September/October LD Resolution
September/October resolution for Lincoln Douglas Debate.
Resoloved: "The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens."
(1) Rounds structured in typical LD format.
a. First round is acceptance.
b. Second round is aff constructive speech and neg constructive and rebuttal.
c. Subsequent rounds are rebuttals. No new arguments may be submitted in the final round.
(2) Forfeit counts as an automatic loss, as does trolling.
Gratia adversario meo!
I will accept the challenge.
May both of us enjoy this intriguing debate.
Please go ahead.
Thanks to TheElderScroll for accepting this debate.
I affirm the resolution, “Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens.”
A few important terms and definitions include the following:
The value for this debate is justice. Justice is commonly defined as what is fair. It implies equal and impartial treatment for all. “In any situation, be it in a courtroom, at the workplace or in line at the grocery store, we want to be treated fairly. We shouldn’t be judged more harshly because of our skin colour, we shouldn’t be paid any less because of our gender, and we shouldn’t have to wait longer for a drink because of our political ideology.”
Furthermore, Justice is universal and objective, not subjective. While it is considered just in many Middle-Eastern countries to abuse women and children, I think we can agree that it is in fact wrong and unjust to do so. Nothing is right just because one person or country says it is. We would never abuse a woman from the Middle East simply because she is not subject to the “idea” of justice that theUnited States grants to its citizens. We reject such abusive treatment of women wherever it is practiced precisely because it is unjust. In theUnited States, we institute certain laws because we believe those laws to be just.
Consider: the right to freedom of speech and of the press, the right to due process. These rights are legally protected by theUnited States. How we believe someone should be treated is not limited to citizens of our country, but is extended universally because every human being deserves justice. That is why theUnited States, throughout the course of its history has condemned injustices committed elsewhere in the world. Sometimes, however, we do not have the legal ability to extend these rights. However, when these people do come into the jurisdiction of theUnited States, we ought to, in order to uphold justice, grant them these rights that we have been given because these rights are essential to justice.
Consequently, the value criterion for this debate is universality. Universality is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy as the quality being in existence everywhere or having applicability to all. Universality is directly linked to this debate because justice is blind, meaning that regardless of citizenship, a crime is treated in the same just manner, and the concept of universality, wherein justice is distributed without bias or predisposition, supports this idea. Universality is an important concept to understand in this debate because it describes justice. Justice is universal.
Contention 1: Reacting to injustices justly.
We treat a child who steals a candy bar differently than we treat an adult who steals a car; the two do not share the same culpability or importance of crime. Each is given justice as is proportionate to his crime. To preserve the integrity of our justice system, all people must be recognized as having been created equal, and therefore deserving of justice. To preserve rights for our citizens alone and not all human beings questions the integrity of our justice system because we’re denying that the rights we have given our citizens we have given them because those laws are just. We want justice for everyone. Justice is a universal concept, not one to be given to only some and not others. While my opponent might argue that the way we treat terrorists is just, the point is this:U.S.citizens accused of terrorism are given due process protections, an example being Faisal Shahzad who attempted to execute theTimes Squarecar bombing. So why do we treat accused non-citizens who commit the same types of crimes differently. Culpability is based upon the crime and the intent, not where you live.
Contention 2: Due process protections uphold natural rights and are therefore just.
While it is true that those who commit crimes forfeit certain rights by doing so, there are some rights that a legal system cannot take away without “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that the accused is guilty. These are called natural rights. Natural rights are the rights that all people enter society with, because those rights existed before the concept of government or the legal system was ever instated. Even the Constitution of theUnited Statesacknowledges a person’s natural rights. An excerpt from the fourteenth amendment of constitution reads, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In saying this, due process of law is shown to uphold natural rights of life, liberty, and property only by means of a fair and definitive procedure. All persons, whether foreign or citizens, should be provided due process protections, as they uphold natural rights, which all people necessarily are bound to.
