Leaders of countries that use extra-territorial rendition should be tried for war crimes
We the proposition define the motion(LEADERS OF COUNTRIES THAT USE EXTRA-TERRITORIAL RENDITION SHOULD BE TRIED FOR WAR CRIMES) as:'Leaders are responsible for the practice,execution and admission/permission of extra-territorial detention.They are wary of the covenants that they or their predecessors have signed, they know the conventions and laws that they break and perhaps break them because of a deluded fancy, invented by former president Clinton 'I did it , because I could'. The infliction of 'No you CAN NOT violate international law and human rights' is necessary, to deter future leaders from committing and/or allying in atrocious war-crimes.Leaders should therefore be held accountable and punished.'
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
It is illegal by international law
A state cannot send agents abroad to abduct an alleged criminal. An abduction carried out by agents instructed by the state within the territory of another state is a violation of international law."
In exercising jurisdiction under this Convention, no State shall prosecute or punish any person who has been brought within its territory or a place subject to its authority by recourse to measures in violation of international law or international convention without first obtaining the consent of the State or States whose rights have been violated by such measures.[[Harvard research, article 16]]
Bosnia prosecuted for handing over her citizens to the united states[[http://www.interights.org/boumediene]]
-"Their attempts to secure release from Guantanamo and return to their families in Bosnia and Herzegovina have repeatedly failed. Before the European Court the applicants complain that after rendering them into US custody in breach of the domestic courts orders prohibiting their forcible removal, Bosnia and Herzegovina failed to take any meaningful measures aimed at ensuring their release and thus failed to protect their rights under the Convention." If sellers are punished, why should buyers be let off the hook?
Extra-territorial abduction and detention is illegal and therefore should not be practiced.
We on the opposition side will defend the use of extra-territorial rendition as a legitimate and effective tool of self-defence. The propostion has only brought us examples of cases where prisoners have been mistreated, but they have not brought an analysis of why extra-territorial rendition is always absolutely bad. Their arguments have focused on how extra-territorial rendition often violates the human rights of the captive and on the cruelty of methods of extra-territorial rendition. We do not believe it is our burden to defend torture and shameful and horrible treatment of prisoners. Rather our argumentation will be focused on why it is justified to breach the sovereignty of another nation to bring to a national court a non-state actor such as a terrorist or a criminal and why extra-territorial rendition is a necessary tool in the combat against terrorism.
But before we go on to our own argumentation, we will first analyze their case. Three obvious questions arise from the motion:
1. Why is extra-territorial rendition a war crime?
2. Why are leaders of the country responsible?
3. How are the trials going to be carried out and who is going to do this?
We believe that they have not answered these questions. On the first issue they have brought us a list of conventions that extra-territorial rendition violates, but no clear justification why it is a war crime. ''International law condemns both extraterritorial abductions and irregular methods of rendition, either as a violation of customary international law, of a treaty obligation or of human rights duties owed directly to the individual.'' [[ http://www.upf.pf/IMG/pdf/5_Costi.mtc.pdf ]] But in cases of conflict between states and non-state actors such as terrorist organizations, we believe that extraordinary rendition is morally justified and sometimes necessary.
On the second issue they have brought us an example about Hitler and Nuremberg trials and never explained why analogy applies to this debate. Individual complicity of leaders is different for different acts. They had to show us why leaders are responsible for extraterritorial rendition.
The third question is important for framing the debate so practicalities of the application of international justice could be discussed. They made their case ambiguous and hence deprived us of opportunity of grounded discussion of international justice.
Justice, security, transperancy and human rights?
What security does the suspect have?
Given the recent 'water-boarding' issue[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States#.22Enhanced_interrogation.22_and_waterboarding]] and other methods of torture used at Guantanamo and the notorious Iraqi detention center[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse]] (among others). We the proposition, feel that it is fair to contend : very little or none at all.
And I quote "A delegation of UN Special Rapporteurs to Guantanamo Bay reported that interrogation techniques used in the detention center amount to degrading treatment in violation of the ICCPR and the Convention Against Torture. In 2005 Amnesty International expressed alarm at the erosion in civil liberties since the 9/11 attacks. According to Amnesty International:
The Guantánamo Bay detention camp has become a symbol of the United States administration’s refusal to put human rights and the rule of law at the heart of its response to the atrocities of 11 September 2001. It has become synonymous with the United States executive’s pursuit of unfettered power, and has become firmly associated with the systematic denial of human dignity and resort to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that has marked the USA’s detentions and interrogations in the "war on terror". "
If the local government doesn't try the criminals and terrorists or actively helps them by harboring them, then impunity and loss of security something that cannot be tolerated.
One can even allow for the prosecution of countries that practice rendition to torturing nations as an accessory like offense, while still preserving the fundamental legality of rendition itself. An act does not have to be permissible in all contexts and on each scale to be considered legal, and it is only our burden to prove such legality.
This debate is not about the proliferation of torture, but this is still a debate. The issue, while not as contested as torture, is still important, and we wish to raise it even if the affirmative do not. It relates to the legitimacy of the incursion into the other nations sovereignty required for a rendition operation. etc
The case of M.I.T undergrad Dr.Aafia siddiqui
Even though her case has been out in the open, for quite some time, what has been done to help her? and if this is the result of help and growing/continued international support , then verily, conditions of her detention would have been much EVEN worse if this situation wasn't hugely propagated.
"Aafia's eldest son, Ahmad, is believed to be in custody in Afghanistan. Despite the fact he is a US national he was not extradited along with his mother to the US. The whereabouts of Aafia's two youngest children, missing for the past five years, remain unknown"-[[http://www.cageprisoners.com/prisoners.php?id=1367]]
When international LAW is allowed to be breached, then there's no drawing the line(on revolting evil behavior).
David Hicks' forced' to confess?
"Former Pentagon chief prosecutor, Colonel Morris Davis later alleged political interference in the case, by the Bush administration in the U.S. and the Howard government in Australia, and said that Hicks should not have been prosecuted."-[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks]]
This man was 'sold' to the U.S military for one grand, one thousand dollars. To be treated like human chattel has got to be wrong. This case IS relevant, as his ordeal was/is a direct consequence of illegal extraterritorial detention.
Justice cannot be served when the 'accused' is stripped of all rights and psychologically indoctrinated to the point of giving up.
These horrific conditions, where anyone can be nabbed,detained and mistreated indefinitely by foreign forces unconstrained by the prisoners' legal rights as a citizen of his/her Country or as a human being; and/or the legislation of the country of the Detainers: Are a breeding ground for false and forced confessions.
Furthermore, there is a difference between Convention and law. Indeed, if rendition were genuinely illegal in any meaningful way, then it would be punishable, thereby making this debate meaningless. The fact that it is denounced in many Conventions only highlights that there are elements to it found to be questionable by some in the international community, though not a clear-cut war crime in the way that others already recognised are. In other words, all that the affirmative have done by their references to Conventions is that they have demonstrated this issue as an issue of uncertainty, in other words, a debating topic.
This rebuttal holds for points 1, 6-11.
Extraordinary Rendition Violates the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
"In September 2002, the United States detained M.A, who holds dual Canadian and Syrian citizenship. For one week, detaining authorities denied M.A access to Canadian consular officials, and after his transfer to Syria, the United States refused to acknowledge the transfer to Canadian authorities. In November 2002, officials detained British citizen W.A.R in the Gambia. While being interrogated at the headquarters of the country’s secret police, he requested and was denied consular access." -[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading283]]
Harvard Law's eight yes-arguments
1.'Violation of Human rights', check [[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading96]]
2.'Extraordinary Rendition Violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights'[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading130]]
3.' Extraordinary Rendition Violates the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights'[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading199]]
4.Extraordinary Rendition Violates the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading209]]
5.Extraordinary Rendition Violates the Convention Against Torture[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading236]]
6.Vienna Convention (penultimately dealt with)
7.Extraordinary Rendition Violates the Geneva Conventions.[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading302]] The first affirmative point of this debate:[[http://www.debatewise.com/debates/317-america-is-the-world-s-biggest-human-rights-abuser#point_1317_headline]] is relevant here.
8.Concluding Observations Regarding Implementation of International Human Rights Protections.
