Terrorists should have due process protections
Debate Rounds (5)
round 1: acceptance
round 2:each side presents arguments
round 3:1st rebuttal/cross examination
I await my opponent and wish him/her good luck
scgates forfeited this round.
My opponent explicitly stated that this round was for posting cases while the next round is for rebuttals. He has not posted his case, so it is unfair to give him extra time to do so. Furthermore, as the affirmative, the burden of proof lies with him. He did not prove his side of the resolution true, so you default to the negative position and automatically vote con.
Supreme court justice Potter Stewart once said, "Fairness is what justice really is." It is because of this that I affirm the resolution stating Resolved: The US ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants it's citizens. Before going further, I would like to define the following terms:
Ought, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is used to express moral obligation.
Citizen, according to the Blacks' Law Dictionary, is defined as members of a political community who follow the rules of said community and in return receive privileges and rights.
Therefore, this resolution states that the US has a moral obligation to give the same due process protections that it gives it's citizens. For the purpose of this debate, I will be using the value of Justice, which can be defined by Lawguide Dictionary as the system that works to give each their due. I will be supporting this with a value criterion of Egalitarianism, which is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as the doctrine believing in the equal rights of humanity in political, social, and economic respects. My value criterion supports my value because the doctrine of egalitarianism gives fairness and equality to the meaning of Justice in it's principles and emphasis of equality under all considerations, including the law. I will be supporting this with two contentions.
Contention 1:The US Constitution supports this resolution completely. Constitutional due process is explained in the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. My opponent may observe how this document supports egalitarianism and does not have bias against those who aren't citizens in the following sub-points.
Sub-point A: The 5th amendment details the legal rights of the people. It states, " No person shall be held to answer for a capitol or otherwise infamous crime unless at the indictment of a Grand Jury." While it goes on to state the peoples rights to not be put in double jeopardy or be forced to testify against themself, I would like to point out that this amendment does not specify citizens having these rights. It says specifically that no PERSON shall have to be put in those situations. Therefore, because terrorists are still people, the Constitution gives them the same rights as those who are normal citizens.
Sub-point B: The 6th amendment details the rights of the accused. It states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial of an impartial jury." My opponent may observe that once again the amendment states that these are the rights of the ACCUSED, not of only citizens.
Sub-point C: The 14th amendment specifies who gets due process. It states, "...Nor shall any state deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Yet again: PERSON, not citizen. With the Constitution and these amendments, a non-biased system is created in which the accused has an equal chance of being ruled as innocent or guilty. With a non-biased and equal system in place, egalitarianism is reached, and justice is served by giving each their equal due.
Contention 2:Men have natural rights no matter what crimes they have commited. John Locke, whose ideals influenced our constitution, states that man are endowed by their creator the inalienable natural rights of life, liberty, and property. There is no distinction here between citizens or not. When a man commits an act of terrorism, is he no longer a man? No! He is still a man, and therefore still has his natural rights. Those natural rights are, as you have seen in the previous contention, still to be protected by the constitution. Therefore, if he is a person, then despite what my opponent may say, it does not matter whether he is a citizen or not, and because he is still a man, no grievous crime will result in his rights being taken away. The rights that a non-citizen has are equal, as defined by egalitarianism, to those that a citizen has. And with equality and, as Potter Stewart said, fairness, comes Justice.
In conclusion, those who commit terrorism deserve the same rights and judicial protections as normal citizens. To go over my contentions again, the Constitution completely supports this resolution. Second, men have natural rights no matter what crimes they commit. Thus, I urge an affirmative vote for todays debate.
My opponent did not present any rebuttals and only presented his case, so I will do the same. We will present rebuttals in the next round.
The affirmative case presumes that it is the duty of the United States to try terrorist cases in its own courts. Thus, the negative cases attacks this presumption and proves that the United States does not have such an obligation, and thus should not be extending due process rights to foreigners accused of terrorism since it should not be trying the terrorists in the first place.
Since the resolution questions what rights terrorists are due, my value for this round is Justice, defined as giving each his due.