The law is meant to provide justice, but it can only do so if it is curbed by systems like that of checks and balances that keep absolute control from the government. We must subject people to the law, but we also must protect them from it. Any system that requires or takes complete control of any person or peoples cannot be just. In 2006, a federal law was passed taking away the right of habeas corpus from those from foreign countries accused of terrorism. Therefore those accused foreigners are allowed to be held indefinitely without having even been proven guilty. In the times of traditional warfare this might have been permissible, but in a time when war against terrorism can be war against an individual either from your country or a foreign one, and the battlefield is anywhere from our own cities and towns to distances across oceans, we must be deliberate and sure about how we deal with those we deem “accused.”
Boyden, Jonathan, Mr. "The Universality of Justice." Yahoo! Voices. N.p., 23 Dec. 2010. Web.
Shaffer, Butler, Mr. "What Is Justice?" Lewrockwell.com. N.p., 13 July 2009. Web
Edmonds, Molly, Ms. "What Is Justice?" How Stuff Works. N.p., n.d. Web.
I wish to express my gratitude and thanks for Carpediem initiating this debate.
The National Interests: No uniformed definition. In this argument, the phrase “The National Interests” is interchangeable with the phrase “The Purpose of the United States Constitution.”
Value: The Purpose of the United States Constitution
The preamble of the United States Constitution defines the purpose of the United State Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Value Criterion: No Actions or procedures shall be taken if the purpose of the United States Constitution is deemed to be harmed.
Contention 1. Granting the accused terrorists the Constitutional due process protections would inevitably damage government’s Interest in preserving scarce government resources
In this fiscal year, Federal Government plans to provide $27.1 billion in discretionary funding to the department of Justice, whereas United States Attorneys Office would get approximately $1.96 billion in funding. It is clear that these lawsuits do impose a significant amount of fiscal obligations on the federal government. If the accused aliens were allowed to be tried in accordance with the due process of the law, it would be the United States Attorneys Office, on behalf of the Federal Government, responsible for arguing the case. Moreover, given the gravity the situation, it is not impossible for the accused terrorists to appeal the ruling. Presumably, the case similar to this would end up in the Supreme Court of the United States, and It usually takes at least a year or two to get to there. In some extreme cases, if the case is remanded and sent back to the lower court, it could take even longer to have the final ruling. The prolonged legal fights would impose an unnecessary burden on the Federal Government and its people. Thus, to deny the grant of the Constitution due process protections to the alleged terrorists will therefore preserve scarce government resources, a legitimate government purpose. Hence the United States ought not to extend the Constitutional due process protections to the accused aliens.
Contention 2. Allowing accused terrorists to enjoy the Constitution rights may damage national security.
Federal Government has a unique interest in intelligence gathering, particularly in the case where any enemy is charged of terrorism. By granting the terrorists the right to enjoy the constitutional due process protections, the suspects may not be willing to talk, thereby impeding there intelligence gathering process where, in extreme cases, would cost many innocent lives. Moreover, the American law system is constructed to deter unlawful activities by punishing criminals. Aliens who are accused of terrorism, upon release, may rejoin the enemy and continuing to fight against America and its allies. Therefore, by protecting national interests, the accessed aliens should not be granted the Constitutional due process protections.
Contention 3: Moral and Justice should not be unduly encouraged at the expense of national interests (The underlying principles of my argument)
I believe that being the world only super sower, the United States do have the rights and the obligations to advocate Democracy, administrate Justice, and fight for the Human Rights whenever and wherever it is possible as long as the manner of conducts is compatible with national interests. It is not unreasonable to assume that by granting the accused aliens the constitutional rights is a step to encourage the Democracy and Human Rights. The procedure, if enforced, however, would present formidable practical difficulties. As mentioned in my proceeding contentions, by granting the accused aliens the constitutional due process protections, the government may be deprived of the resources granted to its citizens. As articulated by the framers, the very purpose of the United States Constitution is to promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourself and Prosperity. Allowing the accused aliens to enjoy the Constitutional due process protections would unquestionably violate the very spirit of the Constitution, i.e., “promote the general Welfare.” Moreover, allowing the accused aliens to access the Constitutional rights would interfere with the intelligence gathering process thereby putting our nation and allies in jeopardy. Besides, there is no provisions whatsoever, either implied or specially articulated in the U.S. Constitution, suggests that the United States should protect the right of aliens at the expense of her own people. Therefore, it is unwarranted to assume that the United States should grant the constitutional due process protections to the accused aliens.
