The US should hire death squads to root out terrorists
My opponent must argue that the US needs death squads to kill, capture, and torture terrorists that live among us. Good luck, and I hope to have a great debate!
The opposition must go first
Thanks to my opponent ChosenWolff for starting this interesting debate. I think both sides can make really good arguments and so I am looking forward to this debate.Now terrorists have been involved in some horrible acts in the past such as the World Trade Center attacks, The Munich Olympic Massacre, Boston Bombings, London Bombings, The IRA terrorist attacks in Ireland and England from 1969 to present day, ETA terrorist attacks in Spain and multiple more groups around the world. The most recent example to spring to mind is ISIS in Iraq. As such I do not think its necessary to point out more specific examples as its pretty obvious that everyone understands the basic concepts of terrorism.
First things first, my opponent has not clarified in the opening round what a terrorist is. However, I am sure he will not have a problem to define a terrorist as a person who engages in terrorism.
Where Terrorism is defined as "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal".(1)
So why death squads? Simply put its the only way to get to the root of the problem and make it go away.
In 1983 before the terror attacks that brought he world trade center down their was the bombing of the world trade center which killed 6 and injured more than 1000.(2) The brain behind this attack, Ramzi Yousef, then escaped abroad and was involved in multiple other terrorist attacks/attempts around the globe. Some of these were religiously motivated, while others were directed at the United States.(3) Now while this person was not directly linked to Al Queda, his uncle Khalid Shaik Mohammed was the master mind behind the 9/11 attacks and they apparently worked together on the Philippine Airline Flight 434 bombing and other terrorist plots.(4)
From this we can see that there is a link in this terrorist network. In all probability if Ramzi Yousef had remained free he would have likely maintained the link with his uncle and been involved in the 9/11 crimes.
Now I maintain and there is no way to deny the following logic. If death squads were employed then Yousef and his colleagues, i.e.Khalid Shaik Mohammed, would be dead. The direct result of these deaths is that 9/11 World Trade Center attacks would not have happened.
I plan to expand on these types of arguments in future rounds showing the link between terrorists and terrorist attacks. This will surely demonstrate that death squads, while not palatable in many ways, would be highly effective at rooting out terrorism.
I now hand the debate over to my opponent for rebuttals and counter arguments.
ChosenWolff forfeited this round.
Unfortunately my opponent forfeited the last round. However, after some discussion we decided that I can post another round and then he will rebut my arguments in the final round.
In my first round argument I showed that major terrorist attacks by large organized groups could be avoided if death squads had been able to eliminate the major players as the links between them are undeniable. In this round I intend to expand on these cases and show that even in cases of so called lone wolf terrorism there is usually links that would make death squads able to snuff out these attacks.
Before I get to lone wolf terrorism however I think it is interesting to point out another case of domestic terrorism. These are the events that transpired in Waco Texas. Now whether you believe David Koresh was a terrorist or not, certainly is up to debate. However, I will assert that he fits the mold of terrorist as even before the events at Waco in 1993 the FBI was worrying that he was involved in slavery and involuntary servitude of his followers.(1) The only way to keep a slave or put someone in a position of involuntary servitude is to use violence or threats of violence at a bare minimum. This surely then fits the definition of terrorism.
Further, he (and his followers) were hoarding guns illegally which eventually resulted in the initial shooting which killed 6 Davidians and 4 agents (as well as 16 injured) and led to the Waco stand off.(2) The question (which conspiracy theorists ignore) should be raised why were they shooting at officials in the first place? Regardless this initial shooting, led to the standoff which resulted in the fire that killed 76 men, women and children. If however the death squad had moved in earlier and got rid of Koresh, this would never have happened. If we believe the ATF agents were trying to do this, then I think our definition of a death squad is very different. Truly a death squad would not have been seen coming they would have been in and out and left behind a dead Koresh and other fanatics allowing the safe removal of the endangered innocents.
Now let me move on to the final point of my arguments and that is the lone wolf terrorist case. The most infamous lone wolf terrorist in US history is probably Timothy Mcveigh. However, Tim McVeigh did not operate alone there were at least 2 other people, Terry Nichols and Michael Fortier, involved with him and that is well documented.(3) There is even speculation of a link between the Aryn Resistance Army and McVeigh.(4) If this is true then a terrorist organization which would have been getting investigated potentially would have stopped the Oklahoma City Bombing which killed 168 people.
