Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Screw Habeas Corpus!

PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 7:27:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Resolved: that Guantanamo Bay detainees receive a fair trail in a US court of law.

How can one convincingly argue CON for this resolution?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 7:29:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 7:27:39 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
How can one convincingly argue CON for this resolution?

Because its clear that the system set up under Bush was ineffective and unjust, and that those convicted of committing crimes against the US should face sentencing from a proper US judicial court and be punished in a proper US prison.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 7:31:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 7:29:58 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/28/2009 7:27:39 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
How can one convincingly argue CON for this resolution?

Because its clear that the system set up under Bush was ineffective and unjust, and that those convicted of committing crimes against the US should face sentencing from a proper US judicial court and be punished in a proper US prison.

That would be PRO wouldn't it?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 7:31:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 7:27:39 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Resolved: that Guantanamo Bay detainees receive a fair trail in a US court of law.

How can one convincingly argue CON for this resolution?

Well, one could state that the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay were terrorists from different nations that were gathered and sent to Cuba to be detained. There may be a US obligation to give some of the detainees a trial in a US COURT OF LAW, but not all of them. Why should all the trials be held in the US? Although I agree with your opinion, Joe, I'm just putting something out there.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 7:34:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 7:31:00 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
That would be PRO wouldn't it?

That is PRO, and PRO's argument is so good, CON can't argue against it effectively.

Well, that is how it would be, ideally. Realistically, CON has a few options; SAC8 said one, and one that I can think up is that it is too politically sensitive to try such a thing in US courts, with a US jury - not only is it heavily stacked against the defendants, there are risks of physical danger to them as well.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 7:34:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 7:31:12 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 9/28/2009 7:27:39 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Resolved: that Guantanamo Bay detainees receive a fair trail in a US court of law.

How can one convincingly argue CON for this resolution?

Well, one could state that the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay were terrorists from different nations that were gathered and sent to Cuba to be detained. There may be a US obligation to give some of the detainees a trial in a US COURT OF LAW, but not all of them. Why should all the trials be held in the US? Although I agree with your opinion, Joe, I'm just putting something out there.

To add on to that- the Constitution and the rights entitled to citizens do not extend to foreign combatants, or any foreigners for that matter.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 7:36:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I should perhaps explain. As a joke, I signed up for this debate at my school's debate club. Now I don't know how to argue the case. I'll have to keep myself from laughing hysterically as I speak, but I can work on that. What I need help on now is building a CON case.

I don't want to use a semantic argument either. I want to be persuasive.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 7:39:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 7:36:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
I should perhaps explain. As a joke, I signed up for this debate at my school's debate club. Now I don't know how to argue the case. I'll have to keep myself from laughing hysterically as I speak, but I can work on that. What I need help on now is building a CON case.

I don't want to use a semantic argument either. I want to be persuasive.

I don't see the "joke" about the resolution. It is a serious argument on both sides with serious implications. You're making it seem like anyone CON is retarted.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 8:40:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The resolution is loaded for one thing-- it automatically assumes that a full court trial is the 'fair' thing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 8:47:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 8:40:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The resolution is loaded for one thing-- it automatically assumes that a full court trial is the 'fair' thing.

It's a lot more fair than throwing them in Gitmo without trial. What other method would you suggest?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 8:50:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 8:40:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The resolution is loaded for one thing-- it automatically assumes that a full court trial is the 'fair' thing.

I'm guessing presumed guilty-before-innocent, heavy-handed punishment for small crimes, non-jury, non-legal status, no ability to defend yourself, biased judgments... etc., is what is fair - if it is with a private corporation or individual wants?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 8:50:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 8:47:15 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/28/2009 8:40:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The resolution is loaded for one thing-- it automatically assumes that a full court trial is the 'fair' thing.

It's a lot more fair than throwing them in Gitmo without trial. What other method would you suggest?

The whole point of saying the resolution is loaded in this thread-- is to explain it's loaded.

