This is where all download will be listed, utilizing the Page Add plugin.
File Name | S21-Policy-Stoa-30-NEG-Guantanamo.docx |
File Size | 61.95 KB |
Date added | May 3, 2021 |
Category | Archived |
Tags | Season 21 |
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is an installation on the coast of Cuba that is leased by the US from the government of Cuba. It was established long ago, before the current communist government took power, by a treaty between the US and Cuba. The Cuban government would have long ago terminated the lease and sent the Americans home, except they can’t. The treaty requires consent by both parties (U.S. government and the Cuban government) to terminate the lease, and the US government will never consent.
The facts above set up what happened in 2001 after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Pres. George W. Bush was looking for a way to process foreign citizen bad guys captured during various operations related to the “War on Terror” that followed 9/11. Some of the traditional rules (he argued) didn’t apply. There are established procedures for processing prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. But these guys weren’t legally “prisoners of war” because they weren’t in the employ of any recognized government or army. What were they? Pres. Bush classified them as “enemy combatants” (or sometimes “unlawful enemy combatants”) and used that authorization to do two things. First, it justified indefinite detention for as long as the US felt was needed to keep them from going back and doing more bad things. Second, it justified putting them on trial under “military commissions” instead of the usual trials held in criminal cases in ordinary federal courts. These are also known as “Article III” courts, referring to the section of the Constitution where they are defined. For example, if you robbed a federally insured bank in New York City, you would be prosecuted in a federal Article III court. If you didn’t plea bargain, you would be given a jury trial in front of a federal judge in New York. Military commissions avoid all that and do their work within the military justice system.
And just to be sure that no meddlesome courts or lawyers would try to get in the way, Pres. Bush ordered these detainees to be held in prison facilities at Guantanamo. In other words, “not” (officially, completely) on US soil (so maybe the Constitution doesn’t apply?) and not anywhere that the media or lawyers could get easy access to them. Guantanamo consists entirely of military facilities. There is no tourism or outside visitation allowed unless authorized by the Navy.
Most of the prisoners that have been detained at Guantanamo have either been released or convicted by the military commissions and sent to regular federal prison. But there are a few left that are lingering, never having had a trial and never having been convicted of a crime, yet considered too dangerous to release. The government says they’re working on trials, but the military commission process is terribly slow and inefficient. Indefinite detainment without trial is allegedly a human rights violation (you can dispute that in the Neg evidence below), so AFF might argue that we either need to try them or release them. There are several possible Affirmative plans that could be done here. One is to bring them back to the U.S. and put them on trial in real (Article III) federal courts. If they’re found not guilty, they are cut loose. If guilty, they go to federal prison. Another is to simply release them and send them back to their home countries, under the theory that they are no longer a threat and we’ve delayed their human right to a trial for so long that a fair trial is now impossible.
Some of the issue with Article III trials is the conditions under which these detainees were caught. There is no police investigation, CSI teams collecting forensic evidence, etc. These bad guys were caught overseas in conflict situations and war zones. We may “know” they’re bad guys, but proving it in a law enforcement context might be impossible.
Since we don’t know in advance what AFF’s plan is, you will have to judge after hearing it which NEG evidence here can be used. The Counterplan is not consistent with many of the arguments in the rest of the brief, so you will need to avoid self-contradictory arguments that could damage your Negative position.