Importantly, at this point I think it is also fair to point out that in the true sense of the word “lone wolf terrorism” can never be stopped as its a single person acting on their own. In this sense death squads would not be able to stop these people. However, to be realistic nothing and no organization would stop them. So having death squads in this view is mute. I raise this issue of lone wolf terrorism, as surely it will be a contention in my opponent arguments.
In this debate I think I have sufficiently proven that if death squads were employed to take out terrorists that multiple terror attacks and countless deaths would have been avoided. This I have shown by illustrating the links that exist between terrorists. These links potentially exists even in the lone wolf terrorist cases.
I now hand the debate over to my opponent for rebuttals.
I) Death Squads are repressive
Hiring death squads to kill citizens off the streets is repressive, and in America, we live in a land where repression and democratic values are embodies. Killing people off the streets outside the law can be interpreted as repression, andys as we all know, tensed up will, is released will at one point of time. Or unnesecary bloodshed towards America. I am not disputing the benefits of killing terrorists, but the harm in doing it in this manner. There are better and more civil ways we can deal with terrorism. Even under these circumstances, we're still shooting random people on the guise they're terrorists. The US has made more false terror charges than people died of terrorism in total throughout the US. If we were to kill people based on every charge, we would be systematically murdering many innocent citizens, repressing the people.
II) Death Squads lower our international standing
It is a known fact, that other nations do not approve highly of having death squads systematically murder US citizens. Actually, the several countries with death squads have been cut off from most forms of arm sales and diplomatic negotiations. Eritrea, a state that used after curfew death squads, has completely fallen from the international community. A state of the US's side will be even worse. All are allies will turn against us for extrajudicial democide, and most likely penalize us in some way. Given the US has low terror rates compared to European countries, and there are more responcible ways to go about this, including more border security and reforms to the department of the interior. Hiring death squads is the least responcible answer.
III) Death Squads will cause more terrorism
The opposition claims that the use of death squads will end terrorism, therefore, a temporary measure. This is fallacious, and terrorism can't be ended in this manner. Mind you, millions of muslims and christian sects will take this as an attack on their community. Especialy those who are radical and watching their American chapter/cells dies. By hiring death squads for the systematic murder of Christian and Muslim terrorists, we are essentially paving the way for several exodus's, crusades, and jihads. Hell, the oppositions plan will make us the Jihad capital of the world. There is absolutely no evidence that killing terrorists will send a message. This is unsubstantiated and the oppositions BOP is eympty at this point.
IV) Restatement on morallity of Death Squads
Simple. As I stated earlier, we accuse more terrorist charges than people who actually die from terrorism, and by a large margin. If we were to kill every suspected terrorists, then there would be about 100,000 dead and innocent Americans. Is it moral to kill more than terrorism takes? No, and that's even coming from an objective POV. Killing innocents is counter inituitive to the reason the opposition proposed instating them in the first place. The simple truth remains, that if even one person dies who is innocent, we betrayed our values and the original goal of having death squads.
Simple. It is both nationally and internationally illegal to kill someone outside the court systems. This is known as Democide, and while repercussions for government democide are lhumorlessly low, they still exist. We can be stripped of all our inoming debt money, and isolated from the democratic world. Envision the US getting kicked out of 25 organizations like Russia jud did. We need to stay in these organizations, and many are designed to fight terrorism. The trade offs are nothing to 100 at this point, and it's sad that stronger arguments were not brought forward by the opposition.
VI) Reinstatement of more responcible methods to combat terrorism
- Increasing security reforms
- Expanding budgets for Homeland Security and DOI
- Stop fvcking with Muslim nations
- Increase the budget for our struggling police force
- Stop treating some groups like second class citiens.
There are a million things wrong with Pro's arguments. He didn't correlate death squads with any actual data. He completely ommitted collateral damage, and was short sighted in the fact that many repercussions were overlooked.I highly doubt Pro will fullfill the BOP at this point, with so many flaws in his system. Especially since their are more tried and true systems out there at the moment. In short, not only is Pro's BOP eympty, but it outright negated through anti contentions.
No argument posted as agreed upon.
|Who won the debate:||-|