You don't have to disagree with Pro to recognize that they're being handed a resolution loaded in their favor :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 8:54:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 8:50:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/28/2009 8:47:15 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/28/2009 8:40:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The resolution is loaded for one thing-- it automatically assumes that a full court trial is the 'fair' thing.

It's a lot more fair than throwing them in Gitmo without trial. What other method would you suggest?

The whole point of saying the resolution is loaded in this thread-- is to explain it's loaded.

You don't have to disagree with Pro to recognize that they're being handed a resolution loaded in their favor :)

Point taken. If CON were to point this out, though, I don't think it would get too far.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 9:08:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 8:54:20 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
Point taken. If CON were to point this out, though, I don't think it would get too far.

You're right. So how does one go about arguing against basic rights in a debate?

Halp plz.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 9:17:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Why don't you drop Obama a line with the question?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 9:19:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Cause basically, the only good reason I can think of to reduce trial strictness is summary executions of known enemies in the immediate theater of war, in situations where you can't afford to take prisoners.

Once you have the prisoners and they are a whole ocean away from any theater that goes poof :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Seerss
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 9:45:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ok, this is not, as a lot of people have said, a loaded debate. Furthermore, it isn't as if they are all just thrown in without trial, and there are lots of other objections. I don't feel like writing a case when I won't get the satisfaction of winning (and I'm kinda PRO on this one) anyway, here are some CON points.
As said earlier, Habeas Corpus does not extend to foreign people, and this is a legal issue, so something being fair doesn't matter. It just has to be legal.
Then, there's the whole "The people being arrested and sent to Gitmo are getting arrested mostly because the CIA thinks or knows that they're planning a terrorist attack, and someone planning to kill thousands isn't a crime, because they aren't actually hurting anyone and its semi-impossible to prove" thing.
Added to that, many of the people detained (but not all) have been subjected to a US military trial, which is the same as what our soldiers get when they are accused of something (aka, treason, murder, rape, etc...), so if we say that the detainees' military trials weren't legit, then what about the other thousands that have happened over the centuries?
If torture is brought up, then it was all "advanced interrogation techniques" (which I personally think are inhuman and horrible, but this is debate. You're expected to throw personal morals out the window and burn them during the debate) which are, at the moment, legal.
What state would hold people who might have been planning to kill millions of said states' citizens.
The US trials would be very unfair, because people would either see the detainees as victims that needed empathy or terrorists that deserved to die.
Most of the CIA evidence is classified out the wazzoo, and therefore can't be shown in court.
Take your pick. Oh, and almost all of these points were taken from either the book The Dark Side (I forget who the author is, but she was a Washington Post reporter for years), which was the NY Times book review best non-fiction of the year (and the book is very, very anti-Gitmo, so that might help with any lingering doubts over credibility), and CNN.com.
Seerss
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 9:46:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ok, this is not, as a lot of people have said, a loaded debate. Furthermore, it isn't as if they are all just thrown in without trial, and there are lots of other objections. I don't feel like writing a case when I won't get the satisfaction of winning (and I'm kinda PRO on this one) anyway, here are some CON points.
As said earlier, Habeas Corpus does not extend to foreign people, and this is a legal issue, so something being fair doesn't matter. It just has to be legal.
Then, there's the whole "The people being arrested and sent to Gitmo are getting arrested mostly because the CIA thinks or knows that they're planning a terrorist attack, and someone planning to kill thousands isn't a crime, because they aren't actually hurting anyone and its semi-impossible to prove" thing.
Seerss
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 9:46:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Added to that, many of the people detained (but not all) have been subjected to a US military trial, which is the same as what our soldiers get when they are accused of something (aka, treason, murder, rape, etc...), so if we say that the detainees' military trials weren't legit, then what about the other thousands that have happened over the centuries?
If torture is brought up, then it was all "advanced interrogation techniques" (which I personally think are inhuman and horrible, but this is debate. You're expected to throw personal morals out the window and burn them during the debate) which are, at the moment, legal.
What state would hold people who might have been planning to kill millions of said states' citizens.
The US trials would be very unfair, because people would either see the detainees as victims that needed empathy or terrorists that deserved to die.
Most of the CIA evidence is classified out the wazzoo, and therefore can't be shown in court.
Take your pick. Oh, and almost all of these points were taken from either the book The Dark Side (I forget who the author is, but she was a Washington Post reporter for years), which was the NY Times book review best non-fiction of the year (and the book is very, very anti-Gitmo, so that might help with any lingering doubts over credibility), and CNN.com.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 9:49:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Is there an echo in here?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Seerss
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 9:52:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 9:49:01 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
Is there an echo in here?