'foreign policy in focus'-organization's critique[[http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5502]]
Developing and simplifying points 2,3,4 and 5 in the 4 successive yes points(to follow):
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights violated
Article 9 of the I.C.C.P.R states that:
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
point 2.Article9 states that: 'Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.'
point 3.Article9 says: Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment.
- both 2 and 3 are violated as prisoners are sold by governments for cash from 1000 dollars to 10 million dollars(In Egypt's case [[http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5502]], they are NEVER brought promptly before a judge even if they are 'informed' of the charges against them.
point 5.Article 9: Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
- Is freedom , compensation enough?
Point4,Article12 "4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country", extra-territorial prisoners are not permitted to transfer to a local jail.
There's nothing in Article 14 that isn't violated [[http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#art14]]
Even though most of the Countries that practice extraordinary rendition, have signed the convention, they argue that since they detain prisoners in Countres other than their own , they are not technically violating it. However, the convention itself does not permit or make any such EXCEPTION.
the mishandling of the holy Quran by a Guantanamo guard.
However, a number of Countries have reservations about this convention:
'Amnesty International writes that "The United States signed the Covenant in 1979 under the Carter administration but is not fully bound by it until it is ratified. For political reasons, the Carter administration did not push for the necessary review of the Covenant by the Senate, which must give its “advice and consent” before the US can ratify a treaty. The Reagan and Bush (Sr.) administrations took the view that economic, social, and cultural rights were not really rights but merely desirable social goals and therefore should not be the object of binding treaties. The Clinton Administration did not deny the nature of these rights but did not find it politically expedient to engage in a battle with Congress over the Covenant. The Bush (W.) administration follows in line with the view of the previous Bush (Sr.) administration." The Heritage Foundation, a critical conservative think tank, argues that signing it would obligate the introduction of policies that it opposes such as universal health care.'-'[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights#Reservations]]
Reservations or not, when you SIGN a covenant, you should abide by it.
maltreatment of refugees, displaced persons, bought and bagged prisoners, no longer in their homeland
To extend this point:
"Who is not covered by
A person who has committed a crime
against peace, a war crime, a crime
against humanity or a serious non-political
crime outside the country of asylum."
[[http://www.unhcr.org/3c0f495f4.html page 14)
However, the convention also states that one is not a 'criminal unless and until s/he is PROVEN guilty in court. And we all know that people get nabbed before charges against are verified and are not brought to court A.S.A.P.
As suspects are taken from a Country other than their own, it can be said that they are refugees in that Country and are as such, required to procure the rights of refugees in that Country.
Convention Against Torture mauled
U.N.C.A.T(United Nations Convention Against Torture)
*Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever"[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture#Ban_on_torture_and_cruel_and_degrading_treatment]]
Bottom Line: NO EXCEPTIONS
*Article 16 requires every State Party to “undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture . . . .”[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading236]]
Prevent NOT Cause.
* Ban On Re-fouling: Article 3 prohibits parties from returning, extraditing or re-fouling any person to a state "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture".[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture#Ban_on_refoulement]]
Countries should therefore be prohibited from SELLING prisoners to the United States Military or other institutions that BUY prisoners.
*'Article 4 requires each State Party to ensure that all acts of torture, as well as attempts to commit, or be compliant in, torture are criminalized. The Convention against Torture also requires each State Party to extradite or prosecute accused torturers who are present in any territory under its jurisdiction'[articles 5and 7)-[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading236]]
-War Crime alert, bring in the leaders and torturers. The liability/responsibility of the State, IS the liability/accountability of its leader.
"Khan v. Canada, the Committee determined that by transferring a person to a country that was not a party to the Convention against Torture, Canada violated Article 3, both because the transfer would subject the person to a danger of torture, and because the transfer would make it impossible for the person to apply for protection under the Convention against Torture. In Agiza v. Sweden, the Committee against Torture determined that Sweden’s use of extraordinary rendition in December 2001 violated Article 3. With U.S. assistance, the government of Sweden seized Egyptian Ahmed Agiza and transported him to Egypt. The Committee found that “it was known, or should have been known, to [Sweden]’s authorities at the time of [Agiza]’s removal that Egypt resorted to consistent and widespread use of torture against detainees, and that the risk of such treatment was particularly high in the case of detainees held for political and security reasons.” The Committee also determined that “an inability to contest an expulsion decision before an independent authority . . . [is] relevant to a finding of a violation of article 3” because it violates “the procedural obligation to provide for effective, independent and impartial review required by article 3 of the Convention.” The Committee rejected Sweden’s argument that it had obtained assurances from the government of Egypt to ensure that Agiza would not be ill-treated. A recent report by the Special Rapporteur on torture confirms that extraordinary rendition violates Article 3 of the Convention against Torture."-[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading236 pages 143 & 144]]
International War Crimes Tribunal
Among the many violations committed or condoned by the U.S. government are the following:
* illegal surveillance, arrest, interrogation and harassment of Arab-American, Iraqi-American, and U.S. resident Arabs;
* illegal detention, interrogation and treatment of Iraqi prisoners of war;
* aiding and condoning Kuwaiti summary executions, assaults, torture and illegal detention of Palestinians and other residents in Kuwait after the U.S. occupation; and
* unwarranted, discriminatory, and excessive prosecution and punishment of U.S. military personnel who refused to serve in the Gulf, sought conscientious objector status or protested U.S. policies.
Persons were killed, assaulted, tortured, illegally detained and prosecuted, harassed and humiliated as a result of these policies.
The conduct violates the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , the Hague and Geneva Conventions and the Constitution and laws of the United States. "-[[http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm]]
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. "-[[http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm#p6]]
Italy- U.S relations spoiled over Nasr's abduction
The article professes to the criticism from the United Nations and condemnation of extraordinary/extra-territorial rendition. Human rights violation and all the other points already addressed.
We cite this example to share how relations between countries are damaged because of the act(of extra-territorial rendition) and accounting leaders that wrongly permit it, should certainly superglue/tether tattered ties.
For the same reason that Hitler is blamed for the acts of Nazis under him.
This means that not just torturers from an important institution representing a Country and its interests but Leaders of the same country , who permit,allow and order the execution of these acts should face retribution.
"The notion that individuals are criminally liable and can be prosecuted for the
most severe violations of human rights was institutionalized with the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials following World War II. The principles of the Nuremberg Charter, which in turn were adopted by the UN International Law Commission in 1950, established that war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity were punishable under international law. In the last two decades, the model set by the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals has been used to create International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia. In 1998 the idea of a “permanent Nuremberg,” an independent tribunal for addressing gross violations of human rights committed by states, was finally realized with the passage of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court."-excerpt from page4[[http://www.caei.com.ar/es/programas/teoria/27.pdf]]
Furthermore, even in circumstances under which a leader did authorise a rendition, it is entirely possible that the act is performed under duress. Because of the fine detail required in any such case, it would be relatively straightforward for an advisor to paint a picture wherein the act of rendition was necessary to prevent an existential threat to the state. Under these circumstances, surely it would be more reasonable to target those who actually organise and carry out the acts of rendition.
The opposition is ignoring our points? 'Foreign States CAN not be trusted.'
'Foreign States Cannot be trusted'
The opposition has given the example of A 'self-defending' country claiming that a terror suspect has fled to Lebanon and Lebanon authorities refuse to admit he's even there, forget giving him up.If the man is in Lebanon he is their responsibility not that of the U.S or Israel.
If a terrorist that attacked Lebanon runs off to America, the Lebanese wouldn't ask for him(unless he was Lebanese).They would inform The states of what he's done, so the U.S authorities handle him.The U.S should extend the same courtesy to Lebanon. Lebanon should have no reason to ANSWER to the U.S of A or anyone. If the guy's in Lebanon, it's not the U.S.A's problem, anymore. If he ever was their problem then the U.S should have caught him on her OWN turf.
States/Countries/nations are responsible for and ONLY have the right to handle THEIR residents/tourists/citizens.
When the same suspected-terrorists are on the soil of what the proposition claims to be the self-defending State.The State takes no major steps to catch them, there are no air-strikes or ground/drone attacks conducted to CAPTURE the suspects. But when they run to another Country, dear self-defending State makes a full-fledged attack on that Country. BECAUSE they can.