Rebuttal 1: Questionable assumptions with respect to the statement: “Justice is universal and objective,...,I think that we can agree that it is in fact wrong and unjust to do so.”
I accept the fact that “Justice” is universal and objective, but how can we be know that the the concept of “Justice” articulated by the United States is the concept of “Justice” defined objectively? I would like to have some clarifications on it if possible.
Rebuttal 2: Reacting to injustices justly (Contention 1) - General Principles
In general, I do believe that U.S government should react to injustices justly. But like I have mentioned in my third contention, the United States have the rights and the obligations to advocate Democracy, administrate Justice, and fight for the Human Rights whenever and wherever it is possible as long as the objective of pursuance is compatible with national interests. If, however, the national interests are compromised, it would be improper for the United States to continue doing so.
Rebuttal 3: Reacting to injustice justly (Contention 1) - Possible Circular Reasoning.
I sense a circular reasoning in pro’s argument. Please correct me If I am wrong.
To my understanding, Pro believes that since “we want justice for everyone”, then we “should not deny the rights we have given our citizens.” Compared with the resolution “The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism...”, I think we have to assume the conclusion in order to justify the contentions. The essence of the resolution is to prove that “we want justice for everyone.” Merely because the Justice is the a universal right, it does not imply that the United States ought to make sure that everyone enjoy this right. Shouldn’t we have to assume that the United States want to have everyone enjoyed the universal right? And that is why we are trying to prove. Therefore, it occurs to me that we might have a circular reasoning here.
Rebuttal 4: Due process protections uphold natural rights and are therefore just (Contention 2)
I believe that Pro invoked Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to justify her cause. Neither the Fifth nor Fourteenth Amendment, however, suggests that the due process protections, enjoyed by the citizens, should be extended to aliens, let alone the accused aliens. Fourteenth Amendment states, and I quote “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United State.” Therefore, I do not believe that either Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments can be applied to advance pro’s argument.
For signposting purposes, I will begin by deconstructing my opponent’s case and then move on to uphold my own.
My opponent begins with a value of “the purpose of the United States Constitution.” He defines this by reciting the preamble, thus I assume that the actual value(s) my opponent claims in this debate is/are the following:
The problem with my opponent’s values is simply that they conflict because neg picks one above the others. Because they are all his value, and he fails to achieve all (according to my opponent, if he provides for the common defense he cannot establish objective justice) his values contradict each other, causing the whole to fall. Therefore, in the course of the debate, if I am able to prove that, as pertains to this resolution, if one value is upheld only at the expense of another, my opponent’s case necessarily falls.
My opponent’s value criterion is “no actions or procedures shall be taken if the purpose of the United States Constitution is deemed to be harmed. You may cross-apply is with my rebuttal and observation to his value, but there is another problem with this view. My opponent seems to enter the debate with assumption that the statutes upon which a country was built (namely the Constitution) do not have the ability to be wrong, unjust, and not what should or ought to be done. It is wrong, however, to assume that government cannot act outside of these boundaries, for if such a boundary exists that is unjust, it would indeed be wrong not to break it. In certain scenarios that were not foreseen by the founders of our country, the purpose of the United States Constitution may not be fulfilled by the enumerations of the preamble.
