Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MSUBound2006

a substantial shift in the topic, a substantial death in the topic...

Recommended Posts

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-121605patriot_lat,0,842023.story?coll=la-home-headlines

 

I mean this means that there is no more torture type cases like GITMO bc bush is going to sign the ban torture bill and PA cases are arguably non topical. Thoughts opinions, arguments against?

 

 

love

jamie

nhs 2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that a lot of the Gitmo stuff still stands, at least, if the case harms are derived from a ban of torture or not.

 

Although this news could mitigate the inherency of cases like rendition, I doubt that it will really help against cases like Gitmo. Most of these cases say that torture = done by guards, not approved by exec. anyhow, so a lot of the case harms are still there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

plus it doesn't change the fact that all the torture already happened in gitmo

 

Even still torture wont happen anymore, and that's the key.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even still torture wont happen anymore, and that's the key.

You must be joking. Let me get this straight, you actually believe that just because we sign a bill against torture that it wont happen any more? Now lets take a moment to sit back and tally the number of times the U.S. has "practiced what they preach", for lack of better term. Don’t be naive. I mean, your most legitimate argument would be that since there already is a law and we still torture, nothing would change post plan...But all the aff would have to prove is that case is 1% better then the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could still make the claim not because of the bill, it wont be tolerated, meaning if theres a claim then it will be investigated and if found true, than tried. Basically saying the status quo is fixin itself. Or trying to atleast.

 

But I agree, signing the bill probably wont mean much in terms of GITMO.

 

EX.We signed Geneva right? But I dont believe its being practiced thoroughly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you kidding me? The rez DOES NOT mandate that we need to stop torture, that's just what all of you non-topical assholes have been running. The rez mandates a decrease in USFG authority to detain without charge. Detainees in GTMO still don't come to trial, thus plans that are actually topical aren't affected. This does shift the ground with regards to Patriot Act cases and a lot of the searches affs though.

 

Oh, and Ext. Rend. is non-topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its more like an adj takeout card perhaps. Ya know, like their plan solves for the detainment without charge, and if the people being detained were being tortured in their detainment, than surely they'll have an adj ( Or its considered part of Solvency) that torture will no longer occur.

 

Basically the card could apply to almost any case stating torture as a harm. So if you were going on stock issues and On -case arguements, thats just a niffy thing to have against any torture evidence

 

Status quo is fixing that problem now, Aff doesnt claim that adj as its going to happen without or with their plan, so You can flow that to neg side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you kidding me? The rez DOES NOT mandate that we need to stop torture, that's just what all of you non-topical assholes have been running. The rez mandates a decrease in USFG authority to detain without charge. Detainees in GTMO still don't come to trial, thus plans that are actually topical aren't affected. This does shift the ground with regards to Patriot Act cases and a lot of the searches affs though.

 

Oh, and Ext. Rend. is non-topical.

If you would think a little bit before posting, you would probably sounds a little more intelligent

 

More than likely, the act of "stopping torture" people have been referring to is either A) an advantage that a case like gitmo would solve or B) they have defined torture as a search of the mind. Assuming thats what it was, they would be at least be topical assholes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you would think a little bit before posting, you would probably sounds a little more intelligent

 

More than likely, the act of "stopping torture" people have been referring to is either A) an advantage that a case like gitmo would solve or B) they have defined torture as a search of the mind. Assuming thats what it was, they would be at least be topical assholes

Really. God damn government and their "solving problems."

 

If the government did nothing, then this affirmative business would be 10 time easier.

 

At least I won't hear SAFE Act again this year. This = a plus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of advantages and impacts stemming from holding people in a cell indefinitely without charging them with a crime.

 

I, for one, am happy to see this happen for reasons not related to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the inherency was that Bush aloud torture, than yeah in that case, it does take out part of the inh. But if thats the only inherency you have, than I would have agree that the case is untopical. Mainly cause the Inherency should be something that has to do with 'Detainment without charge' or ' searching without probable cause'.

 

If its part of the inherency that lead to harms and/or adjs, than it yes, it would take out THAT part of the inherency. You'd still have to argue the detainment or search part of the inherency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...