The Instigator
dot
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Soccerfrk767
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

U.S. ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
dot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,859 times Debate No: 6565
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

dot

Con

To my opponent, I would like to structure this debate as LD please. Thanks.

"Historically, courts in this country have been insulated. We do not look beyond our borders for precedents."

This quote from United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor states that the United States courts have no need to look beyond its borders to resolve injustices dealing with United States.

Therefore, I negate the resolution: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

I offer the following definitions in support of our case from the People's Law Dictionary.
1.Crime – violation of a law, injury to the public or a member of the public
2.Humanity – all human beings

I have made the following observations in support of my case.
Observation 1: The crime against humanity must have been committed within or is a situation that pertains to the United States.
Observation 2: A crime against humanity is an act that hurt any member of "humanity".
My value is Justice. Justice is what a court strives for. Since justice is relative, we must look to the country that we strive to be just in. Justice in this round can be described as giving people what they deserve by the law of the governing body.
My value criterion is National Sovereignty. National sovereignty calls for a government of a country to govern the country. As the courts are part of the U. S. government, by upholding this value criterion we uphold the idea that U.S. should govern itself.

My first contention is that negating the resolution results in national sovereignty.

Subpoint A: U.S. has differing views from other countries.

By giving up our right to interpret justice to a higher power, U.S. has turned itself into colonialism, dependent on the international governing body.

In the Iraq war, France said that the U.S. and British-led move to war is premature, resulting in a changing of name from French fries to freedom fries in many American restaurants.

Citizens of the United States think like citizens of the United States, so when asked to make decisions relating to the United States, we should not turn to other countries due to their differing views.

Subpoint B: Courts are just to the morals of the contained areas.

People have different morals and laws, so more local system can judge a local area better than a universal.

As said in the November 22, 2008 issue of the Economist, "no other nation in the world chooses judges by a democratic method".

The practices of the United States are not the same as the practices in the rest of the world, and the laws of the U.S. are made for the U.S. By applying international laws to the U.S, we are devaluing the law, or enforcing something that should not be enforced in the U.S.

My second contention is upholding national sovereignty maximizes justice.

Sub point A: It allows justice to be judged more locally and pertaining more to those involved.

By negating the resolution, the United States government is able to judge the crimes at hand within its own borders, therefore being more pertinent to what laws the people involved follow. This will allow the judging to be more fair and just to these people.

In the article "In This Case, Might Is Right: It looks bad" from TIME Magazine published on July 15, 2002, it states, "Europeans say the U.S. could protect its interests by signing the treaty while negotiating exemptions. Washington says that a signature would be the first step on a slippery slope; once it had conceded that Americans could be subject to the court's jurisdiction, the way would be open for a foreign prosecutor to frivolously accuse a U.S. soldier [its peacekeepers](or Defense Secretary, for that matter) of war crimes."

As you can see, if the US joins an international court, the citizens can be wrongly accused by other countries of crimes that are not considered bad here in the US. Therefore, if the US could judge crimes on its own, we would not run into these problems and the judging would be on a just basis.

Sub point B: The individual government has a more specific governing body.

The US has certain laws that pertain to us set by the US Constitution, but some countries do not agree with these laws. If the US joins an international court, it will have to give jurisdiction on some of these laws which are crucial in our government and violate the Constitution.

For example, the article "Q&A: International Criminal Court" in CNN published August 8, 2002, it stated, "Consistent with international human rights standards, it has no authority to impose a death penalty."
As you can see, certain standards will be set by the international court which will exclude the laws the US has established, undermining the justice system in the US and not allowing the US to practice its national sovereignty.

In conclusion, the US should not submit to the jurisdiction of an international court because it will weaken the justice system of the US and will not allow the US to uphold its national sovereignty which every government if justly entitled to.

Justice is important because without it, you cannot determine if an action being taken is fair and just for a country and its people. Without national sovereignty, the US cannot uphold its laws that it has created and will be controlled by other countries' decisions, which should not be the case.

Therefore, I negate the resolution Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

Therefore I urge you strongly to vote negative. Thank You.
Soccerfrk767

Pro

I will begin with a 1AC and continue in LD style:

Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

The Darfur genocide has killed more than 400,000 civilians and displaced 2.5 million people from their homes...In February 2003, frustrated by poverty and neglect, two Darfurian rebel groups launched an uprising against the Khartoum government. The government responded with a scorched-earth campaign, arming and bankrolling militias against the innocent civilians of Darfur. A small peacekeeping force run by the African Union is in place, but it is largely unsupported by the rest of the world. Civilian protection is desperately needed to stop the violence and end the genocide.