They did not frame or define the debate around any particular country, yet in major portions of their new substantive they point to the internal legislation of the U.S. that does not apply to the other countries in the world. They thus attempt to defend a general case with an argument that is specific, without first framing the debate around the specific case. They have not substantiated who (leaders of which states?) should go to court and under what charges. Most of their substantive material is actually a case for bringing leaders who employ torture before justice and they don’t show why extra-territorial rendition is in itself unpermissible in the circumstances that we have brought. The conventions and treaties that have been posted look like they were picked from a google search and just dropped on the table.
Furthermore they did not explain the notion of a war crime and why it applies to extra-territorial rendition. For example they say that a ’’grave violation’’ of the Geneva convention is a war crime, but they don’t show why extra-territorial rendition is a ’’grave violation’’ of the Geneva convention. In fact the Geneva convention states that a ’’Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.’’ [[How Grave Breaches Are Defined in The Geneva Convention And Additional Protocols. http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5ZMGF9%5D%5D In our substantive material we explained why members of violent non-state organizations are legitimate military objectives, disarming them is a military necessity and why extra-territorial rendition is sometimes a necessary and proportional tool of disarming them. The proposition did not refute our logic. We thus believe that proposition pointing to the Geneva convention is not justified.
War crime is a serious and ambiguous issue. Because during war the state is under great threat, international law recognizes that the state must retain the capability for self-defence. The purpose of the laws of war is to the most possible extent to humanize war, limit the damage to civilians and soldiers who are no longer engaged in conflict while still preserving the capacity of the state to defend itself. Human rights cannot be absolute, after all in times of war we deprive many people of their human rights to life and bodily security. People are slaughtered on the battlefield. Unnecessary violence and destruction is something to be deplored, while it is justified to employ violence against military objectives whose aim is to harm the state. To be a war crime an act must fulfill certain criteria: it must be intentional, it must not be proportional, it must be organized violence aimed against people who are not actively seeking to harm us (civilians, POWs) and it must be conducted on a large scale. The proposition has failed to show us why extra-territorial rendition is such a crime. We have shown you that it is a tool of modern warfare against non-state actors who seek to actively harm us that is proportional, which means that the damage done to an innocent civilian can be reversed as he can be returned to his original state. Furthermore the possibility to resort to extra-territorial rendition can prevent war, for a state that is threatened by a terrorist organization (who might be yielding a nuclear weapon in the most dire of cases) does not have to proclaim war on the state that either doesn't cooperate with the threatened state or actively harbors the terrorists, but can instead eliminate the threat surgically and proportionally without causing damage to the state where the terrorist is hiding or it's civilian population. Extra-territorial renditions are surgical operations, they can be made effective through infiltration and surprise. We don't understand why they claim that it is a full-fledged attack on the state where the terrorist is residing. First of all the terrorist is acting independently of it's state of citizenship/the state where he is hiding and it's foreign policy. His removal from that state will not cause harm to the institutions, autonomy and sovereignty of the state where he is staying. His malicious intent is channeled toward the state whose right we defend to use extra-territorial rendition and not the state where he is staying. To equate him and his intentions and actions to the state of his citizenship or where he is hiding is like saying that that state has the same intent toward the threatened state, which a not only a wrong but also a dangerous claim to make. Since the terrorist's malicious intent is channeled toward the threatened state, this means that the state who is under threat is the one who cares most about the capture of the individual, the most incentivized and the most in need of his capture. It is a breach of that state's sovereignty not to be able to protect itself from the non-state actor.
When a state threatens or incurs violence on another state, there's many things that that state can do to protect it's citizens. First of all by international law it is only allowed to start war in the case when it is attacked or through the collective authorization of the Security Council. So a state that starts an unprovoked war is immediately condemned by the international community. It can negotiate with the other state, sign treaties that it has assurance of the other state actually keeping. It can apply sanctions. It can take advantage of nuclear deterrence. All of these things don't apply in conflicts between states and non-state actors. Non-state actors don't obey international laws of war, indeed they intentionally target innocent civilians and they use surprise attacks. Most of the time terrorists will not negotiate with the state who it is threatening and the terrorist organizations promises cannot be trusted. Sanctions are difficult to apply to terrorist organizations. Nuclear deterrence has no effect on them. This means that extra-territorial rendition is sometimes a necessary tool that a state has to employ to defend itself. Furthermore it is an effective tool as we showed in our substantive material, because it can deprive the terrorist organization of an important leader who mobilizes followers, imparts his experience to train more terrorists, indoctrinates them and plans operations.
But going even further it is a naive assumption to make that the state where the terrorist is hiding has the same incentives and the same need for expediency as the state under threat. States are fundamentally selfish-- they care mostly about their own citizens. It is naive to expect the other state to expend the maximum amount of resources and taxpayer's money to capture the terrorist when it itself is not under threat.
Saying that a threatened country should have caught the terrorist on their own ''turf'' is simplistic and disregards the complexity of life. The proposition can be sure of the fact that the terrorist was not caught on the home ''turf'' not because the state didn't put every means possible into catching him, but because terrorists are difficult to catch and in the modern age of globalization it is possible to rapidly travel away from the threatened country and it's jurisdiction. Furthermore the terrorist can cause active harm to the state while he is not within the borders of the state, through active training of other terrorists, participating in the planning of attacks, acquiring weapons, indoctrinating followers etc.
We agree that normally states should normally be responsible only for their own citizens and to some extent those operating on their land, but in cases where there is organized malicious intent on the part of a non-state organization directed towards the state and serious potentiality for members of that organization causing deliberate and unpredictable harm to the state's civilians, the state's duty to protect it's citizens should extend to disarming members of that organization through the most effective and proportional means. This is why we think extra-territorial rendition should not be considered a war crime and proudly oppose.
THE WAR CRIMES ACT OF 1996
"The law defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions", specifically noting that "grave breach" should have the meaning defined in any convention (related to the laws of war) to which the U.S. is a party. The definition of "grave breach" in some of the Geneva Conventions have text that extend additional protections, but all the Conventions share the following text in common: "... committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."
The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a member of the U.S. armed forces. The penalty may be life imprisonment or death. The death penalty is only invoked if the conduct resulted in the death of one or more victims."-[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996]]
We the proposition have already proved/substantiated/urged that the Geneva Conventions HAVE been breached. The opposition in response merely and mostly without relevance, 'attempted' to UNDERMINE 'international' conventions in the face of 'local' laws, instead of actually arguing against the breach.
What remains to be said is that we in no way seek to undermine international conventions. When we say that there is a difference between conventions and law we do not mean the local law of the state, but international law. Some acts are so deplored in the international community that they are illegal to the full extent of the word. States that break these laws are deplored and punished to the fullest extent, because these crimes are so hideous that they are crimes against the entire international community, because they offend our common humanity. These are things like genocide and war of aggression. Conventions are agreements between the states, that are much like contracts between willing parties. First of all the conventions that the proposition pointed hold ambiguities on the issue of extra-territorial rendition, they don’t fundamentally decry it like they decry torture. This is why most of the copy pasted bits that the proposition brought are of little relevance, because they talk of torture. But furthermore Conventions are not fundamental truths cut into stone, they have an internal logic and a reason why they exist and should be obeyed. You did not show why extra-territorial rendition is something so horrid that it is fundamentally immoral to resort to it in every case, even when there is a terrorist abroad who may be planning a nuclear attack.
In our substantive material we talked about how the world and warfare has changed since the second World War, the creation of the UN and the establishment of Hague and Geneva conventions. Non-state actors have emerged as a threat to the civilian population of states, a threat that is very serious because it employs surprise attacks and cannot be countered by any traditional methods. There’s no reason to think that in the context of that new emerging threat states shouldn’t be able to use tools to counter that threat and remain bound by old conventions that are ill suited to new situations. Ofcourse these tools have to be morally justified. That’s why we talked at great lengths of why extra-territorial rendition is justified as self-defence and pre-emptive strikes are, why it is a proportional tool and how if states where terrorists are hiding are unable to bring them to justice, the threatened state has a moral right to take matters into it’s own hands by employing extra-territorial rendition.
States have a duty to protect their citizens and a right to self-defence.