Essentially, my opponent’s point here is that denying due process protections to non-citizens of the United States accused of terrorism will be an economic good; he calls this economic good a “legitimate government purpose.” However, while this purpose may be a good in and of itself, it is not a legitimate end; it does not achieve justice. My opponent may achieve economic benefits by obscuring the universality of justice, but this is not just, and furthermore it defeats his first listed value of establishing justice by only giving justice to some and not others.
This contention is flawed because it contains the second assumption of the debate, and no justification for it. My opponent’s contention is supported by these phrases: “By granting terrorists the right to enjoy;” deter unlawful activities by punishing criminals;” and “may rejoin the enemy and continuing to fight.” Examine these phrases. They all assume the guilt of the persons accused of terrorism. I must stress the word accused mentioned within the resolution. It implies the ability of false accusation. As I mentioned in my constructive case, the natural rights of any being, be they foreign to the U.S. or otherwise, are too intrinsic to be taken away without the “proof beyond reasonable doubt” granted through due process protections.
“Moral[ity] and justice should not be unduly encouraged at the expense of national interests.”
I would like to point out that here my opponent directly contradicts his value (please refer to the value clash).
Simply, this contention can be cross-applied with my response to his contentions one and two. Safety and economics are not legitimate ends in themselves. I have already taken the time to explain why this is so. You must flow my value of justice through the round.
I will now move on to uphold my own case, countering my opponent’s rebuttals.
My opponent’s “rebuttal 1” is a question that I would be happy to answer. I am a bit confused, however, that my opponent asks this question, because he seems to regard the United States’ method of “establishing justice” very highly as he has included it in is enumerated values and supported the idea that it can never be transgressed, with his value criterion.
Regardless, to quote from my constructive case, where the answer to this question is found,
“We would never abuse a woman from the Middle East simply because she is not subject to the ‘idea’ of justice that the United States grants to its citizens. We reject such abusive treatment of women wherever it is practiced precisely because it is unjust. In the United States, we institute certain laws because we believe those laws to be just.”
Essentially, it is irrelevant whether or not anyone can prove whether the United States’ concept of justice is defined objectively, but because we believe our laws to be just, and what is objectively just, we are obligated to fulfill justice’s requirement of universality and extend those justices to all people.
In his “rebuttal two,” my opponent is only reaffirming his inability to uphold his value he states that “in general, I do believe that U.S. government should react to injustices justly…when is it compatible with national interests.” My opponent lists five values, yet he obviously favors some above others. While his purpose in this debate should be try to achieve his value, he only tries to convince us that some (primarily the establishment of justice) are unnecessary, but should be put behind others. He even concedes that justice is not being achieved with the negation of this resolution.
Neg “senses circular reasoning.” This only requires clarification. Neg’s misunderstanding stems from his belief that I am arguing that the United States has the responsibility to ensure that every accused person in the world is given due process protections. “Merely because the justice is the universal right, it does not imply that the United States ought to make sure that everyone enjoy this right.” No, of course this is not the responsibility of the United States. It is, however, the United States’ responsibility to extend to all within its jurisdiction the due process protections of U.S. citizens.
My opponent, in his “rebuttal four,” only quotes a small part of the fourteenth amendment and then proceeds to state the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the affirmative case. The section of that which does apply to my case I will reiterate: “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The point is that when addressing natural rights, the constitution does not limit due process protections to non-citizens, but extends it to “any person.” The natural rights of life, liberty, and property are simply too fundamental to be revoked without this section of the constitution.
I would like to thank my opponent for her insightful rebuttals, and my responses are as follows
Re-Value & Value Criterion:
Given the fact that the Constitution titled: “The Constitution of the United States of America”, and by assuming that the framers did take every single word inscribed on the Constitution solemnly, it is unreasonable to assume that the Constitution is not primarily intended for the United States citizens. Subsequently, it is reasonably to believe that the Federal government should always put national interests as their top priority and should be advised to actively pursue it. Therefore, I am not obligated to assume the truth of the universality in my argument on the ground that the Constitution neither explicitly stated nor implied that the justice is severed only if it possesses the universal property. My central assumption, besides my principles, is that if a particular action or a set of actions are considered to be at odd with the spirits of the constitutions, this particular action or the actions should not, therefore, be either encouraged. I did not discuss the justifiability of the Constitution and I was not required to do it either. Therefore, my opponents may misunderstand how I reach my conclusions and unfairly accuses me of assuming something that I am not obligated to assume.