Because I don't believe that the rest of the world can standby while these horrific acts are commited I affirm the resolution which states:

Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity

Value: Morality; The word ought as used in the resolution denotes a moral obligation. Meaning the United States has a moral obligation to submit to a national court to prosecute crimes against humanity. As we see in the case of Padilla and others that I will introduce shortly. The U.S. is abusing it's power in these cases and we need checks on the gov't to insure that they do their duty by for instance following the law of habeas corpus instead of sending U.S. citizens to solitary conefinment for three years with no trial because he is an "illegal enemy combatant."

Criterion: Protecting Human Rights If protecting human rights is essential to justice (or morality), then prosecuting "crimes against humanity" is an obligation for all nations

Before I move on I would like to clarify the resolution by defining certain key terms:

Jurisdiction: A gov'ts general power to excercise authority over all persons and things within its territory

International: Pertaining to two or more nations.

Prosecute: To institute and pursue criminal action against

Crime Against Humanity: A brutal crime that is not an isolated incident but that involves large and systematic actions often cloaked with official authority, and that shocks the conscience of humankind.

I would like to submit the following observations

First:: The U.S. has a moral obligation to submit to an international court to prevent genocide.

Second: As long as we continue to allow countries to commit these crimes with no accountability they will assume that they know better than the world. The U.S. can lead the way to international justice.

And Third: An international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity will not violate America's sovereignty

Contention 1: The U.S. has a moral obligation to submit to an international court to prevent genocide.

To prevent genocide and bring mass murderers to a court of law so that justice can be served, the United States has a moral obligation to submit to an international court. To fulfill the resolution the only thing required of the U.S. is that there be a willingness to use United States funds to bring those who are in the act of commiting genocide. Genocide is defined as systematic killing of a racial or cultural group. Examples of those throughout history who have commited genocide are: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Idi Amin. The following is taken from rwanda-genocide.org "The 1994 genocide in Rwanda resulted in the systematic massacre of 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in less than 100 days. The events occurred while the international community closed its eyes." If the United States were to join an international court atrocities such as these could be stopped in their tracks. Being the most dominant military force on the planet the court could call in the help of the U.S. to help prevent genocides. Yolande Mukagasana, 50 years old, survived the Rwandan genocide of 1994. She lost her three children as well as her husband, brothers and sisters. Afetr the genocide she said "Don't talk to me about reconciliation... talk to me about justice" The United States is one small step away from talking about justice.

Contention 2: As long as we continue to allow countries to commit these crimes with no accountability they will assume that they know better than the world. The U.S. can lead the way to international justice.

We have seen the affect of countries that think they know what is best for the world before. Adolf Hitler assumed he knew best and that we could achieve our greatest human potential under a Nazi rule. Millions of people died in a horrible conflict because of this. Joseph Stalin saw the "decadance of Western society" and thought that he should show his people the way, he thought he knew best and that Communism was what was called for. Millions of more people died in horrible conditions in prison camps being held with no charges more than that the officials didn't like them. Hundreds of more examples can be shown across history. These men did not consider themselves "the bad guys" they thought of themselves as the "one who knew best". When you allow a nation to commit crimes against humanity no matter how small without any repercussions they will assume they know best. Throughout history it has been shown that a nation that thinks it knows what is best for the world is not safe. Therfore we need some sort of accountability for nations that commit these crimes. For instance. You punish a child not because you dislike them or want to hurt them, but because you love them and you must show them that they are wrong. A child who gets away with doing wrong and is not punished will eventually assume he knows better than the parents and become more and more rebellious. We must stand up for justice and if the U.S. submits to the Jurisdiction of an international court we will lead others to do so and it will show the world we do not tolerate these injustices. That we value the safety of the human race enough to help an international court bring these men, and governments, to justice.

Contention 3: An international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity will not violate America's sovereignty

You will notice that here we are not talking about the ICC but a hypothetical court designed to prosecute specific crimes. If` United States were to agree that the court might have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that would lead to genocide it would fulfill the resolution. The United States as the leading military and economic power in the world has a moral obligation to do our utmost to put an end to horrible crimes such as the Genocide of Rwanda. We cannot stand idly by while countries tear themselves to peices and governments inflict horrible and inhuman punishments on their people. We must bring these criminals to justice. And when the world is brought justice. It will also be brought peace.

In Conclusion I affirm the resolution for the following reasons first Issues of violation of human rights in the U.S. are affecting those who are U.S. citizens as well as those who are not.
Second As long as we continue to allow countries to commit these crimes with no accountability they will assume that they know better than the world. And Third An international court is better equipped to prosecute crimes against humanity than any individual nation.

