| Welcome to Fire Emblem Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| LD topics; Give me your veiws | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 5 2009, 05:16 PM (429 Views) | |
| Askio | Jan 5 2009, 05:16 PM Post #1 |
Crit McGee on Speed
|
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 | |
 |
 
|
| +Reaver | Jan 5 2009, 06:19 PM Post #2 |
Troll
|
Love LD Debate. Currently doing PFD, however. To argue the Pro, however: The United States should understand the lesson of World War I and World War II: a balance of power is important. Lest we all submit to foreign powers - such as German land grabs in the 1930s - we shall all disappear. Allowing an international court strictly to enforce crimes against humanity allows for a balance of power because, as a nation, we should be watched to make sure we're not comitting crimes against humanity while trying to assert ourselves as a global power. Furthermore, if we have an international court designed to target crimes against humanity problems which arise about human living conditions will be easily recognized and much easier to handle. The gendocide in Sudan today, the terror under Saddam Hussein, and other acts of barbarism against ethnic and relgious groups could've been avoided had we implemented this court at an earlier date. A focused set of eyes allows for a vigorous attempt of solving these issues. Askio stresses the idea that it violates United States interests, but we need to establish a balance of power. As a nation we have a history of instituting unfair laws which smother the human rights of others - slavery and segregation for example - thus we must remove our own interests from judging crimes against humanity. Should they cross, we will be powerless to correct a great wrong. Even if the United States hasn't comitted a crime against humanity, what is to say an event like Japanese Iternment won't happen again? Lastly, crimes against humanity aren't always against United States law. Segregation was legal. My comments about your case? Avoid arguing law. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Jan 5 2009, 07:01 PM Post #3 |
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
Why should the US have to submit to any foreign court? The Supreme Law of the Land in the United States is the US Constitution. Foreign Law has no place. As a Democratic Republic, all laws come from (or are supposed to come from), the will of the people. Votes have a say in the policy making of this country. Should the US submit to foreign law, they lose that right. US Citizens don't have a say in the making of international or foreign law. And if they don't have a say in said law, they have no obligation to follow it. |
| |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Jan 5 2009, 07:46 PM Post #4 |
|
Troll
|
We're not talking about subjecting to normal foreign law. We're not going to have to subject ourselves to laws Germany sees fit to implement in their nation or whatever. We're talking about human rights violations, the ones set up by the United Nations that we've already agreed to (Source). |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Jan 5 2009, 10:49 PM Post #5 |
|
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
That was a post WW2 law or something, right? Its not that I disagree with the principles behind it, but there is no reason a country should have to submit itself to anything other than its ruling documents. The Laws of the United Nations are UN Laws. And honestly, they are pretty much worthless, since the UN really doesn't have an army, and has traditionally relied on the United States to enforce its resolutions. But a country's main obligation is to protect the citizens that it represents. Should allowing itself to be prosecuted for a violation of one of those laws contradict that main obligation a government has, then it should not allow itself to be prosecuted. That is pretty much my main point. I'm not really sure what the subject in question is referring to, or if it is just a general "what if" question. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Jan 5 2009, 10:56 PM Post #6 |
|
Troll
|
Consider this though: by accepting laws regarding to humanity - not laws like speeding or laws about pirating music or whatever - a country can protect the citizens it hosts. For example: say Russia starts killing citizens in Georgia (the country). Should Georgia agree to submit to an international court, then they arguably have the protection of said international court. They can mobilize with the knowledge that other members of the court will protect their rights, et cetera. It's a matter of protection for citizens because if someone tries to stomp on our citizen's human rights - not their rights granted in the US constitution - we have protection. Well, that and the United States has no worries about violating the Constitution, as we would both agree the Consitition tries it's best to prevent crimes against humanity. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Jan 5 2009, 11:57 PM Post #7 |
|
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
Then it would be beneficial for a small country like Georgia. But what sort of backing would Georgia receive from the international court? If push comed to shove, and military force had to be used to enforce its rulings, would it not be mainly American forces which would be enforcing them? In the past, UN operations have always been spearheaded by the US, and I don't see how that would change in the future. But if we applied this to the United States, such a situation doesn't really apply, since America would be mobilizing anyway. Protection of an International Court wouldn't really mean anything. Submitting to such laws would have a pro, and a con. The Pro, is that they protect you when you are the victim. The con is that it allows you to be prosecuted as the villain. The United States really wouldn't have any use for UN protection, since its the US who normally enforces UN resolutions. So then that would only leave the possibility of the con, allowing the US to be prosecuted for something. If that makes any sense. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Jan 6 2009, 06:51 AM Post #8 |
|
Troll
|
So only more incentive for the US to agree to an international court if they're to carry out the sentencing. Normally you don't get prosecuted for going after somebody comitting human rights violations, especially after being found guilty of such by an international court. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Conan O'Brien | Jan 6 2009, 12:53 PM Post #9 |
|
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY
|
The United States ratified its involvement in the United Nations as it would a treaty. By that understanding, it IS subject to the UN's authority, if it had any that was. But I'll argue the con, simply logistically. 1. There is a perverse anti-US bias in many of the countries of the world. It would be impossible to receive a fair trial. Who would sit on it? France? Germany? The only countries where the United States in admired are Israel and Africa. 2. When the UN asked Libya, Sudan, and China to join its Commission on Human Rights, it forfeited any pretense of moral authority. Even its current Human Rights Council is nothing more than a Palestinian mouthpiece. 3. I don't see any human rights violation on the part of the United States strong enough to warrant international interference. Previous international trials have been for one thing: genocide. No one would argue the United States has ever even approached that. Other countries may make a hoopla about torture at Guantanamo, but when it comes down to it, most European countries realize the greatest threat to their security is Islamic terror. Simply put, bad idea. I'd rather see investigations in China, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and the Hamas before the Western country founded on human rights and liberties. |