Yeah, my bad. An error popped up, so I accidently posted it twice. Oh well.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 9:53:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 9:52:30 PM, Seerss wrote:
At 9/28/2009 9:49:01 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
Is there an echo in here?

Yeah, my bad. An error popped up, so I accidently posted it twice. Oh well.

I was just jokin anyway dude. You raise some good points.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 9:55:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
and this is a legal issue, so something being fair doesn't matter. It just has to be legal.
Resolved: That (x happen). This language in essence means you're resolving that the laws be changed to x in the event it is not x already, in the context of formal debate systems that use it. Current law is completely irrelevant to this case.

because the CIA thinks or knows that they're planning a terrorist attack, and someone planning to kill thousands isn't a crime, because they aren't actually hurting anyone and its semi-impossible to prove
Planning IS a crime. Conspiracy to commit laws, lrn2use them. If they know, that means they have proof, if they don't-- a stray thought sufficient for imprisonment? Thoughtcrime where it's not even your thoughts you're being arrested for?

Added to that, many of the people detained (but not all) have been subjected to a US military trial,
A military court is still a court of law.

Most of the CIA evidence is classified out the wazzoo, and therefore can't be shown in court.
A court where the judge needs a security clearance is still a court too. Remember, the resolution is in essence about what the law ought to be, so unless you're arguing that judges are some special breed of humanity, incapable of keeping a secret...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 10:19:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 7:27:39 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Resolved: that Guantanamo Bay detainees receive a fair trail in a US court of law.

How can one convincingly argue CON for this resolution?

You can argue that there is no grounds for giving them a trial in the US court and that they be tried under an Afghan system (presumably in Afghanistan).

You can argue that they are prisoners of war, and that the war is still ongoing.

Or you can argue that they simply should be released.
So prove me wrong, then.
Seerss
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 10:21:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 9:55:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
and this is a legal issue, so something being fair doesn't matter. It just has to be legal.
Resolved: That (x happen). This language in essence means you're resolving that the laws be changed to x in the event it is not x already, in the context of formal debate systems that use it. Current law is completely irrelevant to this case.

Oh, I was just referring to the use of Habeas Corpus as a reason for the detainees to be given a trial in the United States. From what I saw of the resolution (and I might just have missed something because I just kind of glanced at it) it does not attempt to change Habeas Corpus. It simply states that detainees should be given a fair trial, which Habeas Corpus does not directly contradict, so therefore it would not be changed because of the resolution. HC (Habeas Corpus is way too long to type out), is not a right automatically given to foreigners, it is usually just a common courtesy. This might have come out a bit mangled, but I'm tired so I don't care.

because the CIA thinks or knows that they're planning a terrorist attack, and someone planning to kill thousands isn't a crime, because they aren't actually hurting anyone and its semi-impossible to prove
Planning IS a crime. Conspiracy to commit laws, lrn2use them. If they know, that means they have proof, if they don't-- a stray thought sufficient for imprisonment? Thoughtcrime where it's not even your thoughts you're being arrested for?

But it is very difficult to convict on an idea for which there is no material evidence that it will be carried out. They might say that they will blow up a plane or building, but unless they have the materials, then it is hard to convict them. Its still possible, but very difficult. Again, a bit mangled, but I'll go back over it tomorrow and try to flesh out some ideas better.

Added to that, many of the people detained (but not all) have been subjected to a US military trial,
A military court is still a court of law.

