Jump to content
lazyass06

Guantanamo Bay Work Group

Recommended Posts

Plan Text...hmmm:

 

The United States Federal Government will substancially reduce its authority to detain without charge by placing charges against the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay. The prisoners will receive legal councel and receive trial. The time frame will be 6 months. Enforcement will be through the State Department. Funding is by normal means.

 

Just a first draft idea.

 

FYI: I forget if I posted here or not but I'm interested in the project and will contribute however. coolmew@gmail.com AIM: Archmagecoolmew

 

Now for me to look for solvancy cards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this sounds like a real good idea, and i think ive got some applicable stuff, but what kinds of solvency cards are u looking for explicitly?

 

AIM: Debaterfun331

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we need solvency that says that if we release the prisioners we will regain soft power/ multilateralism/ relations/ whateva

 

also, if u want to run it criticaly (which I hope every 1 is doing) it depends on ur plan text

 

I demand that the USFG do stuff to the prisoners so for a plan like that i need movement S or whateva (bit harder 2 find)

 

I'm done (4 the most part) w/ my 1ac. I only got cards from 1 dude so he'ss the only 1 that gets it. If u want it u must prove urself worthy (send me 10 GOOD cards, and don't send me 10 Khazaliad or something that any1 can find by looking thru this site. These can be 4 any part of the AFF(T blox, 2ac A/T whateva) JUST MAKE THEM NOT SUCK)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want a plan text...

 

The United States Federal Government should substantially decrease its authority to detain without charge by placing charges against the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. The prisoners will recieve legal counsel and a trial in the U.S. Military Justice System. If the United states Federal Government fails to place charges against a prisoner within a 6 month period they will be released in accordance with International Law.

 

How's that? I have some good solvency involving military tribunals and meeting international law. I am still looking for solvency specifically about multilat and relations so you might want to look for that.

 

Your friend, Mezriss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not totally sure if this will help, but I figure why not submit it (couldn't hurt):

 

THOSE HELD AT GUANTANAMO BAY SHOULD BE PROMTLY CHARGED OR ELSE RELEASED

Amnesty International, 2003 (November 26th, "Guantanamo detainees: Human rights are not negociable")

 

"The right of detainees to challenge the lawfulness of their detention is a fundamental principle of international law. The executive should not wait for the Supreme Court to rule. After all, the USA’s National Security Strategy includes the assertion that "America must stand firmly for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity", including "the rule of law" and "limits on the absolute power of the state". President Bush has repeated this assertion on several occasions. He should act now to bring an end to the legal black hole his administration has created in Guantánamo Bay. All those held there should be promptly charged, brought to fair trial in full accordance with international standards, or else released."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"if you want it ill be happy 2 email it 2 u but u first must send me some cards"

 

Oh, if you want me to email you instead of posting stuff here then that's fine too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been working on a anti-terrorism legislation aff that says the War on Terror is really bad for some really good reasons. If interested i will post the outline of the 1AC i wrote. The reason this applies to this thread is that GTMO is a advantage of the case and it works really well with any type of judging pannel.

 

If you want I can post it and see what you guys want to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Act 1: The political Phantom

 

 

Only Months and in some countries days, civil liberties became a thing of the past. 9-11 accelerated emergency procedures to make anti-terrorism legislation an exception to a rule that is never broken, our civil liberties.

 

 

Paye’ in 2004(Jean-Claude, “The State of Emergency as the Empire’s Mode of GovernanceApril 4th 2005)

 

 

 

 

Thus our Plan and Framework for the Debate:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Act 2: The Deconstruction of the Normative System

 

 

1. The War on Terror marked a fundamental break in Western Political Structure. As we entrench Anti-Terrorist Legislation we allow for a suspension of rights and an increase of Violence. But as we make the State of Emergency the Normative Legal Status we become complex with a system of death, which is the State of Emergency.

