Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

135 Excellent

About Essariel

  • Rank
    Whatever Being
  1. June 13, 2008 Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal in Civilian Courts By DAVID STOUT http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/washington/12cnd-gitmo.html?pagewanted=print WASHINGTON — Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention there in United States courts, the Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Thursday in a historic decision on the balance between personal liberties and national security. “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court. The ruling came in the latest battle between the executive branch, Congress and the courts over how to cope with dangers to the country in the post-9/11 world. Although there have been enough rulings addressing that issue to confuse all but the most diligent scholars, this latest decision, in Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195, may be studied for years to come. In a harsh rebuke of the Bush administration, the justices rejected the administration’s argument that the individual protections provided by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 were more than adequate. “The costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody,” Justice Kennedy wrote, assuming the pivotal role that some court-watchers had foreseen. President Bush, speaking in Rome at a news conference with Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, said: “We’ll abide by the court’s decision. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. It was a deeply divided court, and, I strongly agree with those who dissented.” The president said the administration would work with Congress to see what measures could be devised to deal with the detainees. The issues that were weighed in Thursday’s ruling went to the very heart of the separation-of-powers foundation of the United States Constitution. “To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, say ‘what the law is,’ ” Justice Kennedy wrote, citing language in the 1803 ruling in Marbury v. Madison, in which the Supreme Court articulated its power to review acts of Congress. Joining Justice Kennedy’s opinion were Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. Writing separately, Justice Souter said the dissenters did not sufficiently appreciate “the length of the disputed imprisonments, some of the prisoners represented here today having been locked up for six years.” The dissenters were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, generally considered the conservative wing on the high court. Reflecting how the case divided the court not only on legal but, perhaps, emotional lines, Justice Scalia said that the United States was “at war with radical Islamists,” and that the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to get killed.” “The nation will live to regret what the court has done today,” Justice Scalia said. And Chief Justice Roberts said the majority had struck down “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants,” and in doing so had left itself open to accusations of “judicial activism.” The chief justice said the majority had gutted the Detainee Treatment Act without really giving it a chance. “And to what effect?” he wrote. “The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the people’s representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date.” Indeed, the immediate effects of the ruling are not clear. For instance, Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, told The Associated Press he had no information on whether a hearing at Guantánamo for Omar Khadr, a Canadian charged with killing an American soldier in Afghanistan, would go forward next week, as planned. Nor was it initially clear what effects the ruling would have beyond Guantánamo. The 2006 Military Commission Act stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions filed by detainees challenging the bases for their confinement. That law was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in February 2007. At issue were the “combatant status review tribunals,” made up of military officers, that the administration set up to validate the initial determination that a detainee deserved to be labeled an “enemy combatant.” The military assigns a “personal representative” to each detainee, but defense lawyers may not take part. Nor are the tribunals required to disclose to the detainee details of the evidence or witnesses against him — rights that have long been enjoyed by defendants in American civilian and military courts. Under the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, detainees may appeal decisions of the military tribunals to the District of Columbia Circuit, but only under circumscribed procedures, which include a presumption that the evidence before the military tribunal was accurate and complete. The ruling on Thursday focused in large part on the centuries old writ of habeas corpus (“you have the body,” in Latin), a means by which prisoners can challenge their incarceration. Noting that the Constitution provides for suspension of the writ only in times of rebellion or invasion, Justice Kennedy called it “an indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers.” In the years-long debate over the treatment of detainees, some critics of administration policy have asserted that those held at Guantánamo have fewer rights than people accused of crimes