The rights granted by the Constitution are reserved to her people, and not the alleged suspects. In order to rebuttal my contention, my opponent has to assume the universality of the justices., the very thing I display neither approval or inapproval. As mentioned above, I will be assuming that the U.S Constitution was drafted to promote the national interest by realizing each point enumerated in the preamble it. By granting the rights enjoyed by the United States citizens to the accused aliens, the Federal government will have to spend the money that originally reserved to its people on trying the accused aliens, and such an activity may potentially harm the general welfare of its citizens. Given the seriousness of national debt, it is not unwarranted to assume that the citizens would be worse off if the money originally reserved to benefit their lives is instead utilized to grant accused aliens the due process protections. Moreover, the approval of the due process protections would undermine the justice enjoyed by the citizens. Simply put, why should the United States citizens sacrifice themselves in order to benefit the accused aliens who intend to do their harms? Would such an activity considered just?
My opponent believes that the argument presuppose the guilt of the accused terrorists. The word “may” in my sentence, however, suggests otherwise. The completed sentence in support my argument is: “By granting the terrorists the right to enjoy the constitutional due process protections, the suspects may not be willing to talk...” The word “may” emphatically shows that there could be some falsely accused cases. Taken an analogy case, my contention can be compared to “preventative cares” or “immunizations.” Instead of waiting until the diseases infect people, medical cares are conjured to prevent it from happening. Federal Government should grant these accused terrorists the right of due process protections because some of them, if not all, would possess valuable intelligence information, and the intelligence gatherings are the keys to fight against the terrorism. The nation will face two choices: either granting the suspects the due process protections thereby potentially putting lives of her citizens at risk or deny the protections therefore prevent accused terrorists from continuing murdering the innocent citizens. Furthermore, to ease the worry of my opponent with respect to the false accusation, it should be noted that the accused aliens do enjoy some basic rights. The Detainee Treatment Act, signed by President George W. Bush on December 30, 2005, requires that “No person in the custody or effective control of the Department of Defense, or in a Department of Defense facility, be subjected to any treatment or interrogation technique not authorized by and listed in the United State army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.” DOD Directive 2310.01E is another one that address the right of accused alines.
Please see my response to Contention 1 & 2
The last two sentences give me an impression that since “we believe our laws to be just”, then it is “just”. So according to my opponent, as long as we believe something is the case, then it is the case. And we should always fulfill what we believe, regardless whether it is right or wrong. By the same token, I can also say that any war is good because each nation is trying to do what they believe to be right. But should such a idea of “justice” be considered “objective?”
I do not take the phrase “in general” lightly. I purposely placed the phrase “in general” at the head of my sentences to show that there are many instances that my opponent proposal may work (not the resolution, but her reasoning instead). I highlight the word “as long as” to show that there is a boundary, however, for the application of her arguments. As I have repeatedly demonstrated throughout my argument, no one should transgress the rights of U.S. citizens granted by the U.S. Constitutions. When the inevitable collision between the national interests and the pursuant of the Justices happens, the U.S. Constitution should trump.
My opponent's statement “It is, however, the Untied States’...of U.S. citizens” is the underlying principle, and the “accused terrorists” is a realization of the principle above. Without assuming the principle, which is identical to the conclusion, my opponent may not be able to justify her conclusion properly.