 

 

Paye’ in 2004 (Jean-Claude, “The State of Emergency as the Empire’s Mode of GovernanceApril 4th 2005)

 

 

2. Normative Thought makes REAL social change impossible. Under Normative thought our visions for change and political action quickly become implausible. We begin living a false social life which prevents real discourse change. While our role-playing in the round may be educational it will never be able to truly affect us, only by dismantling the normative thought in debate and policymaking will we be able to control and fix our OWN social Machine. We will be able to destroy the Puppeteer’s hold over the puppet and give it real freedom. And while our affirmative may not solve for all normative thought we are put at a level where we can slowly destroy Normative thought.

 

Schlag ’91 (Pierre, June 1991, Prof. of Law at the Univ. of Col. “ The Problem and the Subject” L/N)

 

 

But the subject is a problem. We have already seen how the subject becomes a problem for various kinds of contemporary legal thought and their projects. The problem arises as each school recognizes that its own intellectual architecture, its own normative ambitions rest upon the presupposition of a subject -- a subject whose epistemic, ontological, and normative status is now very much in question.

 

Now this is not simply an intellectual problem; it has political implications. The political implications are easy to describe. The constitution of legal thinkers and others as conscious sovereign individual subjects produces a politics that works perfectly -- assuming that we do indeed [*1739] have conscious sovereign individual subjects situated to control the levers of the social machinery. n425

 

Once articulated, however, that vision fast becomes implausible. In the legal academy, this vision of social life is maintained by an elite of legal thinkers who systematically confirm themselves in this vision by relentlessly rehearsing its aesthetic. They seem to be either incapable or unwilling to recognize that this conventional aesthetic of social life is fast becoming unbelievable.

Now, the resistance of legal academics to a reconsideration of the conventional aesthetic of the liberal subject is easy to understand. If the liberal subject disappears from the scene, a number of very troublesome questions immediately surface: who (or what) is controlling the levers running the social machinery? n426 And if there's no one operating the levers, then what has been the effect of all that good, admirable, serious, normative legal thought? n427

 

As legal thinkers, we like to think we are doing good, normative legal work--advancing noble causes and the like -- but if the liberal subject is no longer operating the levers, our work product can take on a different character. We may simply be rehearsing and reproducing the instrumentalist logic of bureaucratic practices. n428 Indeed, the main significance of noble normative work is in the rehearsal of a false aesthetic of social life--one which falsely represents

instrumentalist strategies as within the control of individual subjects

the unfolding of bureaucratic logic as the choices of individuals

the discursive mechanisms of coercion as normative dialogue.

Now, there is nothing wrong with instrumental control in and of [*1740] itself. Indeed, instrumental control is often valued--it bears names like efficiency, effectiveness, and wisdom. But the supposition that instrumental control is desirable presupposes that there is an epistemically and normatively competent subject at the levers. And that is precisely what is being thrown in question: if the subject is constituted by its discourses and its context, who or what is in charge? n429

Viewed in this light, we can understand normative legal thought not as a noble attempt to criticize and reform the structures and practices of bureaucratic domination, but rather as a kind of discourse that has already been unconsciously captivated by those very same structures and practices. The pathways, the issues, the problems of normative legal thought are already constituted by bureaucratic domination. That is why normative legal thought can seem at once normatively ineffectual and unappealing. Rather than contributing to our understanding or to the realization of the good or the right, all this normative argument simply perpetuates a false aesthetic of social life -- one that prevents "us" n430 from even recognizing the sort of bureaucratic practices that constitute and channel our thought and action.

The plausibility of this sort of systemic misrepresentation is evident as one considers that the governing criteria of knowledge in legal thought -- of what counts as good argument -- are invariably represented in terms of reason, yet are closely linked to a conception of power as instrumental control. Among the regulative criteria for sound legal thought, the following recur frequently:

1. representational accuracy n431

2. consensual acceptability n432

3. coherence n433

4. elegance n434

5. sweep n435

6. determinacy n436

7. realizability. n437

[*1741] These aesthetic criteria, which are usually represented as related to the form and content of truth are used to assess the value of theory. n438 These are the regulative discursive criteria that authorize the stock of arguments and objections of much of contemporary legal thought. Yet, these regulative aesthetic criteria are also linked to instrumental control.