under American civilian and military law and that they are trapped in a sort of legal limbo. Justice Kennedy wrote that the cases involving the detainees “lack any precise historical parallel. They involve individuals detained by executive order for the duration of a conflict that, if measure from September 11, 2001, to the present, is already among the longest wars in American history.” The detainees at the center of the case decided on Thursday are not all typical of the people confined at Guantánamo. True, the majority were captured in Afghanistan or Pakistan. But the man who gave the case its title, Lakhdar Boumediene, is one of six Algerians who immigrated to Bosnia in the 1990’s and were legal residents there. They were arrested by Bosnian police within weeks of the Sept. 11 attacks on suspicion of plotting to attack the United States embassy in Sarajevo — “plucked from their homes, from their wives and children,” as their lawyer, Seth P. Waxman, a former solicitor general put it in the argument before the justices on Dec. 5. The Supreme Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina ordered them released three months later for lack of evidence, whereupon the Bosnian police seized them and turned them over to the United States military, which sent them to Guantánamo. Mr. Waxman argued before the United States Supreme Court that the six Algerians did not fit any authorized definition of enemy combatant, and therefore ought to be released. The head of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents dozens of prisoners at Guantánamo, hailed the ruling. “The Supreme Court has finally brought an end to one of our nation’s most egregious injustices,” Vincent Warren, the organization’s executive director, told The Associated Press. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has called for closing the Guantánamo detention unit. President Bush has called for closing it eventually. So has Senator John McCain of Arizona, the apparent Republican presidential nominee, but the issue of what to do with the detainees could still figure prominently in the campaign, as Mr. McCain’s remarks on Thursday signaled. Speaking to reporters in Boston on Thursday morning, Mr. McCain said he had not had time to read the decision, but “it obviously concerns me.” “These are unlawful combatants, they’re not American citizens, and I think that we should pay attention to Justice Roberts’s opinion in this decision,” Mr. McCain said. "But it is a decision the Supreme Court had made, and now we need to move forward." Mr. McCain, who was held for more than five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, was one of the chief architects of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. He argued during the drafting of that law that it gave detainees more than adequate provisions to challenge their detention.” Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, applauded the ruling. “Today, the Supreme Court affirmed what almost everyone but the administration and their defenders in Congress always knew,” he said. “The Constitution and the rule of law bind all of us even in extraordinary times of war. No one is above the Constitution.” Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said: “When Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in 2006, Senator Kennedy called the act ‘fatally flawed’ and said ‘its evisceration of the writ of habeas corpus for all noncitizens is almost surely unconstitutional.’ Today, the Supreme Court agreed, and rejected the Bush administration’s blatant attempt to create a legal black hole beyond the reach of the rule of law.” Kate Zernike contributed reporting from Boston.
  2. Damien GC was negative. They went for a pic. The plan provides funding to family planning regardless of whether or not they support abortion- counterplan does the same except that they won't give funding to organizations that do abortions on mothers who have HIV. NB is that if we allow abortions for hiv positive mothers we'll coerce them into abortions which destroys souls, impact is Zimmerman. The decision was a 2-1, and came down to whether or not the counter plan was competitive.
  3. That is an incredibly competitive pool for a semi's bid... **tells his bookie to put money on this being a quarters next year.**
  4. Who writes a plan text that says give usaid money for what its 'currently doing'? More likely plan says 'give funding to us aid for malaria prevention, or etc.' Malaria prevention or whatever doesn't require that the government spend money in a specific way, i.e. the ineffective ways that Brownback identifies. Hence the permutation does not sever when they argue- give the money the plan mandates, but "force them to spend it properly." Heck, they could argue that forcing them to spend it on malaria prevention IMPLIED that they would spend money more efficiently, even if it wasn't specifically stated in plan text. While it is true that if someone states they will defend status quo aid in plan text would lose to this cp, they would have to be singularly silly to do so. Such a team could just as easily be beaten on ospec or normativity. More importantly though, this counterplan will not work against 99.9% of funding affirmatives, and therefore is not a particularly interesting/good strategy.
  5. Also, the real strat against funding only aff's is have x organization (preferably) Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, do plan. ptix/spending/etc. net benefit.