I'll give you this since its technically true, but I don't believe that its the type that the resolution is talking about.

Most of the CIA evidence is classified out the wazzoo, and therefore can't be shown in court.
A court where the judge needs a security clearance is still a court too. Remember, the resolution is in essence about what the law ought to be, so unless you're arguing that judges are some special breed of humanity, incapable of keeping a secret...

Of course not, I'm worried about the jury. CIA evidence has a nasty habit of being based on or at least closely related to other evidence, which is in turn based on other evidence, which is then etc...
An example would be a phone call about funds being donated from a man that had donated money to a different organization or who got his money from a man that received it after an attack on a building, and the payer was a man whose brother led an Al-Queda attack on a city with the son of... and so on and so forth. And if any evidence is left out, then it might not make sense or be as reliable.
Well, these are getting too long, its too late, and my responses are getting too mangled (from it being too late), for me to add more. Peace! (and hopefully I can clarify better tomorrow)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 10:51:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 10:21:07 PM, Seerss wrote:
At 9/28/2009 9:55:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
and this is a legal issue, so something being fair doesn't matter. It just has to be legal.
Resolved: That (x happen). This language in essence means you're resolving that the laws be changed to x in the event it is not x already, in the context of formal debate systems that use it. Current law is completely irrelevant to this case.

Oh, I was just referring to the use of Habeas Corpus as a reason for the detainees to be given a trial in the United States. From what I saw of the resolution (and I might just have missed something because I just kind of glanced at it) it does not attempt to change Habeas Corpus.
It attempts to extend it or some other principle universally.

Incidentally by the settled law habeas corpus IS universal, though it wouldn't matter if it weren't for the purposes of the resolution.

HC (Habeas Corpus is way too long to type out), is not a right automatically given to foreigners, it is usually just a common courtesy.
Though again not relevant supreme court disagrees, and frankly so does the plain text of the constitution (which denotes only rebellion and public safety as exceptions, not citizenship)


because the CIA thinks or knows that they're planning a terrorist attack, and someone planning to kill thousands isn't a crime, because they aren't actually hurting anyone and its semi-impossible to prove
Planning IS a crime. Conspiracy to commit laws, lrn2use them. If they know, that means they have proof, if they don't-- a stray thought sufficient for imprisonment? Thoughtcrime where it's not even your thoughts you're being arrested for?

But it is very difficult to convict on an idea for which there is no material evidence that it will be carried out. They might say that they will blow up a plane or building, but unless they have the materials, then it is hard to convict them.
The same things you need to convict-- those are the things that should convince you there is a plan. There is a REASON courts require proof.


Added to that, many of the people detained (but not all) have been subjected to a US military trial,
A military court is still a court of law.

I'll give you this since its technically true, but I don't believe that its the type that the resolution is talking about.
The resolution doesn't mention any specific ones.


Most of the CIA evidence is classified out the wazzoo, and therefore can't be shown in court.
A court where the judge needs a security clearance is still a court too. Remember, the resolution is in essence about what the law ought to be, so unless you're arguing that judges are some special breed of humanity, incapable of keeping a secret...

Of course not, I'm worried about the jury.
The resolution doesn't specify that a civilian jury of randomly selected should remain the means of trying. And, though this isn't necessary to defend the resolution, at present the members of military commissions are "both judge and jury," i.e., trained professionals.

An example would be a phone call about funds being donated from a man that had donated money to a different organization or who got his money from a man that received it after an attack on a building, and the payer was a man whose brother led an Al-Queda attack on a city with the son of... and so on and so forth. And if any evidence is left out, then it might not make sense or be as reliable.
Funds being donated to what? And how in the hell is the brother relevant? You're proposing that someone be tried for the crimes of their sibling?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 11:03:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
And I do hope observing this accidental debate helps you with yours Poejoe. :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 11:55:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
if you Screw Habeas Corpus!
you screw probable cause!

and our constitution

No one is above the law.
I now it sucks, but it is the american way.