Jump to content
gcsdebate

Agent Specification

Should the aff specify their agent?  

824 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the aff specify their agent?

    • definitely
      325
    • no way
      209
    • if they can get away with it, no
      290


Recommended Posts

true. good point. i'll give you more time :)

but any chance you can scan it in?

 

and btw? didnt the court already rule on this in Hamdi? making the case 100% non-inherent? or is your plan somehow different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
true. good point. i'll give you more time :)

but any chance you can scan it in?

 

and btw? didnt the court already rule on this in Hamdi? making the case 100% non-inherent? or is your plan somehow different?

 

Our aff deals with the Rasul decision.

 

In the Rasul decision, the Court ruled that detainees had procedural due process, i.e. they can apply for habeas corpus, but the government can reject the application.

 

Our aff would give them substantive due process, which would mean the right to actually have their case heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2004 the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the government’s policies on detaining terrorism suspects. Following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 (see September 11 Attacks), the U.S. military detained as “enemy combatants” hundreds of foreign nationals who were captured during hostilities in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Two U.S. citizens were also classified as enemy combatants. Acting under the authority of the president, the military claimed the right to imprison and interrogate such individuals indefinitely without access to a lawyer or any court. However, in two key cases—Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush—the Court rejected such expansive presidential powers. Although the Court upheld the president’s authority to classify both citizens and noncitizens as enemy combatants, it ruled that the government must allow them lawyers and the right to challenge their detention in court. O’Connor wrote in Hamdi: “We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens.”

 

still non-inherent?

 

 

additionally, do you extend this right to all detainees or only US citizens? if all, on what constitutional grounds do you extend the right to all detainees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The petitions had been filed following the US Supreme Court’s decision of 28 June 2004, Rasul v. Bush, which held that the federal courts “have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detentions of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantánamo Bay”.171 The decision was widely welcomed as a first step to restoring the rule of law to Guantánamo, but the US administration has sought to drain it of real meaning, and to keep any review of the

detentions as narrow and as far from a judicial process as possible.172

For this, the US Supreme Court bears some responsibility. Judge Green, for one, “would have welcomed a clearer declaration in the Rasul opinion regarding the specific constitutional and other substantive rights” of the detainees.173 However, the executive is not forced to adopt a regressive interpretation of narrowly-defined Supreme Court opinions. A government, not least one which promotes itself as a progressive force for human rights,

should do all it can to ensure that its conduct conforms to domestic and international law without waiting for the courts to order it to do so. Regrettably, in its “war on terror” detention policy, the US administration has opted for executive fiat over the rule of law and hypocrisy

over human rights. Even the current Attorney General has admitted thatthe US administration’s post-Rasul stance would be unlikely to “meet international scrutiny”.174 In a press release issued immediately after the Rasul ruling, the US Justice Department interpreted it as holding that “individuals detained by the United States as enemy combatants have certain procedural rights to contest their detention”.175 The Department’s use of the word “procedural”, rather than “substantive”, is telling. It would later argue in the DC District Court that the Guantánamo detainees had no grounds under constitutional, federal or international law on which to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. In other words, according to the administration’s Kafkaesque vision for Guantánamo, the Rasul ruling should

be interpreted as mandating no more than a purely procedural right – the detainees could file habeas corpus petitions, but only in order to have them necessarily dismissed. Any further action would be an “unprecedented judicial intervention into the conduct of war operations, based on the extraordinary, and unfounded, proposition that aliens captured outside this

country’s borders and detained outside the territorial sovereignty of the United States can claim rights under the US Constitution”.176 This was the same position the administration had adopted before the Rasul ruling.

 

 

still inherent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if i get the time and opportunity, i'll even write the ENTIRE 1nc and post it... in which case you can have three minutes for the xx time and one more of prep for four minutes :)

 

Well, to make it fair, i think you should evaluate the the time it takes to read the cp/disad or whatever in a real world situation (For example, if what you posted was long enough, it might take one or two minutes to read the arguments alone) in addition to the other problems you stated above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The petitions had been filed following the US Supreme Court’s decision of 28 June 2004, Rasul v. Bush, which held that the federal courts “have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detentions of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantánamo Bay”.171 The decision was widely welcomed as a first step to restoring the rule of law to Guantánamo, but the US administration has sought to drain it of real meaning, and to keep any review of the

detentions as narrow and as far from a judicial process as possible.172

For this, the US Supreme Court bears some responsibility. Judge Green, for one, “would have welcomed a clearer declaration in the Rasul opinion regarding the specific constitutional and other substantive rights” of the detainees.173 However, the executive is not forced to adopt a regressive interpretation of narrowly-defined Supreme Court opinions. A government, not least one which promotes itself as a progressive force for human rights,

should do all it can to ensure that its conduct conforms to domestic and international law without waiting for the courts to order it to do so. Regrettably, in its “war on terror” detention policy, the US administration has opted for executive fiat over the rule of law and hypocrisy