The value criterion for the round is fulfilling obligations. Any notion of “due” imposes an obligation on another party to provide. For example, if a bank loans money to a debtor, its due is the money that it loaned, and the debtor has an obligation to provide that due to the bank. Similarly, if someone is due the protection of his or her rights or due a guarantee that his or her rights will not be violated, he or she imposes obligations on others to provide protection and to provide a guarantee to not violate his or her rights. Justice is thus best weighed through an examination of whether obligations are being provided for. Fulfilling obligations is the metric through which all other criteria, such as rights, are evaluated and thus must be the primary criterion for this round.
My sole contention is that the United States ought not try foreign terrorists in its own courts and instead become a party to litigation in international courts such as the ICC.
First, in situations in which the rights are not violated no matter what course of action we take, we have a moral obligation to carry out the actions that are most beneficial. All actions have a purpose, and if no rights are violated in carrying out an action, the action that best fulfills the purpose in question is the most responsible action to take. The ultimate end of any action is to produce pleasure and minimize pain, and if two actions have the same purpose, the one that better fulfills that purpose better achieves pleasure and minimizes pain. Promoting pleasure and pain are the ultimate ends of humanity because actions that are desirable are not desirable in themselves, but are only desirable insofar as they maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Philosopher John Stuart Mill explains, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the and the prevention of pain.”
Second, since trying terrorism in the ICC would not have any significant difference from trying terrorism in the United States with respect to rights, we must determine which action would be most beneficial. If we suppose that the United States made policy changes such that it would completely eradicate torture centers, black sites, enhanced interrogation, and deprivation of due process, the rights the the United States would be providing to foreigners accused of terrorism would be the same rights granted to individuals who are produced before the ICC. Thus, in order to determine which action we ought to take, we must determine which would be more beneficial.
Third, submitting terrorist cases to an international court is more beneficial than trying the cases in domestic courts. Trying cases in an international court promotes multilateral action, stifles unilateral action, and thus increases national security. First, trying terrorists in domestic courts promotes unilateral action rather than cooperation; it emphasizes that the crimes committed by terrorists are harms to U.S. citizens and not violations of international law and human rights. Unilateralism fosters anti-Americanism. Uncooperative, unilateral actions against Iraqi dictators and Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups has not only served to alienate our allies, but has also increased anti-American recruitment against terrorist networks because unilateral action provides a single enemy on which America’s enemies can focus. Multilateral efforts that focused on providing the ICC with cases, however, would present the entire world as an enemy to terrorist causes rather than just the U.S. and would simultaneously force the United States to cooperate with other nations on questions of terrorism. Second, trying terrorism in international courts rather than domestic courts would facilitate the prosecution of terrorism. First, by promoting multilateral efforts against terrorism rather than unilateral action, an international court would promote evidence-sharing. The victims and criminals involved in terrorist acts transcend national borders, making it difficult to collect and share evidence. When terrorism is prosecuted unilaterally, each nation has a vested interest in prosecuting terrorists individually in order to demonstrate to its population that it is striving to protect the lives of its people. This thus reduces incentive for collaboration. An international court would unite victimized countries and provide for more effective trials. In addition, multilateral efforts would reduce a desire to not hand over suspects. Disunity amongst the international community has already harmed prosecution efforts. The United States, for example, refuses to share suspects with other nations such as Germany, and Spain has refused to hand over twenty four individuals suspected of carrying out the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Pursuing unilateral efforts against terrorism over multilateral efforts is absolutely foolish because it inhibits the prosecution necessary to bring terrorist networks to their heels.
Since it would be more beneficial for the United States to submit terrorists to the ICC rather than trying them domestically, the U.S. does not have an obligation to provide due process rights to terrorists; rather, it has an obligation to hand them over to the international community for judgment. I strongly urge a negation of the resolution.
scgates forfeited this round.
scgates forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited three rounds, including the round he said the arguments was supposed to be presented. Pro did not offer a rebuttal to Con's case either, especially about the Constitution not applying abroad and turning terrorist over to the ICC.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.