Tournament: Ohio Valley | Round: 6 | Opponent: Calhoun | Judge: Dustin M-L
Congress CP – 1NC
Text: The United States Congress should pass legislation to increase its economic engagement toward Cuba by legislating that the United States’ occupation of Guantanamo Bay violates international law.
Congress solves international law better than the courts
Rooney, JD Drake University, 2006
(Heather, “PARLAYING PRISONER PROTECTIONS: A LOOK AT THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THAT SHOULD BE GOVERNING OUR TREATMENT OF GUANTANAMO DETAINEES,” Spring, 54 Drake L. Rev. 679, lexis)
Nevertheless, the Guantanamo detainees are not completely out of luck. Indeed, under
AND
of detainees that will build confidence and cooperation both at home and abroad.
The plan creates an independent judicial role in enforcing international law
Wu, Columbia law professor, 2007
(Tim, “ARTICLE: TREATIES' DOMAINS”, May, 93 Va. L. Rev. 571, lexis)
Congressional breach poses more complicated problems for the judiciary. Unlike with respect to the
AND
obviously the former), potential inconsistency with the treaty represents a Congressional choice.
That undermines Congress’ treaty power
Neuman, Columbia jurisprudence professor, 2004
(Gerald, “AGORA: THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: The Uses of International Law in Constitutional Interpretation”, January, 98 A.J.I.L. 82, lexis)
Normative reasoning borrowed from international human rights sources will not necessarily prevail in the process
AND
treaty implementation, and would not be consistent with current constitutional understandings. n33
That wrecks hegemony.
Wilkinson, 4th Circuit Judge, 2004
(J. Harvie, “DEBATE: THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN JUDICIAL DECISIONS”, Spring, 27 Harv. J.L. and Pub. Pol'y 423, lexis)
So of course international law should play a part in American judicial reasoning.
AND
in foreign and military matters were later repudiated and contradicted by judicial decree.
Nuclear war
White, ANU (Australian National University) strategic studies professor, 2008
Hugh, Lowy Institute for International Policy visiting fellow, former (Australian) Office of National Assessments intelligence analyst and senior advisor to the Defense minister, "Why War in Asia Remains Thinkable," Survival, informaworld.com)
Finally, the fourth model is the balance-of-power system that shaped
AND
way, an order is emerging in which major war is more likely.
T
“Engagement” requires direct talks with the target government
Crocker 9 – Chester Crocker, Professor of Strategic Studies at the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, Former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, “Terms of Engagement”, New York Times, 9-13, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/opinion/14crocker.html?_r=0
PRESIDENT OBAMA will have a hard time achieving his foreign policy goals until he masters some key terms and better manages the expectations they convey. Given the furor that will surround the news of America’s readiness to hold talks with Iran, he could start with “engagement” — one of the trickiest terms in the policy lexicon.
The Obama administration has used this term to contrast its approach with its predecessor’s resistance to talking with adversaries and troublemakers. His critics show that they misunderstand the concept of engagement when they ridicule it as making nice with nasty or hostile regimes.
Let’s get a few things straight. Engagement in statecraft is not about sweet talk. Nor is it based on the illusion that our problems with rogue regimes can be solved if only we would talk to them. Engagement is not normalization, and its goal is not improved relations. It is not akin to détente, working for rapprochement, or appeasement.
So how do you define an engagement strategy? It does require direct talks. There is simply no better way to convey authoritative statements of position or to hear responses. But establishing talks is just a first step. The goal of engagement is to change the other country’s perception of its own interests and realistic options and, hence, to modify its policies and its behavior.
Violation -~-- plan’s only a unilateral change in policy; it doesn’t increase dialogue
Voting issue -~--
Limits -~-- requiring direct talks places a functional limit on the topic because few Affs can defend the process. Specific import cases can’t beat the PIC out of talks, controlling the Neg’s research burden
Ground -~-- talks are a stable mechanism for DA links and competition for counterplans like two-track or quiet diplomacy -~-- core ground is key to fairness
I-LAW DA
Judicial adoption of international law will chill corporate investment and destroy predictability key to the economy- turns human rights and democracy
Kochan, Chapman University School of Law assistant law professor, 2006
(Donald, Fordham International Law Journal, "Sovereignty and the American courts at the cocktail party of international law: the dangers of domestic judicial invocations of foreign and international law," 29 Fordham Int'l L.J. 507, l/n)
Finally, economic development and its concomitant contribution to the advancement of human rights and
AND
extra-constitutional origins is simply dangerous, activist, and ultra vires.