War of course is an immediate threat to the bodily security of state's citizens. Traditionally war has been waged between states. States threatened other states by acquiring armies, weapons and military structures. But modern warfare is different. Increasingly, violent non-state actors are gaining enough power to pose a real threat to civilians, without the need for armies in the traditional sense. What do we mean by non-state actors? They certainly have a citizenship of some state, but they act independently from that state and are organized to actively harm another state. They use unconventional methods of warfare that cannot be countered by traditional methods that are used in state to state warfare. They exploit the vulnerabilities of the social order of the state performing surprise attacks on civilian structures and inflicting many casualties among completely innocent and unprepared people. Conflict between states and non-state actors are fundamentally different from conventional warfare where damage to civilians can be limited and the fighting mainly goes on between soldiers abiding by international rules of law [[S. Sheppard. Passion and Nation: War, Crime, and Guilt in the Individual and the Collective.http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=411102%5D%5D .
The very strength of these violent non-state actors like terrorist networks lies in the fact that individuals from that network can hide within other states and are very difficult to find, capture and bring to justice. They can spend years plotting an attack against the state while hiding out in a state that either has no interest, no means or is hostile toward the other state. All the while a danger looms over the target state and we on the opposition side believe that it has to be allowed to use the means of extra-territorial rendition to eliminate the threat.
Why is using extra-territorial rendition justified? Firstly because it is done in self-defense. When seeking out terrorists from other countries the state is seeking to prevent harm being done to it's citizens. We do not doubt the ethics of self-defense. International law recognizes that a state can resort to self-defense when attacked by another state. Why should the right to self-defence disappear if the security threat is a non-state actor? States should be allowed to use extra-territorial rendition as a method of self-defense, because what else can they do to defend themselves if the terrorists are outside their territory. Indeed sometimes the only way that the state can exercise their right to self-defense is through extra-territorial rendition. Of course it is preferrable if the state where the terrorist is hiding will willingly cooperate with the rendition and seek to disarm the terrorist, but this cannot always be the case. For example, US has for many years sought from Lebanon the extradition of Mohammad Ali Hamadi, who participated in the hijacking of TWA Flight 847. Imad Fayez Mugniyah—head of security for the Lebanese group Hizballah, is also wanted by the US for his role in the hijacking of TWA and although there is strong evidence to the contrary Lebanese persistently denies his presence in Lebanon. If the state doesn't cooperate then the only way that the other state can achieve the capture of the dangerous terrorist is through the disregard of the sovereignty of the non-cooperating state and use extra-territorial rendition to capture the criminal. This disregard of the right to sovereignty however is not aimed to damage the integrity, sovereignty or institutions of the non-cooperating state, but serve only to capture the dangerous non-state actor. The state who is under the threat of terrorism is thus acting in non-aggressive towards the non-cooperating state, seeking only to eliminate the threat posed to it.
When a state or government itself is NOT responsible for nor guilty of terrorism, why should its borders be disrespected or its people killed and kidnapped?
If there are terrorists in a Country, it is a local problem , that Country's government should/can be aided to tackle the problem but to violate international law, that Country's laws and the captor country's own laws(arrest without a warrant or informing the captive's family. A lot of these nabbed terror-suspects are treated as 'missing persons') is simply unacceptable.
To claim that your citizens cannot be attacked by terrorists and then go ahead and attack mostly innocent civilians to capture the same terrorists in another Country: is more-than-a-double-standard. And then to send those suspected terrorists to a THIRD country , where they are brutally stripped of their basic human rights.How does this qualify as self-defense?
'We do not doubt the ethics of self-defense. International law recognizes that a state can resort to self-defense when attacked by another state. Why should the right to self-defense disappear if the security threat is a non-state actor' because you are not attacking the non-state actors , you are attacking the STATE.
Maybe South Africa should attack the U.S.A for allowing The K.K.K to stage public protests (because of freedom of speech)
and aggravate racial crime/tension therefore.Obama is a State rep , where as the KLU KLUX KLAN are non-state actors, responsible for race-oriented crime the world over.If the KLAN commits a crime in Africa it is dealt with in Africa. To attack a state/Country/U.S.A that isn't involved nor responsible, that is vociferously against racism (Just as the states/Countries/governments of Pakistan & Afghanistan are against terrorism) is absurd and most certainly wrong.
I reiterate the point in simple language: self-defense can only be against the non-state attackers, not the State itself. You are defending the act of attacking a state because it has a few bad eggs.Obviously those bad eggs were initially or at some point in the Self-defending State. Since the State claiming 'Self-defense' couldn't do anything about these terror-suspects while they were within HER OWN borders. She has no right to attack other States that these suspects flee to , or criticize these other States for not being able to contain the suspects(Since I repeat once again , She herself couldn't when they were on her soil).
Extra-territorial rendition only gives the State claiming Self-defense the freedom to do to citizens of other countries, on foreign soil(murdering masses in the name of collateral damage/self-defense/'It need be done to capture terrorists); what She, the State couldn't do on her OWN soil when the suspects were there.
The policy is: I'm a big Country, I can't go about killing MY civilians in the pursuit of suspected-terrorists, when they are on MY soil. So I wait until they flee to another Country whose civilians I couldn't give a hoot about.
This attitude should NOT under any circumstances be tolerated by the international community and it isn't, not by international law nor Harvard Law nor any of the other authorities, we've quoted earlier.
I reiterate that there is NO recorded evidence that 'extra-ordinary rendition' has prevented even one act/plan/plot of terrorism.
Extra-territorial rendition is a legitimate tool in the war against terrorist organizations.
The very strength of these violent non-state actors like terrorist networks lies in the fact that individuals from that network can hide within other states and are very difficult to find, capture and bring to justice. They can spend years plotting an attack against the state while hiding out in a state that either has no interest, no means or is hostile toward the other state. All the while a danger looms over the target state and we on the opposition side believe that it has to be allowed to use the means of extra-territorial rendition to eliminate the threat.
Why is using extra-territorial rendition justified? Firstly because it is done in self-defense. When seeking out terrorists from other countries the state is seeking to prevent harm being done to it's citizens. We do not doubt the ethics of self-defense. International law recognizes that a state can resort to self-defense when attacked by another state. Why should the right to self-defence disappear if the security threat is a non-state actor? States should be allowed to use extra-territorial rendition as a method of self-defense, because what else can they do to defend themselves if the terrorists are outside their territory. Indeed sometimes the only way that the state can exercise their right to self-defense is through extra-territorial rendition. Of course it is preferrable if the state where the terrorist is hiding will willingly cooperate with the rendition and seek to disarm the terrorist, but this cannot always be the case. For example, US has for many years sought from Lebanon the extradition of Mohammad Ali Hamadi, who participated in the hijacking of TWA Flight 847. Imad Fayez
Mugniyah—head of security for the Lebanese group Hizballah, is also wanted by the US for his role in the hijacking of TWA and although there is strong evidence to the contrary Lebanese persistently denies his presence in Lebanon [[G. S. McNeal, B. J. Field. 2007. Snatch-and-grab ops: Justifying Extraterriotorial abduction. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=961048%5D%5D. If the state doesn't cooperate then the only way that the other state can achieve the capture of the dangerous terrorist is through the disregard of the sovereignty of the non-cooperating state and use extra-territorial rendition to capture the criminal. This disregard of the right to sovereignty however is not aimed to damage the integrity, sovereignty or institutions of the non-cooperating state, but serve only to capture the dangerous non-state actor. The state who is under the threat of terrorism is thus acting in non-aggressive towards the non-cooperating state, seeking only to eliminate the threat posed to it.
Our appeal to sense: We think the opposition need to be educated on legislation. For they fail to comprehend the simple fact that 'something should not be performed on specific grounds' IS grounds for that something to be outlawed.
"The article concludes that it will benefit the international community to codify exactly what will warrant extraterritorial abductions and specifically how such actions may be used. Given the likelihood that the United States and other countries will increase their use of extraterritorial kidnapping, the international community should act proactively to address the issue. Until the international community does codify the specific circumstances under which extraterritorial kidnapping is permissible, the United States is justified in exercising extraterritorial abductions under universal jurisdiction, passive personality, and finally, efficient breach."-
the opposition's source article]]
The reason the author is appealing to the international community to create exceptions where Extra-Territorial/ordinary rendition can/may be permissible/legal in the future, is because PRESENTLY THERE ARE NO exceptions and it IS illegal.
