Jump to content
Sugarhooker

Ideas on T for Rendition?

Recommended Posts

My partner and I are running an ER case and I realize that alot of people think it isn't topical, however, if you interpret the resolution as "The USFG should substaintially decrease its authority to detain without charge" as the government should simply decrease its authority to detain w/o charge, in america or else where would it then be topical? Since the resolution doesn't specify that it must detain w/o charge on US soil, would that get around the T arguments? Any other ideas how to get around the T violations?

 

Also, we were thinking of adding PDD 62 to our plan text and have the exectuive branch declare an EO nullifying PDD 62, would that be too specific? And does any one know if PDD 62 is already expired? Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My partner and I are running an ER case and I realize that alot of people think it isn't topical, however, if you interpret the resolution as "The USFG should substaintially decrease its authority to detain without charge" as the government should simply decrease its authority to detain w/o charge, in america or else where would it then be topical? Since the resolution doesn't specify that it must detain w/o charge on US soil, would that get around the T arguments? Any other ideas how to get around the T violations?

 

Also, we were thinking of adding PDD 62 to our plan text and have the exectuive branch declare an EO nullifying PDD 62, would that be too specific? And does any one know if PDD 62 is already expired? Thanks!

 

As for the T, your argument is a true one; it doesn't matter where the decrease takes place, as long as it decreases USfg's authority.

 

I've seen the XO version of this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topicality issue isn't about location. The topicality issue is about detention per se and the treatment given to people being detained. A plan that says we will no longer render detainees overseas decreases the USFG's "authority to detain without charge" not one whit. Your plan regulates what may be done with people once they have been detained, but does not address the question of the government's legal power to detain them in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The topicality issue isn't about location. The topicality issue is about detention per se and the treatment given to people being detained. A plan that says we will no longer render detainees overseas decreases the USFG's "authority to detain without charge" not one whit. Your plan regulates what may be done with people once they have been detained, but does not address the question of the government's legal power to detain them in the first place.

Shuman brings up an interesting point, but I still think ER is completely topical.

For instance, when the word "rendition" was being in used in the 1980s for cases such as Verdugo and Alvarez, it meant kidnapping drug criminals and bringing them to the US to prosecute them for drug crimes. In these cases, the Supreme Court did not hold that such "renditions" were illegal, and let the criminal convictions stand. So, there is a clear contextual argument that the USFG has the authority to conduct renditions.

Extraordinary renditions is a new term of art, referring to the kidnapping of terror suspects for the purpose of transferring them to other countries for interrogation (usually countries that use torture as part of their interrogation techniques). This is why I think Shuman's analysis falls apart. The only difference between "renditions" and "extraordinary renditions" is the motive behind the kidnapping. Since the ACTION is still the same (kidnapping an individual outside of US territory), I don't see why ER is NOT topical, while rendition IS topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is why I think Shuman's analysis falls apart.
I think not... ;)
The only difference between "renditions" and "extraordinary renditions" is the motive behind the kidnapping.
Says who? Jane Mayer in The New Yorker? What is relevant, as always, in assessing the topicality of the plan is what it DOES, not what case side talks about. No ER plan I've heard actually outright prohibits these kidnapings; they only seek to criminalize/ban shipping the detainees to places where they'll be tortured. THAT, sir, does NOT involve taking a topical action. So long as I can still kidnap at will, my authority to detain without charge has not been decreased. In order to be topical, Affplan would have to abolish the practice of actually, you know, GRABBING the terror suspects for interrogation in the first place. And no Aff in their right mind really wants to risk that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is why I think Shuman's analysis falls apart.
I think not... ;)
The only difference between "renditions" and "extraordinary renditions" is the motive behind the kidnapping.
Says who? Jane Mayer in The New Yorker? What is relevant, as always, in assessing the topicality of the plan is what it DOES, not what case side talks about. No ER plan I've heard actually outright prohibits these kidnapings; they only seek to criminalize/ban shipping the detainees to places where they'll be tortured. THAT, sir, does NOT involve taking a topical action. So long as I can still kidnap at will, my authority to detain without charge has not been decreased. In order to be topical, Affplan would have to abolish the practice of actually, you know, GRABBING the terror suspects for interrogation in the first place. And no Aff in their right mind really wants to risk that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with shuman. Banning ER just means we won't send anyone to a torturing country for interrogation. But what next? Do we just let them go? No. We still detain them. Thus, there is no decrease in gov't authority to detain w/o charge. Allowing ER would be more topical than banning it. Detainees will be put under another country's jurisdiction, not ours. So, the USFG authority is decreased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with shuman. Banning ER just means we won't send anyone to a torturing country for interrogation. But what next? Do we just let them go? No. We still detain them. Thus, there is no decrease in gov't authority to detain w/o charge. Allowing ER would be more topical than banning it. Detainees will be put under another country's jurisdiction, not ours. So, the USFG authority is decreased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Says who?

Many legal scholars including The Committee on International Human Rights.

 

In order to be topical, Affplan would have to abolish the practice of actually, you know, GRABBING the terror suspects for interrogation in the first place. And no Aff in their right mind really wants to risk that...

Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many legal scholars including The Committee on International Human Rights.
Frankly, I'm likelier to believe Jane Mayer... ;)
Why not?
Who knows? Debaters are such idiots these days. I would imagine they fear linking to some Terrorism DA...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My partner and I are running an ER case and I realize that alot of people think it isn't topical, however, if you interpret the resolution as "The USFG should substaintially decrease its authority to detain without charge" as the government should simply decrease its authority to detain w/o charge, in america or else where would it then be topical? Since the resolution doesn't specify that it must detain w/o charge on US soil, would that get around the T arguments? Any other ideas how to get around the T violations?

 

Also, we were thinking of adding PDD 62 to our plan text and have the exectuive branch declare an EO nullifying PDD 62, would that be too specific? And does any one know if PDD 62 is already expired? Thanks!

 

T- Detain

A. [insert detain def.]

B. Violation- Deportion, not detention

 

Just toss in some standards and voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...