  6. You say the perm is illegit because is "lets them off the hook for their laziness." The fact that the affirmative may be lazy is not a reason why your counter plan is competitive. More importantly, laziness is subjective. I would argue that you are even more lazy for not running a counterplan that is a opportunity cost to the plan. Substantially T checks back the sq + dollar cp. Also, I'm pretty sure that counterplan wouldn't solve anything, so the aff would lose every round on presumption. And the degree to which the affirmative solves would probably link it to da's like spending, etc. The spending link might be small, but so is the advantage link. Permutations are tests of the competition of counterplan, not tests of laziness of the negative or w/e. Counterplans developed as ways to 'disprove the plan', and hence disprove the resolution. The way they do this is via opportunity cost theory. The idea is that if the counterplan can capture the affirmative advantages, it proves that the advantages are not intrinsic to the plan, and hence that they are not an opp-cost to not doing the plan. The DA which is a net benefit to the counterplan however, is an opp cost to doing the plan. That is, the disad impact not happening is something that can only be avoided by not doing the plan. Therefore, there is a cost to doing the plan, that of the da impact. Unfortunately, some counterplans do not disprove the desirability of the plan. For example, the, withdraw from iraq counterplan with a terrorism impact against the peace corps aff with a poverty impact. The permutation is a 'proof' if you will, that shows that stopping terrorism (the impact to the cp) is not an opp cost to the affirmative. We can do the plan and withdraw from Iraq, which would solve for poverty and terrorism. Therefore, terrorism is not an opp cost to plan. In the case of the discussed counterplan, there is no reason we cannot both increase funding and chance the nature of how the funding is spent. Unless the plan mandates funding to a status quo program there is no reason that the affirmative needs to defend status quo funding mechanism. Therefore, we can permute to do both. This would solve all the reasons why changing the way funding is spent is necessary. The permutation may or may not be net beneficial, but this is not necessary. If permutations had to be net beneficial, the aff would lose every round to cp: do the plan. To sum up my analysis- tshuman's counterplan is not competitive because it does not provide an opportunity cost to the plan. There is no good thing avoided by doing the plan or bad thing caused by doing the plan that cannot be captured while still doing the plan. The supposed net benefit to the counterplan (better solvency) is an advantage to the cp, not a disad to the plan.
  7. I'm honestly confused as to why everyone is looking at this as a theory argument. It seems more like common sense to me. Whether you're a policy maker or yourself or a whatever, why would you do something that has no benefit? The negative just seems to be pointing out the obvious. (and if the negative is extending conceded reasons the aff can't solve, why is there any benefit from the affirmative?) To clarify again- I'm NOT voting on a stock issue. I'm voting on presumption- the aff does nothing good so neg wins.
  8. First of all, I don't mean to insult the debaters. The negative team was a pair of novices who have received basically no coaching, have not gone to camp, and had limited access to camp files. I believe this was their second or third tournament. Their debating ability was very high for their limited experience. The 2A was a novice at her first or second tournament, and the 1A was more experienced and better than the other debaters. This was a varsity division, but still, mostly novice debaters. The fact is that alot of debaters don't make analysis on the important parts of the debate because alot of debaters aren't experienced. I think we often forget how hard debate is. I'm sure I wasn't talking about the role of the ballot, and making 'only a risk' analysis my first couple novice tournaments. Further, even experienced debaters make silly mistakes. At one of my tournaments last year I nearly dropped a perm. The point of this kind of thread for me is to hear the opinions of elder members of the community. I'm a first year judge, and I want to be a good judge. So when I get a round I wasn't sure about, I post it here to get the opinion of the community. However, there are things that I'm not worried about, and so I don't bother asking about them. I didn't describe the DA because it didn't seem very controversial, or 'hard to decide.' If the negative doesn't extend an impact to a disad, or answer a no internal link, etc. I am pretty sure that none of us are going to vote on it, (sans some ridiculous circumstance that didn't happen in this round). The purpose of this thread isn't to teach kids how to debate disads. Its rather to help me, and others, compare, learn, etc. about judging. This is the judging forum, and the question of the thread is directed towards judges. I don't post better rounds because I have empirically found most of my good rounds easier to decide. Hence, I haven't felt the need to discuss them. I think they are easier to decide because teams generally do the work for you, so you don't have to intervene as much. I think whether good rounds or bad rounds are harder to decide isn't something I really want to argue about, its seems pretty subjective. They have been harder for me to decide so I post them to they can be discussed and I can become a better judge.