Perhaps the opposition should try and cite a source that actually agrees with their claims.
Extra-territorial rendition is a proportional act.
When a state is in conflict with a non-state actor we think that a legitimate military objective is the capture (extraterriotorial if neccessary) of combatants of that non-state actor. In the case of terrorist networks individuals can bare a lot of power. There are terrorist ''king-pins'', who control and moralize other terrorists and are in possession of important information about the network. The capture of these individuals can be a blow to the terrorist organization, because it loses an experienced member who can train others and demoralizes the organization. Of course it also disarms this individual and limits his capacity to threaten the state further. With this we establish that there is a definite military advantage in the capture of such individuals. But is it proportional to the damage done to civilians? To justify the proportionality of extra-territorial rendition we have to look at what kind of damage it can bring to the civilian population of other states. The proposition has brought out that sometimes innocent individuals will be captured. Against this we argue that during the course of the trial the innocence or guilt of the captured individuals has to emerge. When it is established that the individual was indeed innocent the damage done to that person can be reversed by returning him to his home state. If however the individual is guilty, his capture would have potentially lead to the saving of lives of many civilians and thus is a proportional act.
For proportional response to ever be applied, it is required that a country should have access to the entire spectrum of possible responses. Otherwise, it is impossible to select the response which matches the cause with the required severity. When options are taken from the table, what happens? Inevitably, a country will be left between two options, one which is less severe than that required, and one which is more severe. Even if we assume the country has mercy in its soul, and opts for the less response, the lack of proportionality will mean that it will not have fully served its purpose in cutting off the threat which provoked it, thereby making it less effective than the response that direct proportionality requires. Unfortunately, even this best case scenario is unlikely to happen. Countries are less sensitive to foreign deaths than those of their own citizens. Therefore, the path most chosen is likely to be that of greater than proportional vengeance, and therefore greater than proportional bloodshed.
The importance of allowing small scale solutions to small scale problems is one widely recognised, at least implicitly, by modern nation states. Most nation states operate intelligence agencies, and many of these conduct operations overseas, often without the knowledge of local governments. And yet, the operations of these agents, who are the agents of a foreign state, and often involve the collection of sensitive information, or materials, is not, and is unlikely to ever be, considered a warcrime. The reason, is because without these small scale, surgical instruments at hand, states would have only far heavier tools for dismantling threats to their existence.
In the case of extroardinary rendition. Certainly, there are some scenarios when a suspect would simply be left alone. But is it to be expected that any government would simply allow an individual who is plotting the murder of its citizens to continue unobstructed? Far more likely for goverrnments to take more drastic measures, from openly declared strikes and incursions, to placing economic, military, or political pressure on state leaders to permit the extradition and interrogation of their suspect. Both alternatives are far more damaging to long term political relations between the countries, and far less likely to be effective in stemming the short term problem. War crimes law should be designed to defuse conflict, not incite it.
:substantiating that the Geneva convention IS violated if and when extra-ordinary rendition is practiced.
We agree AND IT IS wrong/illegal/inexcusable to violate the international Geneva convention. Why should should states be allowed to practice something that inevitably will lead to and has already caused the violation of the Geneva convention? NO reason/excuse
Irrespective of whether a captive is guilty or innocent s/he is human and as such has human rights. To argue that the capture or torture of a 'suspected'-terrorist curtails terrorism is futile since the majority of terrorist events OCCUR to get terror-suspects RELEASED or their captors avenged.
Illegal dissension(such as the violation of a series of covenants and conventions by a government to catch terrorists as in the case of extra-ordinary rendition) only adds fuel to the terrorists' fire. If the supposed 'good guys' behave atrociously and criminally . The 'bad guys' actually look good and gain support for their cause. Surely , in this case the end does not justify the means, If Countries like the U.S break international law they will be sneered upon. I iterate this causes terrorists to gain support and also gives them more reason to fight/terrorize.
Baitullah Masud got killed, the terrorists seem to look happier than ever and most news reports from CNN and BBC claim that their terrorist network has become stronger since his death. They are NOT demoralized.
The opposition has gone off on a tangent to discuss potential civilian casualties if terrorist-suspects are not caught.
Is there a single example of a terror-plot being snuffed because of extra-territorial rendition?
No, there is not a single public case where the method of 'extra-territorial rendition' worked to prevent a terror-plot.
Local espionage, the local capture and detention of a suspect HAS worked in this but extra-ordinary rendition, never.
And since we are on the subject of civilian casualties, collateral damage in the capture or killing of terror-suspects is relevant.When a country attacks another country in the hope of capturing terror suspects, she causes innocent civilian casualties and blows up red cross centers sometimes. Which needless to state is terrible, in no way justified.So, while you talk about potential casualties that there has no proof of, to date(No terror-plots exposed nor prevented via extra-territorial rendition on record). We introduce you to the ACTUAL/REALIZED mass murders of innocent civilians on the basis of extraterritorial rendition.
Your argument:''Most nation states operate intelligence agencies, and many of these conduct operations overseas, often without the knowledge of local governments. And yet, the operations of these agents, who are the agents of a foreign state, and often involve the collection of sensitive information, or materials, is not, and is unlikely to ever be, considered a war crime. The reason, is because without these small scale, surgical instruments at hand, states would have only far heavier tools for dismantling threats to their existence.''
Our response: You're actually saying that the I.S.I and C.I.A are not criticized for the state of world affairs today?[[http://www.google.com/search?q=C.I.A+I.S.I+terrorism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a]]
It is precisely because intelligence agencies are caught doing their governments' dirty work , that we're having this debate. Who do you think nabs people? Intelligence agencies, Of course and it is considered a WAR-CRIME, please read up on the proposition's ORIGINAL case. Who is responsible for an intelligence agency's indiscretions? The government that it operates under.Who is responsible for the government? The head of state.
Therefore Leaders of governments should be punished.
The principle of preemption and the need for expediency.
The preemptive strike however has to be conducted expediently. Extra-territorial rendition is the most expedient method of capturing key actors of the terrorist organization in order to prevent the act. Waiting for other states who might not be incentivized or might not have the means to capture the terrorists is a time-consuming process. Invading a country that harbors terrorists is also time-consuming and can be ineffective to the prevention of a terrorist act, because such an operation is long-term, it is focused on the long-term objective of destroying the terrorist organization and not on the short-term need of disarming key-players. When conducted properly extra-territorial rendition can capture key-players expediently, because it can be conducted by surprise. It is thus effective as a preemptive mechanism and is sometimes a necessary tool, because it is the most expedient. In the age of nuclear proliferation when non-state actors can acquire nuclear weapons, expediency is especially important and everything possible must be done to prevent a nuclear attack by a terrorist organization.
The opposition is just reiterating the point of 'preventing potential civilian casualties' and again has no real/actual authority or real-world example to back this claim with.
Hypothetically 'extra-territorial/ordinary rendition can aggravate more terrorism, cause greater casualties, (vendetta/ revenge- motivator) just as much as it could 'hypothetically' prevent terrorism.
This debate is not about philosophical hypotheses/possibilities but real-life FACTS. The opposition needs a reality-check.
Reality: release of terror suspects has been grounds for terrorism many times.
Reality: There is no proof/documentation that 'extra-territorial rendition' has curtailed/prevented terrorism in the least or even ceased the hatching of a single terror plot.
'We do not believe it is our burden to defend torture and shameful and horrible treatment of prisoners. Rather our argumentation will be focused on why it is justified to breach the sovereignty of another nation to bring to a national court a non-state actor such as a terrorist or a criminal and why extra-territorial rendition is a necessary tool in the combat against terrorism.'-
Perhaps the opposition has a weak if not nonexistent understanding of causation. We the proposition, repeat once again that once extra-ordinary rendition is put in practice, Captor Countries excuse themselves from the laws of their nation as well as the nations of the suspects.We have given real-world examples of this FACT, earlier on in this debate.
However international law binds them still, this debate is not about the legitimacy of conventions over laws. It is inarguable that 'international' conventions and convents carry much greater weight than 'local' laws.
The question is not of the value/authority of a convention and how the opposition CLAIMS,(yet again without proof) that conventions can be casually put aside, since they aren't as 'important' as laws. Conventions illustrate exceptions in which they may be put aside, but those exceptions are not relevant to this debate ,as those exceptions have NOT occurred. One convention that WE quoted had no exceptions at all where it could(even theoretically) be breached.