~~Wind Sword
Touching. Scientology
Smartest post ever made. | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Jan 6 2009, 06:24 PM Post #10 |
|
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
I think you missed my point on the last one, Reaver. The US won't get any benefit from a UN Court backing the US, because the UN has no army, and mainly just uses the US to do its work. The United States giving the United States aid in a war is a given, so we don't care about the UN helping us, since they can't. However, then the other point I made was the direct opposite of that. Lets say the US did do something "wrong" in the UN's eyes. And then they decide to prosecute the US for something. That in no way at all that would be beneficial to the US or its people. The 'pro' of UN help is worthless to the US, just leaves the 'con' of being subjected to their judgment. Those two facts alone should be enough for the US not to submit itself under UN jurisdiction. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Jan 6 2009, 09:13 PM Post #11 |
|
Troll
|
This reminds me of a Supreme Court case: the one in which Marshall ruled that the American Government's seizure of land from the Native Americans inhabiting areas around the Mississippi River was unconstitutional. Jackson went ahead with it anyway. After explaining that the United States is the muscle of the UN, you also say we're subject to their judgment. I doubt the United States will ever take actions against itself. We do, however, benefit from joining said organization. Even if we don't recieve protection, we create a vast network of allies dedicated to the same cause. Even if we're the "main" force of the UN, if we find something to be a human rights violation we can call on other nations for support. Joining this court subjects us to much easier terms during war because we go into battles with more foreign support, money, supplies, etcetera. Should we stand against human rights violations, we get a discount and benefits when actually fighting. Plus, y'know, it helps to end crimes against humanity. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Jan 6 2009, 11:04 PM Post #12 |
|
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
We don't need to be under the banner of the UN to help "crimes against humanity".
Support with what? Even when we were going into Iraq, the UN did nothing. The reasoning at the time was because of allegations of WMDs, but that also doesn't change the fact that Saddam was guilty of many crimes against humanity. Where was UN support there? The UN itself didn't want part in it, and primarily due to anti-Americanism. We don't need to be under the umbrella of the UN to have allies help us in a war, like what Great Britain and many other countries showed us. You act as if the UN has exclusive rights to being the only people to stand against "crimes against humanity". The US can still stand against that, and not submit its sovereignty. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Jan 7 2009, 12:16 PM Post #13 |
|
Troll
|
It sure helps, especially because if, like you said, we went into Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein's "crimes against humanity' we would've had more UN support and would've easily avoided a lot of the anti-American sentiment we see around the world because we ignored the United Nations. If you want to say the United Nations was "anti-American" before we metaphorically flipped the bird to every member of the United Nations, that's arguable considering author Sergia Fabbrini that our invasion of Iraq started such heavy anti-American sentiment in Europe. They can't be against us before we give them reason to be against us. The United Nations is the ideal tool to wage war against crimes against humanity because then we avoid the anti-American response which has resulted from our attempt to stop Saddam Hussein from comitting "crimes against humanity", which I don't think the Bush Administration coined until ties to Al-Qaeda and Nuclear Weapons programs weren't found. We can avoid dealing with all this bitching. Also, you act like by subjecting ourselves to this we forfeit our sovereignty, which I find to be a gross exaggeration. As long as we don't commit crimes against humanity, we have no logical reason to fear the United Nations verbally "stripping" our power, especially because you've mentioned we're in essence the muscle of the United States. Furthermore, we don't lose control to the United Nations because we're only joining a court to prosecute human rights. We're not suddenly giving our military to UN control or adopting special laws to meet the standards of the UN, merely sitting in a court. It's comprimable to global jury duty. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Jan 7 2009, 09:16 PM Post #14 |
|
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
The fact that we would be subjecting ourselves to a court run by the UN, is nearly the exact same thing as saying the UN has the right to pass judgment and enforce their will on the US. And with the other points, it was blatantly obvious to everyone in the world that Saddam had committed crimes against humanity. But you are telling me, that simply because the US was using a different reason than that to go against him, that they would turn a blind eye to it? What sort of court designed to protect human rights would do that? Where was the UN doing anything meaningful about those crimes before the US got pissed at him? How could anyone respect an organization like that? |
|
| |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Jan 7 2009, 09:36 PM Post #15 |
|
Troll
|
Not at all. They can tell us we're comitting a human rights violation and ask for our opinion if action X is a human rights violation. THat's in now way enforcing their will on us, especially since the United States would agree that crimes against humanity are wrong. If it's our will before they try to force it on us, they can never impose it on us. Because stopping crimes against humanity involves toppling a regime without any set building plans, right? The Iraqi people would've greeted us as true liberators had we taken out some bastard tyrant who was oppressing them. We did so much damage - including the destruction of propery and acting as the catalyst for religious insurgence - that counteracts whatever good we did in ending human rights violations. You can't say: "Well golly gee, you've destroyed the barrier preventing relgious warfare in Iraq, gotten on the bad side of multiple countries, killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis, mismanaged the job, and ultimately drove Iraq into a worse state of affairs, but because you've stopped human rights violations it's allllllright.". |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate Forum · Next Topic » |
5:29 AM Nov 23
