Viewing Single Post From: LD topics

Viewing Single Post From: LD topics
Askio	Jan 5 2009, 05:16 PM
Crit McGee on Speed Posts: 2,853 Group: Veteran Member #436 Joined: October 1, 2005	Allright, I thought since some of you, respectfully, are actually intelligent and active, that I would post some of my debate topics for you guys to discuss at your leisure. the Jan/Feb topic is... The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. I could post my whole neg case to show my side, but personally, I don't feel like typing it out since its so long and I just wrote it out recently. Needless to say, here's how I feel. the ICC, or International Criminal Court, adopted it's memorandum in 1996. It was entered into force in 2002. While the idea itself is good, like the UN was originally when it was the league of nations, the ICC just isn't effective. First, as the old saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. Its taken 7 years just for them to start a trial of their first offender. Not necessarily because of any doubt of his crime, but rather the disorganization and disagreements on what to do with the guy. (the name I don't recall, its on the ICC wiki page) Not only that, but unlike the UN, nations and their individuals will have to submit to other nations judgment. And since there are so many variations and lack of common laws for the most part, it just isn't practical for the US to submit itself to nations that completely oppose the US, its ideas, and its allies. And basically, while being in the "UN helping to foster friendship is good, the US has no obligation of submitting itself to other nations, with the same going for almost all legitimate governments and their nations unless they do do something wrong, in which the UN usually punishes them. secondly, the US, while having issues, by the ICC's own standard of a crime against humanity's own definition, hasn't committed a crime that would fall under the icc's jurisdiction anyways. While they could be considered war crimes, or something of that nature, they don't fit the definition, so the US shouldn't have to do anything. There is also the point that most if not all serious offenses were limited to certain areas and people, and were not legitimate policies of the US government. While quite a few higher ups may have known, they didn't commit the acts, and those that did were few and far between. So the US is truly the only one that can fairly judge those people. Or severely enough if need be. Well, theres the basic ideas for some of my points and my views as of now. Please offer any criticism and your own ideas, Im interested about what you think about this since it deals highly with US foreign affairs. (which has sucked the past 7 or 8 years)
	Fire Emblem Online Askio: 9-1-1

LD topics · Debate Forum