The rise of non-state actors and the responsibility of sovereignty of other states.
Indeed, if a country had evidence that one of its leaders in government was plotting a large scale attack on its citizens, a pre-emptive strike would almost certainly be justified. And yet the affirmative would have us believe that countries should be made impotent when this plotter removes their military uniform and carries out their plots with non-State associates.
Certainly there are questions of sovereignty involved. Nations have a right to rule and administer justice over their citizens as they see fit (to some extent). But that sovereignty only exists internally. Other nations do not have sovereignty over us. And yet when a nation is unable, or occasionally unwilling, to administer certain forms of justice to its people, namely that which prevents them from plotting or engaging in acts which take place beyond its borders, the effect is very much the same as a willful violation of our sovereignty, and should be responded to as such, by targetting those people directly whom the negligent state has failed to target. There is no moral justification for suggesting that the failure of a State to control its people should be paid for with the lives of our citizens, and we have every right to prevent that criminal transaction within the bounds of proportionality, even where this requires disregarding the sovereignty that the other state has cast aside through negligence.
Another thing, the never-ending 'ifs'. The opposition is continually deviating from the FACTS and working/developing/basing its argument on hypotheses and erroneous practically untrue unproven assumptions.
We've already addressed 'sovereignty', it was our first point? , jargon appears to be the only thing the opposition has going for them. Our feeling is the opposition is lost about the meaning behind the terminology that they love to tout. We have repetitively argued that a State should control her own borders and not be overruled by another Country or State.
Another point the opposition made was that they don't understand why a country's leader 'alone' is liable, we think the opposition needs to read the motion,its definition and the argument that they answered to with that, again. There is no mention of 'alone/just' anywhere. We are not here to debate whether only the leader or all people involved including the leader should be tried for war-crimes.
We are here to debate on whether the leader of a state practicing extra-ordinary rendition should be punished for war crimes and we the proposition feel s/he should, period.
"To claim that your citizens cannot be attacked by terrorists and then go ahead and attack mostly innocent civilians to capture the same terrorists"
We do not see where this comes from? How is covertly capturing a terror suspect in another country an attack against "mostly innocent civilians"? The proposition has nowhere showed us how the capture of a person leads to other people being harmed.
"you are not attacking the non-state actors, you are attacking the STATE"
Again we do not fully understand how this is true. In their example of the KKK and South Africa we say, yes, if there is a high profile KKK leader who commits and plans terrorist attacks in South Africa, the South African government will have an interest in getting this guy. In this case however we think the US government would not refuse to cooperate, therefore there would not be any need to infringe upon US sovereignty.
If the legitimate governments of countries that harbor terrorists are themselves against terrorism, as the proposition says, then of course we should not be going to war against these countries. We have never said it is justified to attack other states for this reason. But if these terrorists are a serious threat to the safety of US citizens, the US government has a duty to get them, even kidnapping them if necessary.
'Covertly', are you serious? covert captures only occur legally when the state that this capture takes place in ,is privy to and involved in the arrest and/or does not 'sell' prisoners to other countries(or their military) on illegal coercion. Which is not the case in 'extra-ordinary rendition'. In extra-ordinary rendition the Country in which the nabbing takes place , is NOT legally involved in the 'capture' and/or has to sell prisoners to another Country to be detained. If it were, then the rendition would not be 'EXTRA'- territorial, now would it?
The reason that we quote(copy-paste) extracts from our sources is to validate/prove that they do defend our point of view.
The opposition, however, do not bother to do that and then when we click on their sources and read up on them, we find that they contradict the opposition's case, an example:
"But the U.S. Government’s use of rendition has been extremely controversial. Foreign governments have criticized the practice because it operates outside the rule of law and has allegedly been used to transfer suspects to countries that torture or mistreat them or to seek extraterritorial prisons, in countries where we have listed the countries as abusing the human rights of their fellow citizens.As a result, the current rendition program has taken a toll on the relationships with some of our closest foreign partners. Consider the following: Italy has indicted 26 Americans for their alleged role in a rendition. Germany has issued arrest warrants for an additional 13 United States intelligence officers. The Canadian Government Commission has censured the United States for rendering a Canadian-Syrian dual-citizen to Syria, where he was allegedly tortured. The Counsel of Europe and the European Union have each issued reports critical of the United States Government’s rendition program and the European countries’ involvement in, or complicity with, that program"
- this is an extract from the source cited earlier by the opposition, we cite it AGAIN for the benefit of the debate's audience-[[ pages 5-6(in adobe but otherwise page 1and2 http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/rendition2.pdf%5D%5D
In the same document, most of 'our' arguments(albeit paraphrased) are mentioned, we quote yet again:
"Rendition as currently practiced, in my view, is undermining our moral credibility and standing abroad and, more importantly, I guess in the minds of the real Politic crowd of which I occasionally consider myself one, weakening, weakening the coalition with foreign governments, the very governments that we need if we’re going to be able to combat international terrorism. We also put our intelligence officers at risk by not providing them with clear guidelines to govern their conduct.As one of the witnesses today recently wrote, ‘‘Successful counter-terrorism depends in part on convincing the world that there is no moral equivalency between the terrorist and the government they oppose. When the United States muddies those waters,this distinction begins to blur.’’More ominous, the controversial aspects of the U.S. Government use of renditions have been used by propagandists and recruiters to fuel and sustain international terrorist organizations with a constant stream of new recruits. That’s not my judgment, that’s the judgment of many in the intelligence community."
but the opposition has the strangest fancy that NO one criticizes or prosecutes Intelligence agencies in courtrooms,(Perhaps, they should watch re-runs of the X-files series, since they missed it as children(the F.B.I unveiled government & C.I.A secrets, atrocities and put them to justice, in at least two episodes).
What proof? proof like that of W.M.Ds in Iraq, If Lebanon is not aware of this one man in their Country and American government-intelligence agency 'proof' has lost all credibility since the Iraq War. Then how is Lebanon not cooperating? Lebanon is very honest and cooperative about the fact that she herself does not have proof.
Are you falsely asserting that Pakistani, Arab,Egypt, Lebanese and Afghan governments do/have not cooperated with the U.S? You need to start reading newspapers. If there was no cooperation there would be no dialogue and these countries wouldn't be selling prisoners(that they caught) to the C.I.A
We say that coerced, forced servile 'cooperation' by THESE countries violating human rights and international moral standards HAS TO stop. And the only way to accomplish this is to get the big bosses/leaders (of larger more powerful Countries) behind bars where they belong(and/or punished to deter future leaders from repeating their mistakes).
And as far as the American originated K.K.K in Africa is concerned.[[http://www.bnvillage.co.uk/news-politics-village/80347-kkk-south-africa.html]] They have arrived and no South Africa is not deluded enough to attack America and practice extra-territorial rendition for it. Also America isn't presenting them with suspected-terrorists, either. As always the opposition/negative is weak on facts.
Response to rebuttal to non-state actors point
The proposition is saying that extraterritorial rendition should be declared a war crime when it leads to torture. Does the proposition agree that in cases where it does not lead to torture it should not be declared a war crime? The proposition has not proven that extraterritorial rendition always inevitably leads to torture. They are making a convincing case against torture, but this is not what this debate should be about. So our claim stands: if extraterritorial rendition can be done without leading to torture, then it is not a war crime.
The article we cite and the proposition also quote implies in its conclusion that extraterritorial abductions are necessary and inevitable. It specifically says that there needs to be a legal framework that determines when and how these abductions can be done. The proposition implies that this article does not agree with our position, but they have not shown how that is, where we have shown how it supports our case.
Here, as in many of their own arguments, the proposition also claims that extraterritorial rendition is already considered a war crime. If that were the case there would be no need to have a debate over whether extraterritorial rendition should be declared a war crime or not. The proposition is either misunderstanding or misrepresenting their sources.
back to the WAR CRIMES ACT OF 1996. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996]]
Rendition IS a war crime , that issue is not debatable and certainly should not be debated in his forum. WE are here to contribute punishment for this WAR-CRIME to leaders of governments that associate or assist in rendition.