over human rights. Even the current Attorney General has admitted thatthe US administration’s post-Rasul stance would be unlikely to “meet international scrutiny”.174 In a press release issued immediately after the Rasul ruling, the US Justice Department interpreted it as holding that “individuals detained by the United States as enemy combatants have certain procedural rights to contest their detention”.175 The Department’s use of the word “procedural”, rather than “substantive”, is telling. It would later argue in the DC District Court that the Guantánamo detainees had no grounds under constitutional, federal or international law on which to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. In other words, according to the administration’s Kafkaesque vision for Guantánamo, the Rasul ruling should

be interpreted as mandating no more than a purely procedural right – the detainees could file habeas corpus petitions, but only in order to have them necessarily dismissed. Any further action would be an “unprecedented judicial intervention into the conduct of war operations, based on the extraordinary, and unfounded, proposition that aliens captured outside this

country’s borders and detained outside the territorial sovereignty of the United States can claim rights under the US Constitution”.176 This was the same position the administration had adopted before the Rasul ruling.

 

 

still inherent?

 

 

no. that evidence reaffirms the previous evidence i found when researching this. the surpeme court has already ruled on this issue. your plan text is the current supreme court ruling.

its that the executive branch and the US DoJ which are in continual defiance of the supreme court ruling through various means at their disposal, aka the kafkaesque bit.

the court has already ruled that substantive due process rights exist for detainees given the title of enemy combatant. to my limited linguistic knowledge, thats exactly what your plan text does...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no. that evidence reaffirms the previous evidence i found when researching this. the surpeme court has already ruled on this issue. your plan text is the current supreme court ruling.

its that the executive branch and the US DoJ which are in continual defiance of the supreme court ruling through various means at their disposal, aka the kafkaesque bit.

the court has already ruled that substantive due process rights exist for detainees given the title of enemy combatant. to my limited linguistic knowledge, thats exactly what your plan text does...

 

the SC only ruled on procedural grounds in the Rasul decision hence

 

Judge Green, for one, “would have welcomed a clearer declaration in the Rasul opinion regarding the specific constitutional and other substantive rights” of the detainees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

clear doesnt mean the SC didnt do it. it means the SC was a bit vague about it. and if the SC was clear about it in hamdi, why does rasul matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Def, especially on a topic such as civil liberties or any other domestic topic cuz agent ground is key, on something like the UN it was less abusive as the actors didnt have to be solely within the US to have legit solvency, this all should be debated in round of course lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beleive it shouldnt be specifiied unless asked.... Me personally this year, I advocated all three braches so i got A-Spec allot but like its no biggie just more ground for the Neg to Attack we didnt spike out and if we did call abuse we woulda lost but no one ever did cause we never spiked

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Aff should specify. If they don't and you get up there to read a Courts CP, they reply with, "We use the Courts" Its totally abusive

 

 

 

 

 

Duh! its is totally abusive to run hard cases against an opponent when they dont expect it but what if they run a gitmo or data mining case, those two are the most comon this year!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...that's why CX is so useful. They use the USFG within Plan, then ask them in CX if they use all 3 branches or a single one. IF they continue to say USFG run A-Spec and say Courts claiming by them not specifying their agent they can't simply spike out of the courts CP...if the judge allows them to do so within a round then run 3 mins of Courts bad in the 2n with an XO counterplan...sure you can get into a theory debate about how abusive a CP is in the 2 (because there are NO rules saying it cannot be ran in the 2)but you will also win the theory debate because it will ultimately backlash upon the aff for not specidying the agent in the 1st CX

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think regardless of the competition of agent counterplans, specificiation is a question of topicality under the word authority, which requires a division of power between two branches, I.E. the USFG as a monolith cant decrease its own authority because it would retain discretion. Therefore, the only topical affirmatives are those that have the Court decrease the Executive's Authority or the Congress decrease the Executive's Authority, etc.

I'd just like to point out that this interpretation of authority is not the definition of the authority currently used by the government, and, if taken seriously, moots half the resolution.

In fact, the entire Justice Department, Department of Defense, and at least one Supreme Court Justice reject this definition of authority (not to mention a healthy portion of constitutional law professors).

 

Plan: The United States Supreme Court should rule on substantive dueprocess grounds that executive authority to detain enemy combatants without charge is limited by a judcial habeas corpus determination to verify that the executive branch has not wrongfully classified

individuals as "enemy combatants," and rule that the executive must

end the detention without charge of wrongfully classified individuals.

The United States Congress should enforce this ruling.

I'd also like to point out that this particular plan text is impossible to implement.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are the agents the very specific part of one branch of the government that enacts plan?

 

Just a branch. I haven't seen any team specify beyond that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so thats what ASPEC is i suppose?

 

Right. The Agency-Specification argument is that you specified which agent (branch of the government) does the plan and that's bad.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right. The Agency-Specification argument is that you specified which agent (branch of the government) does the plan and that's bad.

No. It's the other way around. The Affirmative's Plan Text didn't specify, but they should (have).

 

Over-Specification (O-Spec) is what you described.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell you what, if you spec your agent as part of plan I wont run A SPEC.

 

No promises on T and O SPEC though ;)

 

I don't think the negative is entitled to everything, but they should at least be entitled to SOMETHING. You should generally be good for DAs and T/Theory, and the occaisonal CP if the aff is just too good to argue the case. Ks are something else.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...