Wiki) On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon joined Western nations in criticizing the world body's own Human Rights Council for picking on Israel as part of an agreement on its working rules. A UN statement said, The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world. http://online.wsj.com... January 29, 2008 written by RONAN FARROW, Yale Law School Only 25 of its 47 members are classified as free democracies, according to Freedom House's ranking of civil liberties. Nine are classified as not free. Four -- China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia -- are ranked as the worst of the worst. These nations are responsible for repeated violations of the U.N.'s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet it is they who dominate the council, leading a powerful bloc of predominantly Arab and African nations that consistently vote as a unit. Contention 2: The IC has potential harm for own citizens according to realism. The United States will no longer have the ability to fight the war on terrorism in the same manner due to the fact there will be a international court who has jurisdiction over our own law and leaders. The fact of the matter is George W. Bush has effectively fought the war on terrorism. There=2 0has never been an attack on this country, since 9-11. Sub-Point A: Purpose of US government is to protect their own citizens -The United States was formed on the principles of staying out of entangling alliances. This is seen through the founding fathers. The US Consitutiton makes no provision for the welfare of people outside of the United States. To further prove this point, state constitutions in the United States also dictate this point of view. When the government decided to become involved in wars that had absolutely nothing to do with their own well-being, the United States has suffered (i.e. Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq II). The wisdom of the founding fathers could have saved hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of lives. - George Washington - It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. Thomas Jefferson, Inaugural Address, 1801 Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none. Alexander Hamilton - Federalist #78 No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representative of the people is superior to the people. Now to my opponents case My opponent states that we must benefit the US, but by joining the ICC we threaten National Sovereignty, and national security through the realism belief, so it is not in the best interest of the US to join the ICC. VP: Physiological needs. Now my opponent states that this must benefit US, how is making sure the kids in Africa have there needs fufiled before our own citizens, when we join ICC we must use our power to help other countries, therfore we are not fully protecting our citizens. VC: Limiting Biopower: My opponent gives a false alternative by saying the only way to stop bio power is to joing ICC, that is completely false, we can do it Unilaterly Since US is so strong. And my opponent proves my point of Realism how countries act in their own interest. Even if countries have bio power the ICC will tell US to use their military threatining their national soverginity and national security. C1: My oponent is saying if the US does not join ICC they can do nothing that is false. We can do it Unilaterly, or join allies. I can use allies just not IC. C2: Turn. My opponent says that the IC is effective, and he says it raises the bar of accountability, this is false, it creates an illusion of Accountability. Since there are many countries is creates the Bystander Effect. Since there are a lot of countries the country will say, I dont have to do it, the other country will. And the Uganda example the ICC actually went in there trying to stop CAH and they created more crimes because they got the warlords angry so ICC creates more crimes C3: Turn: Again look to my Uganda Example, it creates more crimes and a culture of violence. C4: He says they will be protected, the US is already under the jursdiction of the IC so we should not join. Secondly, Turn: this is my point, if there is CAH going on in our country, we cant prosecute it, the ICC will do it and that is against the Constitution.