Intelligence Agencies and soldiers have faced certain consequences for their unlawful actions. This is about getting to the cause of the problem, tearing it from its roots and so nipping it in the bud. Leaders are more responsible for the events that transpire than their Followers are. Leaders should be punished(Especially leaders of the more powerful Countries that have the means to sway/persuade other leaders to perform illegal actions). That is the only way to stop rendition(and all the unlawful consequences of it).
Please refer to the 'Nazi'-point.
Response to rebuttal to proportion
The proposition misrepresents us here. What we are saying is that if countries no longer have the option to commit extraterritorial abductions the only options left that they will likely use are ones that cause inproportionaly high harms to the target state (sanctions, war). Having the option to abduct a suspect would remove a threat without harms to non-involved civilians.
"the majority of terrorist events OCCUR to get terror-suspects RELEASED or their captors avenged."
This is an unfounded claim. There are many reasons terrorist events occur, release and retaliation are only a few of them [[http://www.meteck.org/causesTerrorism.html]]
The proposition claims no terror plots were ever foiled by extraterritorial rendition but many were foiled by "Local espionage, the local capture and detention of a suspect", without providing proof for either claim. If the proposition agrees that capture of terror suspects can foil terror plots then they agree that capture of terror suspects by anyone can foil their plots. Of course, where possible, it is preferable that the local government capture international terrorists on their soil. The problem is: "Local espionage, the local capture and detention of a suspect" are not done everywhere. We brought the examples of Mohammad Ali Hamadi and Imad Fayez Mugniyah who are currently hiding in Lebanon while the Lebanese government denies their presence. Also: "Some governments are hostile, not weak, and here renditions become vital. In the
spring of 1998, intelligence officials plotted to render bin Ladin from Taliban-controlled
Afghanistan, an operation made necessary because the Afghan regime supported
the terrorist leader. No standard legal measure would have worked in place
of a rendition."(page 34) [[http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/rendition2.pdf]]
All the examples previously cited for 'Sold prisoners', count as local authorities catching international criminal suspects.
However, 'selling' these people to be detained in foreign human rights violating detention centers has, in itself never deterred any terrorist plot in the making, if there were a single case where/when a terror plot was foiled via extra-ordinary/territorial rendition, the opposition would/should have the grace to cite it.
But there isn't(the umpteenth time I'm repeating this)
The opposition states that: ""The majority of terrorist events OCCUR to get terror-suspects RELEASED or their captors avenged" This is an unfounded claim. There are many reasons terrorist events occur, release and retaliation are only a few of them"
- we wrote 'avenge' and 'majority' :this does not necessarily translate to 'in response to' and 'in all cases'. The point is, that 'Most' of these terrorists claim that they are 'avenging' a superpower when they commit terrorism. I repeat once again that, that superpower gives them excuses by BREACHING INTERNATIONAL LAWS,COVENANTS and CONVENTIONS.
On preventing terrorism
The fact that we can deprive an organization of the leadership and experience of the likes of Mohammed Haydar Zammar who was "believed to be al-Qaeda's top recruiter in Hamburg and to have helped form the Hamburg cell at the center of the
September 11 attacks" (page 35) [[http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/rendition2.pdf]].
Of course the fact that a terrorist act never happened means there cannot be evidence of it. We make the claim that capturing leaders of terrorist organizations deprives the organization of their experience and unique abilities. That is a loss for the terrorists and a victory for us.
The scale of harm and potential gains achieved through extraordinary rendition
"Scott Horton, an expert on international law who helped prepare a report on renditions issued by N.Y.U. Law School and the New York City Bar Association, estimates that a hundred and fifty people have been rendered since 2001."[[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6?currentPage=all]]
SO, an estimated 150 people have been rendered in a time frame of 8 years.
Yet, and I quote again:
"Rohan Gunaratna, a Sri Lankan expert on terrorist interrogations who has consulted with several intelligence agencies, argued that rough tactics “can save hundreds of lives.”" [[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6?currentPage=all]]
SO, every individual rendered has the potential to save the lives of hundreds or even thousands of civilians, since terrorist plots aim to invoke as much harm as they possibly can.
9/11 showed that they have the capacity to kill an overwhelming number of innocent people. In fact, "In total 2,993 people, including the hijackers, died in the attacks" of 9/11. [[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/22/terror/main2035427.shtml]]
So from a purely mathematical standpoint, when even 1 individual of 150 can yield information that saves as many people that died in the 9/11 attacks, the practice becomes justified and explains why US government decided to use it in the first place.
WE repeat that 'extra-ordinary rendition' has NEVER reportedly stopped a potential terrorist act/plot/plan: There is no tangible/real proof behind this still 'repeated' argument
If Osama Bin Laden was caught before 9/11 extra-territorially or otherwise, the attack would still have occurred. Since the people who conducted the act were not suspected-terrorists at the time.
WE also reiterate Potential verses ACTUAL lives. According to this website[[http://www.bebo.com/BlogView.jsp?MemberId=5831413611&BlogId=5831681811]] four thousand people have died(soldiers fighting the 'War On Terror',innocent civilians(collateral damage))in the Waziristan war. This war was conducted to arrest/kill 'suspects'.
The same website also gives the death toll in the Iraq war, however NOT all of the deaths in the Iraq War can be attributed to extra-ordinary rendition.
The Taliban or Al-Queda did not have any reported violent murderous enmity with PAKISTAN before 9/11. There would be no deaths(or Waziristan war) whatsoever IF our government hadn't allowed the U.S(under extreme pressure/coercion. Who can say 'no' to the biggest military power on the planet) to bombard our terrain to catch terror-suspects.
People who did not initially support the Taliban began to do so, as a result of (the civilian deaths directly caused by) this war. The Taliban's cause EXPANDED(from virtually non-existent in Pakistan,(they were big in Afghanistan but not here) to spangled all over the Country) because of the attacks.
The opposition claims rendition is an 'alternative' to WAR yet almost all, reported cases of extra-ordinary rendition have occurred under the heading of 'The WAR on terror'.
According to Wiki In total 2,993 people, including the hijackers, died in the (9/11) attacks.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks]]
Approximately 3000 people died on 9/11, a very small proportion of the American population, consider Pakistan, a Country with a significantly smaller population. 4000 Pakistanis died in the Waziristan war. A much larger proportion of our population. If the American people can be angry enough,about the deaths on 9/11 to O.K killing thousands of mostly uninvolved people all over the world in an attempt to illegally catch terror-suspects. Then how angry should Pakistanis be, for a much larger death toll, that counts for a much much greater proportion of our population?
Obviously the 'total' civilian death toll(in Afghanistan,Pakistan & Iraq among other Countries) as a consequence of avenging 9/11 has been much greater than in the event itself. The opposition's argument is as an attempt to justify this, how?
by saying that the war fought TO catch,kill and/or detain terror-suspects has nothing to do with extra-ordinary rendition?? I think they need a definition check.
No one from the proposition has questioned the capacity of an individual or small group of people to kill masses. An American terrorist could have easily piloted a plane into a building, killing just as many people, that wouldn't warrant a mad attack on his family, people of his race,people of his religion and his friends/acquaintances. And America would most certainly not WAGE a civil war on the basis of such an attack. Two contemporary examples of psychos, who could have 'potentially' been piloting the planes or were/are crazy enough to hatch the plot- [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre]] The objective of ALL terrorists is to get as many people as possible killed(either BY them or by people trying to catch them).The more, civilian deaths the more attention and thus the more power they get.
The fact remains that it is completely illogical to sacrifice the 'many' for the horrific acts of the 'few'. To claim that 'one' terrorist is more dangerous than another, merely because the former is not an American is logically void.
The opposition needs to start using the word 'opposition' in reference to themselves and not us, since THEY are 'opposing' the motion not us, of course they can not now.
They got us confused. for a while we were deluded into believing that they are the proposition. Strange occurrences.
1. Why does extra-territorial rendition constitute a war crime?
2. Why should the leader of the state be responsible?
3. It would have also been nice if they had brought proper definitions and established a model for the debate (answering questions such as which courts/international institutions do they have in mind, the leaders of which specific countries if any should be brought before justice, etc.?)