Rebuttal 4 works in tandem with my contention 1 & 2. It is used to demonstrate that the United States Constitution does not presuppose any universality or natural rights. Given the fact that the Constitution is reserved to her people, it is hard to fathom how my opponent can extrapolate the spirits to other non-citizens.
There are few relevant points in my opponent’s rebuttal, very much because he has not addressed nor upheld the most important aspect of the debate and my rebuttal, his value; therefore my final rebuttal will be brief.
Value and Value Criterion
I have three points to make in contention with my opponent’s rebuttal to my rebuttal of case. But before I do this, I would like to make the point that my opponent does not clash with my value clash. We must assume, therefore, that he concedes to my analysis of his value; namely, that he has five, and in having these five, also concedes to my observation. That,
“Because they are all his value, and he fails to achieve all (according to my opponent, if he provides for the common defense he cannot establish objective justice) his values contradict each other, causing the whole to fall. Therefore, in the course of the debate, if I am able to prove that, as pertains to this resolution, if one value is upheld only at the expense of another, my opponent’s case necessarily falls.”
My opponent chooses to make this statement without any justification for its validity. As I stated in my constructive case, the fourteenth amendment of constitution reads, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Any person clearly indicates non-citizens as well as citizens, and as my opponent has not provided proof of the arbitrary claims he makes, you may not accept this statement.
A government’s national interest is justice. A country devoid of justice is not a legitimate government, for justice, giving each his or her due, is the fundamental and intrinsic right of every human. And it is people who make up the government.
I would also like to address that I am not assuming the universality of justice. For an explanation, please refer to my constructive case. I will not address this again. The main point of my opponent's contention one is that “By granting the rights enjoyed by the United States citizens to the accused aliens, the Federal government will have to spend the money that originally reserved to its people on trying the accused aliens, and such an activity may potentially harm the general welfare of its citizens.”
What my opponent does not understand is that justice is the highest value of any society, and trumps economic national interest. This is so because if justice is not upheld within a society, and I have already proven why it would be just to give terrorists due process protections, and my opponent agreed with this in his first rebuttal, then the citizens of that country are worse off. Citizens within a country must have justice in order to fulfill their natural function. Fairness is a prerequisite, and if a government does not provide it universally to those who come into its jurisdiction, there is no reason to suppose that the government will provide it to its citizens. Furthermore, national security is not threatened. Justice in providing for a fair trial actually ensures national security. Again, my opponent agrees that it would be just to offer these accused terrorists due process protections. He states,
“I believe that being the world only super sower [power], the United States do have the rights and the obligations to advocate Democracy, administrate Justice, and fight for the Human Rights whenever and wherever it is possible as long as the manner of conducts is compatible with national interests. It is not unreasonable to assume that by granting the accused aliens the constitutional rights is a step to encourage the Democracy and Human Rights. The procedure, if enforced, however, would present formidable practical difficulties.”
My opponent’s entire case revolves around this idea that while it may be just to give terrorists due process protections it denies citizens economical and national security benefits. In his rebuttal he has not upheld his case in any way. The concept of economic benefits and national security are not legitimate ends in themselves. A value must be a legitimate end in and of itself; justice, for example is something that should be achieved for its own sake. Furthermore, please refer to my former rebuttal as I explain why his value is contradictory. This point, having not been addressed stands.
First, let me answer the question about the value clash. There are five competing national interests (they are not mutually exclusive however), and to maintain a perfect balance among all competing interests, no interest should be advanced at the expense of others. Extreme cases are strictly forbidden in order to persevere the status quo. Therefore, unlike what my opponent suggested in her rebuttals, I did not assume that one value has to be held above others.