Human rights violation is a very important issue in today's world. It is not a problem bounded within the borders of one certain country but takes in the entire human race with no discrimination in color, age or sex. These horrible crimes being commited by governments and individuals need to be answerable to a higher court. We need to hold the perpetrators accountable for their crimes and make sure that they are punished duly.
Debate Round No. 1
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Well, that wasn't exactly LD. Why didn't pro attack con's case?
Posted by Soccerfrk767 8 years ago
Soccerfrk767
Well I moved up from novice in my first debate (tied for first place, first place speaker points) so I'm in varsity level. But I don't think i'll know if i'm attending anymore tournaments after the state tournament @ UVA...
Posted by dot 8 years ago
dot
Soccerfrk767, I know that your an LD debater, but I was wondering if you are a novice or championship level debater. I was wondering if you're going to the Mayde Creek Tournament or the Attackacita (I think that is how you spell it) Tournament? Just curious.
Posted by Soccerfrk767 8 years ago
Soccerfrk767
Dot: Yes I am an LD debater preparing to go down to states anddebate this topic this weekend so thank you for the comments! I would love to do a full debate with you on this topic at some point in the future.

Metz: Thank you for the very constructive criticism every bit helps.
Posted by dot 8 years ago
dot
I am so sorry, I also didn't realize that I selected only 1 round. When I get the chance and time to start a new debate, I will indeed make one with three rounds. My dear appologies to Soccerfrk767. Also I would like to thank Metz for the comments. Lastly, I would like to ask, Soccerfrk767, are you a CLD, because I indeed agree that your contentions were very well thought out. Also thanks for the great case you wrote. I compliment you on your great contentions. Your case gave me more to think about. Again thanks to all who wrote comments and viewed this debate.
Posted by debatefan01 8 years ago
debatefan01
con gets all my points
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Decision: AFF

Criterion: National Sovereignty; although not really a criterion it beat Human Rights. However there is no Verb included so it does not tell us what to do with national sovereignty, so by default as long as it allowed for Sovereignty is was Just. (Tip: try Including a Verb in Criterion like this as it better defines the criterion, for example upholding national sovereignty)

Neg did not prove it destroyed American sovereignty to an extent it was unjust and Aff Proved it Respected Sovereignty AND that the U.S has an obligation to Do join this court.

Main Voting Point was C3 AFF. Although it did not have specific warrants it proved enough.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
AFF:

Value: there was no defintion but merely a warrant, Justice Wins over

Criterion: there is no definition, no link to claim, no warrant. In other words this is not a criterion but a thesis statement.

Contentions: Good, Straightforward and gave good links
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Well Neither person refuted the others arguments so essentially i had to cross apply and weigh impacts...

Neg:
Observations have no value so I discarded them...
Value: counted equal with Aff's due to no clash

Criterion: This is very vague and very open ended,"As the courts are part of the U. S. government, by upholding this value criterion we uphold the idea that U.S. should govern itself." this is still held on either side as U.S would not be ceding all of its sovereignty or ability to govern to an IC

1st contention
the Impact of this I saw was "The practices of the United States are not the same as the practices in the rest of the world, and the laws of the U.S. are made for the U.S. By applying international laws to the U.S, we are devaluing the law, or enforcing something that should not be enforced in the U.S."

This Falls due to the U.S endorsement of International Laws and their recognition of it

2nd contention

A.
"As you can see, if the US joins an international court, the citizens can be wrongly accused by other countries of crimes that are not considered bad here in the US. Therefore, if the US could judge crimes on its own, we would not run into these problems and the judging would be on a just basis."

There is No warrant to this conclusion, and also people are wrongly accused of crimes here also "crimes against Humanity" would most definitely be illegal( I took Aff's Definition of this term as more legit)

B. The US has certain laws that pertain to us set by the US Constitution, but some countries do not agree with these laws. If the US joins an international court, it will have to give jurisdiction on some of these laws which are crucial in our government and violate the Constitution.

No examples or warrants so I don't Buy this Argument, include a warrant.

Also the death penalty argument is not a warrant, many States do not recognize the death penalty either.
Posted by Soccerfrk767 8 years ago
Soccerfrk767
I didn't realize it wasn't the normal amount of rounds....Sorry... But if it's only 1 round each Aff. (Me) should have gone first.....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by debatefan01 8 years ago
debatefan01
dotSoccerfrk767Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
dotSoccerfrk767Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23