We feel that they failed on all these points throughout the debate. First of all, the proposition did not explicitly define what they mean by “extraterritorial rendition”. We were lead to draw our own conclusions from what they implied through their arguments. What we understood from their copy pasted bits is that what they meant by extra-territorial rendition was the abduction, detention and interrogation of suspects in a territory other than the rendering state. Though most of the examples brought by the proposition were about the U.S using this method, they never stated that they wanted this to be a debate about the US, therefore we debated this on a principle level.
In claiming that extra-territorial rendition is a war crime the proposition brought to the table various conventions which extraterritorial rendition violates. From this they implied that it is a war crime. If this were true and extraterritorial rendition would be genuinely outlawed then we would not be having this debate right now. We on the other hand have shown you that extraterritorial rendition is more in a gray area in terms of legality [[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=961048]], where there have been calls to create a framework to regulate this behavior. They never analyzed what a war crime is nor why extra-territorial rendition should be considered a war crime within the situation that we outlined, namely in the conflict between states and violent non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations. The term “war crime” is used to denote something absolutely extremely vile, if the proposition wants to tag something as a war crime they take upon themselves a great burden to prove why this specific act is so evil to be declared a war crime. War crime is and should be a very serious matter, currently some war crimes are punishable by death. We pointed out the danger of throwing this term on acts without a solid justification, it undermines the notion of a war crime, makes it somehow lighter.
But even extraterritorial rendition is currently illegal by some treaties, simply saying “It is in the law” is saying no more than “It is written on a piece of paper somewhere”. In our substantive material we explained how the nature of war and the threat to the security of nations have changed since the establishment of the Geneva convention. Things that may have been considered unpermissible in past situations need to be considered as legitimate tools for self-defense in the new situation of proliferation of terrorism.
The proposition goes on to claim that extraterritorial rendition should be declared a war crime because people have been tortured, and bring examples of such cases. By saying this they are not saying that extraterritorial rendition is bad, but they are saying that it is bad when it leads to torture of the captive. We on the opposition side also despise torture, but is the proposition then saying that extraterritorial rendition is alright as long as the captive does not get tortured? The proposition has not proven that extraterritorial rendition always inevitably leads to torture. The examples they bring are of extreme cases. In our substantive proved that extra-territorial rendition has utility to states even if they don't torture the rendered, this is because extra-territorial rendition disarms the combatant and removes his leadership and experience from the organization.
On the second issue the proposition claim that if extraterritorial rendition was a war crime, then the leaders of states that use it must be held accountable for the same reason that Hitler was responsible for crimes committed by Nazis. They never showed us why the level of complicity of leaders in extra-territorial rendition is the same as the complicity of leaders in genocide. But moreover, we say it would not be reasonable to hold accountable the leader of the state for actions committed by some of its institutions.
The proposition claim here that “If governments could (that/this easily) remove themselves from their duty to signed convents conventions, and their OWN local laws then it would be impossible to try any one/leader/Country for WAR CRIMES.”
But we say the kinds of acts that we are talking about are not analogous to what we normally consider war crimes.
As we have already argued, operations of extraterritorial rendition are conducted on an incredibly small scale. It is unlikely that they are all carried out with explicit authorization. Therefore it is unreasonable to expect the leader of the state to be fully responsible.
The matter that we brought to the debate is the following:
1. Extraterritorial rendition is a legitimate tool in the conflict between states and non-state actors
2. Extraterritorial rendition is effective in saving lives
We claimed first of all that extraterritorial rendition is a legitimate tool to use in modern warfare.
We showed that a state to guarantee the bodily security of their citizens, as civilians have given up all means to defend themselves and surrendered the monopoly of violence to the state. In normal circumstances the police force is used to grant security within the state and the armed forces protect citizens from other states that might want to harm them. We are however now facing a new kind of threat: that of non-state actors engaging in organized and prolonged conflicts against states. Here conventional methods do not suffice as terrorists are almost impossible to negotiate with, are difficult to capture and target because they operate as individuals and amall groups rather than an army, do not respond to nuclear deterrent (this is an important nuance for terrorist organizations who seek to acquire nuclear weapons).
Extraterritorial rendition is not a common method of law enforcement. It is something only used in extreme circumstances, the only suspects caught and held this way are people believed to be high ranking or other key figures in terrorist groups. These are people who have a malicious intent toward the state and it's citizens, they plot and commit surprise attacks that intentially target civilians. It is of utmost importance that they be caught and interrogated for doing this can prevent great harm to thousands of people.
Of course, it is desirable to catch these people by conventional methods. If it is possible that the police catch a terror suspect and take them to jail, we think that’s great. The problem arises, when a suspect cannot be caught by conventional methods. This can happen if the suspect is hiding in a state that does not have the ability to go after him or does not want to arrest him (as in the case of Mohammad Ali Hamadi, a suspect hiding in Lebanon, the government of which denies him being there). Or it can happen if the suspect uses loopholes in our own laws to evade capture (as in the case of Mohammed Haydar Zammar, who had to be released by German authorities, but could be captured later by unconventional methods). The proposition point out that mistakes can occur. We do not deny this, however we claim that damage done to innocent people mistaken for terrorists is both reversible and proportional to the lives that can be saved through extra-territorial rendition. The example that the proposition brought of Lakhdar Boumediene - who was wrongfully detained and later released – shows that our justice system can correct these mistakes.
Extraterritorial rendition can also be considered a proportional tool if one takes considers the other options that a state facing a threat from a non-state actor hiding in another country has to defend itself. If extra-territorial rendition were not an option, then the only other options the state would have to deal with threats posed by terrorists hiding in another country would be too ineffective (diplomatic means that have failed in the case of Lebanon) or too extreme (going to war against a country that does not want to hand over a terror suspect or applying economic sanctions). The first of these means the state is not fulfilling its duty to protect its citizens; the second will mean long term large scale violence and needless suffering for many people.
In order for the opposition to win this debate we also had to justify the incursion on the sovereignty of another state in order to eliminate a threat to it. First of all we showed that extra-territorial renditions are surgical operations that do not have an aim to damage the autonomy or instititutions of another state, but merely to eliminate the threat posed by a non-state actor. That non-state actor is acting independently of the foreign policy of the state that he is hiding in and hence his persona cannot be considered to be synonymous with that state. But furthermore when a nation is unable, or occasionally unwilling, to administer certain forms of justice to its people, namely that which prevents them from plotting or engaging in acts which take place beyond its borders, the effect is very much the same as a willful violation of our sovereignty, and should be responded to as such, by targetting those people directly whom the negligent state has failed to target. There is no moral justification for suggesting that the failure of a State to control its people should be paid for with the lives of our citizens, and we have every right to prevent that criminal transaction within the bounds of proportionality, even where this requires disregarding the sovereignty that the other state has cast aside through negligence.
Secondly we claimed that extraterritorial rendition is an efficient tool in fighting terrorism. In the last 8 years 150 people have been rendered by the US in this fashion. [[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6?currentPage=all]] The kinds of people captured this way, as we have argued are people with suspected ties to terrorist organizations and are therefore extremely dangerous persons.
The method of extraterritorial rendition is efficient because it allows us to quickly capture and detain dangerous individuals who by conventional methods we could neither arrest nor detain. By this method we have caught key figures in terror organizations, such as Mohammed Haydar Zammar of al-Qaeda. Removing these figures from their organizations harms the organizations by depriving them of the leadership, experience and recruitment power of these figures.
The proposition make the claim that extraterritorial rendition has not foiled any attempted terror act and has increased terrorism. We say it is an unfounded claim.
The proposition themselves claim that arresting terrorists reduces terror (“Local espionage, the local capture and detention of a suspect HAS worked in this”, No point 3). The reasons why any kind of arrest works are the same: we incapacitate a dangerous person and remove his influences. We claim that arresting people we otherwise could not arrest has reduced terror. The information we get from interrogating them has been helpful. It is hard to bring proof of events that did not happen, it is reasonable to believe that we have foiled plans of terror.
In conclusion, the proposition did not set the debate up in a clear way. They did not explain why extraterritorial rendition is analogous to war crime. They did not explain why the leader of the country should be held responsible for all acts committed by its institutions. We on the opposition side attempted to elucidate why extra-territorial rendition is justified, that there are times when states have no other effective option except resorting to this tactic. Extra-territorial rendition is a proportional tactic and it can save lives. We stand proudly in opposition.
What do you think?