3. We can reject the normative system through rejections of the decision-making process. Voting for the affirmative or negative is doing northing more than allowing for the puppeteer to make his or her strings stronger. But, the rejection of Sovereignty, the rejection of the State of Emergency will allow us to reject the monopoly of State violence. This is unique to our affirmative because the War on Terror and anti-terrorist legislation that has allowed for the Decision-Making processes that our author talk about making us a unique net-benefit even if the negative can reject normative legal though also. Essentially we are the only feasible alternative to the Status Quo.

 

Paye’ in 2004 (Jean-Claude, “The State of Emergency as the Empire’s Mode of GovernanceApril 4th 2004)

Act 3: The Perfomative Enemy

 

 

The United States engaged in a war we can never win. In fact, the War on Terror has instituted a permanent state of emergency that has allowed for the biopolitcal control of life. Camp X-ray is a camp that is outside the law but inside United States jurisdiction which has put the enemy of freedom, the terrorist, the other, on the lines of humanity and inhumanity.

 

 

Whyte, 2004 (Jess, “The Human is a battleground”)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. The War on Terror has presented a New World that has used old techniques. The torture and abuse that happens because of the War on Terror in the name of Anti-Terrorism has shown that the Homo Sacer in us all is at risk when one group is put outside the law. We need to remember that the Terrorist are winning, that torture is nothing more than a liberal illusion and that we must do everything we can to rejection this reasoning.

 

 

Zizek, 2002 (Are we in a War? Do we have an Enemy? Slavoj, Sr. Researcher At the Lujlibanaja )

 

 

3. Bipower impacts.

 

 

Act 4: The Ballot

 

 

1. Voting for the affirmative allows us to deconstruct true enemies through performance. Our construction of friend/Enemy doesn’t solve because the reality is the Enemy is invisible. As we find and destroy one enemy we soon find and destroy another and another until we have destroyed ourselves. But through performance we can bring the ‘enemy’s’ true face. The dis-advantages to plan can turn into advantages with the ballot.

 

 

Zizek, 2002 (Are we in a War? Do we have an Enemy?)

 

 

 

 

2. The ballot will be able to overidentify with the current systems of oppression. By rejecting the State and using performance we will be able to create a “Ironic Irony” that can create a true freedom and a subjected freedom that is not controlled by the state. Only the affirmative can solve for the “Iron distancing” that was presented by the 1AC.

 

 

Cliff, 2002 (STAFFORD, “Zizeks letter of Irony”, April 20002)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello, i have 40 or so applicable cards for 2ac stuff for the kritical and non-k version. However i am unsure of who to send this to and who is in charge. Please PM me with details and on who is putting everythign together and has the all the parts, for right now everyone kinda seems liek they are doing their own thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please, Tommy, save yourself from ridicule.

 

Haha..sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like a cool idea, i'm down for it.

 

IM: ironyiscool

 

how about a plan text that goes something like:

 

The United States Federal Government should imprison no one in Guatanamo Bay without proven illegal acts, as outlined by the Geneva Convention(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some softpower cards for advantages taken from a gitmo case i have...who do i email it to to get everythign compiled in return?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, like three different people have said that they will organize it. Which one do I send to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zendeh, you sent me the 1ac and i need you to explain some things for me:

 

1. How do you link this case to the soft power advantage?

 

2. on the biopwer advantage...how does the moral obligation apply? the card says "it is the duty of each of us individuals and collectively to see that these rights are always protected"

 

3. The only critikal aff i ever ran was a kulynych intelligence aff this year...can you explain the solvency?

 

Besides those questions i like it and i will continue reading it and cutting cards

 

by the way i think these could be possible cp's against the case...

 

"One proposed solution would see the transfer of Afghan, Yemeni, and Saudi prisoners to new U.S.-built facilities located in and operated by their home nations. Another, backed by the CIA, would send the detainees to general facilities located in Egypt, Jordan, and Afghanistan.

 

And then, most frighteningly, there is the Pentagon's proposal: the creation of Camp 6, a $25 million state-of-the-art detention facility constructed specifically for the internment of Guantanamo prisoners."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...