  9. 1. The debate didn't go that deep. The neg makes the assertion that if the aff doesn't solve they lose. The aff doesn't answer it, or explain how their fwk args subsume. I don't see why the two 'fwk's are even exclusive. Why can't we be trying to discuss/solve domination, and at the same time require the affirmative to provide an effective method to solve for it? Ultimately the affirmative doesn't explain their fwk at all in the 2AR, so I default to the neg's fwk, even with basically no analysis. 2. No. The affirmative isn't doing any work either though. Plus, if I reject the solvency contention, what reason do I have left to vote affirmative? In a world were there is no impact to the aff because they don't solve patriarchy, and they aren't doing any 'role of the ballot' work to articulate some kind of other discursive impact or w/e, it seems that you'd have to default to presumption. I didn't vote on 'its a stock issue, you lose', I voted on you don't solve, neg on presumption. 3. they extend that patriarchy causes extinction, they don't make the analysis that 'even if we don't solve, you should reject patriarchy by voting aff." 4. I guess I don't view it so much as a theory argument so much as the invocation of the notion of presumption. If your plan/advocacy/whatever doesn't do anything good, you lose. Affirmative has the burden of proof. The 'blip' is ok for me first because no other framework for impact evaluation is offered in the 2nd rebuttals, and because this is pretty much my default. I try to be as tab as possible, but if the aff and neg don't do anything good or bad, you have to vote one way or the other.
  10. The reason I'm not is because they're not doing it. There really isn't any analysis or depth in this round. the ENTIRE argument is 'if they don't solve they automatically lose.' That being said, I voted negative. I didn't think the affirmative solved for patriarchy, and sans any affirmative framework analysis or arg why they only need a risk to solve, or something, I don't see a reason to vote affirmative. Further, the negative makes the blippy, but conceded analysis that the aff loses if they don't solve. This is enough to set me in a paradigm were the affirmative has to do something good for you to vote for them. Puts the burden of proof on the aff. I don't think that extended an impact to patriarchy is responsive to 'you don't solve patriarchy.'
  11. they give medical supplies to an african womyn's league in ssa, read cards about why this breaks down patriarchy. However, they then say that plan doesn't pass and implementation debate is irrelevant. Why they took the strategy they, did, *shrug*. I have no idea why you would read a plan and solvency and then not defend it. But, w/e. Having not read the specific cards they read, I can't say if any of their authors really advocate their affirmative. I somehow doubt it.
  12. Sara, the only 'warants' as to why they'd solve patriarchy were stated in my original post: "The affirmatives only response to this arg is "extend x card, we solve domination, extend y card, it spills over." The aff doesn't make any response to the presumption arg, (i.e. "we only need to win a risk we solve", etc.) There is litle explanation by the affirmative of the role of the ballot in the 2AR, or any other argument that could really be construed as a solvency argument or a reason why them not solving would matter. Then again, the negative team has no offensive arguments."
  13. they don't really make a clear interpretation. However they make two types of arguments on framework: 1. Domination of womyn comes before everything else. They talk about the need to analyze domination within the round. 2. They also talk about how we shouldn't be policymakers, how plan won't pass, etc. However the 2AR doesn't extend these arguments or explain what implication they have for how I evaluate the round. They debate their aff likes its any old affirmative: to sum up the 2AR "our discourse solves patriarchy, the impact is extinction, that outweighs their DA's, which by the way won't happen anyway cause plan doesn't pass." That's the frustrating thing about this round that made it so hard to decide- the aff has this fwk they read in the 1AC that would answer these solvency args if it was explained and impacted in the 2AR. But its not.
  14. I mean, there were a couple of DA's in the 2NR, but they don't have extended impacts, and the neg conceeds internal link takeouts. The aff also makes the arg that fiat is illusory, so the DA's won't happen, (its a politix and relations DA.) Finally, the aff makes the impact calc that patriarchy outweighs the DA's because its bigger (extinction), and because its the root cause of the DA impacts. The 2AR also went for a K of T, but the 2NR does a pretty good job of explaining why rejecting topicality not the team would solve for the impact to the kritik, (domination), and the 2AR doesn't do a good job of explaining why rejecting the team is key. The 2NR didn't go for T though. (The T arg was aspec, which the aff met, ironically.) The 1NC makes a 'framework argument', but they don't go for it in the 2NR, and it really isn't clear in the 1NC anyway. They just talk about how they should be able to run DA's, and how lack of disads is unfair. The 2AC does a ok job of answering framework, arguing that solving for domination is a bigger impact than negative ground. So to recap: 1NC was aspec, 'framework', two disads, solvency. The block and 2NR extend everything except aspec. However by extend I mean they go to that flow and extend at least one part of the argument. They extend the link to a disad, for example, but forget to extend an impact, etc. The only arg that was gone for in its entirety was solvency.
  • Create New...