Jump to content

EIAA!!

Member
  • Content Count

    135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Okay

About EIAA!!

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 02/20/1988

Profile Information

  • Name
    Stuart
  • School
    Truman
  • Interests
    cx

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    eyenowhereyouliv
  1. i can attest, at camp neither of us ever read our affs.
  2. EIAA!!

    lexis nexis

    none of the accounts that i used to use work either. you need for find a school that will let you log in through their proxy
  3. I recommend SDI if you want to win policy style in MO. UT is great if you want to learn national circuit debate, or if you're like nabihah and can control the effect that the things you learn there have on your style.
  4. EIAA!!

    Kritik of T

    no one needs this. someone should create a computer virus that seeks out and destroys all kritiks of t on debators' computers.
  5. there are too many letters. and there's no smaller word that would support adding to create it.
  6. West A. Wu/Craig B. Feldmann/Blood C. Saboorizadeh/Li EVERYONE: PM me for mutual disclosure
  7. when the first thing we're taught is to do harms and inh in the 1nc and sovency and disads in the 2, we tend to not realize what a strategic choice is until camp.
  8. sharing a bus with ladue, i believe.
  9. Parkway West, with the exception of Feldmann/Craig
  10. hopefully those get you started. im me if you need any more.
  11. courts K http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511452004?open&of=ENG-313 It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation’s commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad US Supreme Court, 28 June 2004(408) Central to the USA’s "war on terror" detention policy has been to keep the detainees away from the courts. The administration chose Guantánamo precisely because it believed that "a district court cannot properly entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus by an enemy alien detained at Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba," although it recognized that the issue was not "definitely resolved" in law.(409) It is clear that the US administration has seen its own judiciary, as well as international law, as an unwanted check on its activities. A key safeguard against torture is for prisoners or others acting on their behalf to be able to invoke the power of the courts to challenge the legality of the detention and otherwise ensure the prisoner’s safety. It can also serve as a safeguard against "disappearances" by asking the courts to locate a person who has "disappeared" (see Point 3). In April 2004, arguing that the courts should be kept out of the administration’s "war on terror" detentions, the government assured the US Supreme Court of its commitment to humane treatment. At oral arguments in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a US citizen designated as an "enemy combatant" and held in indefinite incommunicado detention without charge or trial since December 2001, Justice Stevens asked: "Do you think there is anything in the law that curtails the method of interrogation that may be employed?" The government responded that "the United States is signatory to conventions that prohibit torture and that sort of thing. And the United States is going to honour its treaty obligations".(410) The official memorandums that have come into the public domain belie the government’s assurances that it is committed to upholding international law and standards. In the case of another US "enemy combatant", José Padilla, the four dissenting Justices made their feelings clear about unfettered executive power: "Even more important than the method of selecting the people’s rulers and their successors is the character of the constraints imposed on the Executive by the rule of law. Unconstrained Executive detention for the purpose of investigating and preventing subversive activity is the hallmark of the Star Chamber".(411) During oral arguments in José Padilla’s case, one of the four, Justice Ginsburg had asked the government: "So what is it that would be a check on torture? ... Suppose the executive says mild torture we think will get this information... Some systems do that to get information." The government replied: "Well, our executive doesn’t…"(412) This answer was inaccurate. The administration has approved interrogation techniques which violate the prohibition on torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Finding that the US courts have jurisdiction over detainees in Guantánamo, the Supreme Court in June 2004 noted that "executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless" for almost eight centuries in English law.(413) The administration’s response to this ruling has been inadequate, however. By mid-October 2004, more than three months after the decision, not a single Guantánamo detainee had appeared in court. Of the 68 detainees who had so far filed appeals for access to the US courts, only a small number had spoken to their lawyers.(414) Rather than facilitating judicial review, the administration has hastened a system of "Combatant Status Review Tribunals", administrative review bodies that determine, including on secret evidence and without legal counsel for the detainees, whether the latter are "enemy combatants" and should remain in detention.(415) The Pentagon has also said that it "believes the decision does not cover detainees held in other parts of the world".(416)
  12. http://hrw.org/reports/2005/eca0405/5.htm#_Toc100558836 Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act: Markey Bill Representative Edward J. Markey, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from the Democratic Party, has been a leading opponent of the practice of renditions in the U.S. Congress and has also argued that diplomatic assurances from abusive regimes are inherently unreliable. In February 2005, Markey introduced a bill entitled the “Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act (H.R. 952)”.121 The bill reaffirms the absolute prohibition against torture and refoulement and states that “it is critically important for that all transfers of individuals to other countries occur with full due process of law and in conformity with the obligations of the United States under article 3 of the Convention against Torture.”122 The bill specifically addresses the ineffectiveness of diplomatic assurances against torture: The reliance on diplomatic assurances from a government that it will not torture or ill-treat a person returned to that government is an ineffective safeguard for protecting persons from torture or ill-treatment. Assurances from a government known to engage in systematic torture are inherently unreliable. There is strong evidence that governments such as Egypt, Syria, and Uzbekistan have violated such assurances they have provided.123 The bill would supplement the existing legal prohibition on returning individuals to countries where they are likely to be tortured by requiring the State Department to establish a list of countries that commonly use torture in detention and interrogation. It would prohibit U.S. officials or contractors from transferring any person in their custody to a country on the list, unless those transfers occur as part of an immigration or extradition proceeding where the individual has an opportunity to raise a Convention against Torture claim in a judicial forum, including the opportunity to challenge the reliability and sufficiency of any diplomatic assurances. Under the bill, the Secretary of State could waive the prohibition if she could certify that a country on the list had “ended” the acts of torture and ill-treatment that were the basis for the inclusion of the country on the list and that there was a verifiable mechanism in place to ensure that any person transferred to said country would not be tortured or ill-treated. Written or oral assurances against torture from a government would not be sufficient to constitute such a verifiable mechanism. In all cases, the bill would prevent reliance on diplomatic assurances as the basis for determining that an individual is not at risk of torture. To ensure compliance with these provisions, the bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to revise the immigration regulations implementing article 3 of the Convention against Torture: …to ensure that written or verbal assurances made by a country that a person in immigration proceedings in the United States (including asylum proceedings) will not be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading if the person is removed by the United States to the country are not, standing alone, a sufficient basis for believing that the person would not be tortured or subjected to such treatment if the alien were removed to the country.124 It would also require the other government agencies to issue regulations regarding the responsibilities of U.S. government officials and contractors to comply with article 3 of the Convention against Torture both within and outside the U.S. Significantly, the bill would require the U.S. to allow a person subject to return based on assurances an opportunity to challenge the reliability of assurances in an independent judicial forum.125 The bill would thus address the glaring absence of procedural guarantees to effectively challenge diplomatic assurances secured by the U.S. in its efforts to effect returns based on them.
  13. I understand you intention, and thank you for the praise. I've been waiting to see how partner arrangements pan out to reply. To answer your question, I will be debating with Steven Wu at GSL and Dana Feldmann at invitationals. Steven went to JDI this summer, and I think he will be more than knowledgeable enough. Dana has been my regular partner for the past couple years and I think I can safely say the same for her (minus the part about camp). She's not as strong on the critical, but how many Missouri debaters are? I'm sure not. And I should be positioned having a less knowledgeable partner than I currently expect, I'm going to make a conscious effort not to tool them around. Thanks for the concern and interest.
  14. i judged him once at pattonville. the kid is a hoss. so was his partner, she didn't even read the 1ac she had it down so well. why isn't he doing champ? he's hella good.
×
×
  • Create New...