My contentions were built around the United States Constitution and I proposed that by granting the due process protections to the accused aliens, the national interests i.e., the sprits of the Constitution would not be served. There are five competing yet complementary national interests and they are
1. To establish justice;
2. To insure domestic tranquility;
3. To provide for the common defense;
4. To promote the general welfare;
5. To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;
I suggested that if the pursuance of one of the national interests undercuts other national interests, the pursuance should not be continued. The five national interests form a coherent unity and no national interest should be considered more important than others. Simply put, if we assume the importance by assigning each national interest a number, say 20, then the sum of them is 100. Now, the only time that the national interests are served is when the sum of the national interests is more than 100 and each national interest is no less than 20. For example, you cannot have justice with number 50 whereas the general welfare gets zero even if the total value, in this case, exceeds 100. By granting the accused aliens the due process protections, the promotions of the general welfare would be consequently undermined, and the purpose of the common defense would be defeated. In order to maintain the status quo (simply not make things worse), I concluded that the United States ought not to purse such an agenda.
In response to my opponent"s deconstruction
"it is unreasonable to assume that the Constitution is not primarily intended for the United States."
This is a statement I derived from the fourteenth amendment.
The full text of the 14th amendment read as
"All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subjected to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
If the framers intended the fourteenth amendment to be a "universal" statement, they would specifically state in the amendment by excluding the sentence "All person born or...wherein they reside." But the very fact they didn"t exclude the sentence in the original document emphatically suggests that the framers intended the fourteen amendment to be for the United States citizens. My opponent erred by taking an excerpt from the text and then tried to interpret it without referring to other components of the statements. In summary, my statement was not conjured up out of thin air.
"Subsequently, ...pursue it"
I suggested that justice should be given a high regard, but certainly not at the expense of other national interests. My opponent suggested that "justice is the highest value of any society." ("What my opponent does not understand is that justice is the highest value of any society,...") But, none of her contentions explicitly stated it. What my opponent does suggest is that justice is an indispensable component of a properly functioned society. According to her statement, "This is so because if justice is not upheld within a society,...,then the citizens of that country are worse off." Something that is considered necessary is not the same as stating that the same thing is the most important.
Moreover, I never even remotely suggested that justice is not important. What I did say was that a balanced approach should be employed in dealing with the competing yet complementary national interests. It does seem that my opponent determined to take the case to an extreme point by suggesting that anything that may potentially impede the advancement of justice should hold no values. Her arguments could hardly justify such an extreme statement.
In terms of the national security, as I have suggested, it would be compromised if these accused aliens gain access to the due process protections. FBI and/or CIA agents may be prevent from questioning the suspects for the purpose of intelligence gatherings on the ground that some interrogation techniques are not permitted if these accused terrorists are protected by the due process protection. Therefore, unlike what my opponent believed, national security would be threatened if these accused aliens can enjoy the due process protections.
Furthermore, I did admitted that it would be just to offer these accused terrorists due process protections. What I did not concede, however, is that the United States ought to offer these accused aliens the due process protections. There is a difference between something that "would" be the case and something that is "ought" to be the case. I never suggest that United States ought to pursue a particular path merely due to the fact that path would justify some beliefs. Rather, I urged people to consider the matter in the context of the national interests. An equilibrium status among all five national interests is required to advance national interests as a whole. No one should try to damage national interests in the name of pursuant of justice, and granting the accused aliens the due process protections vitiated the very idea that I strived to establish.
Last but not least, let me address the legitimate issue raised by my opponent. The concepts of economic benefits and national interests are embodied within the national interests, and they are derived from "To promote the general welfare" and "To provide for the common defense" respectively." I failed to see how these two values cannot serve the legitimate ends. They are both contained in the preamble of the Constitution; they both exist in our daily lives; and they are the two main issues in the Presidential debates. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that they are used to fulfill the legitimate purpose and they are legitimate ends in themselves.
In conclusion, there is no rational basis to extend the U.S. Constitutional due process protections to the accused aliens. My opponent made some great points by stressing that justice would be served if we granted these aliens the constitution due process protections. I did not protest her contentions on the basis that I believe the same thing. But her contentions cannot lead to the conclusion. My opponent believed that the justice is the highest value of any society whereas I considered that there are other competing values that are equally important.