AND loss of competitiveness triggers populist China-bashing
The Independent (London), 1-25-2010
Danger of a US-China trade war, L/N)
For the US, China's growing influence is deeply uncomfortable. The argument over Google
AND
ultimately, collapsing economic activity. No wonder investors are suddenly feeling nervous.
China-bashing escalates to a shooting war that outweighs case
Lui, University of Missouri at Kansas City economics visiting professor, 8-20-2005
Henry, "The Coming Trade war: Part VI: Trade Wars Can Lead to Shooting Wars," http://www.henryckliu.com/page10.html)
US geopolitical hostility toward China will manifest itself first in trade friction, which will
AND
to be fought over by killing consumers in a world plagued with overcapacity.
Torture
Their moral decision-making is evil
Issac, 02—Professor of Political Science at Indiana-Bloomington, Director of the Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life, PhD from Yale (Jeffery C., Dissent Magazine, Vol. 49, Iss. 2, “Ends, Means, and Politics,” p. Proquest)
As a result, the most important political questions are simply not asked. It
AND
not true believers. It promotes arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness.
Utilitarianism is the only moral framework and alternatives are inevitability self-contradictory
Nye, 86 (Joseph S. 1986; Phd Political Science Harvard. University; Served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; “Nuclear Ethics” pg. 18-19)
The significance and the limits of the two broad traditions can be captured by contemplating
AND
bear a heavier burden of proof in the nuclear age than ever before.
Their ethical purity ignores human suffering
Chomsky 2004 (Noam, Professor of Linguistics at MIT, “Advocacy and Realism: A reply to Noah Cohen,” ZNet, August 26, http://www.chomsky.info/letters/20040826.htm)
Right now, there are several possible stands that might be taken by those concerned
AND
” -- that is, without regard for the fate of suffering people.
DA:
A) Plan causes political battles with congress
Edwards, ’10 – coauthor of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform. James, “Arizona Ruling: Ripe for Appeal,” 7-30. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38308. Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice in a statement called the Arizona ruling “weak on both legal analysis and deference to the fact-finding, policy determinations, and judgment of the people of Arizona’s duly elected representatives.” But perhaps more important than the legal failings of this injunction, the judicial interference in Arizona’s self-government pours political gasoline on a blazing fire. From the moment last spring when the Arizona law grabbed the nation’s attention, it has enjoyed strong public support all across America. The politically correct crowd’s announced boycotts backfired. They angered average Americans. Popular support for Arizona and against the open borders types spiked. The Obama Justice Department’s lawsuit against the Arizona law only inflamed the political fires further. Now, a Democratic judge engages in very public judicial activism on this prominent issue. The entire nation is watching. The likely outcome is to motivate conservative-leaning and independent voters to try to restore order to their runaway federal government come election day. That means the people who brought us government hostile takeovers in the private sector, bailouts, obscene debt and deficit spending, tax increases and red tape have handed Republicans yet another white-hot issue. And here comes the Elena Kagan appointment as the next ultraliberal activist on the Supreme Court. In short, federal judicial interference in the Arizona law makes for short-term bad legal opinion but longer-term good politics for conservatives.
B) Turns case – causes court stripping.
Fellow, ‘6 – J.D. candidate at the College of William
AND
activist court. Rather, it can be conducive to communicating with constituents.
Deference
Deference is goldilocks now-~--court isn’t letting the executive get away with murder
Scheppele 12 (KIM LANE SCHEPPELE is a Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and University Center for Human Values; Director of the Program in Law and Public Affairs, Princeton University, “THE NEW JUDICIAL DEFERENCE,” http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/SCHEPPELE.pdf)
The anti-terrorism cases also show that many judges were braver than we might
AND
this Article, many other courts around the world did the same.405
BUT-~--at the end of the day the court will defer regardless of the plan
Payne, Harvard law school, 2013
(William, “Note: Cleaning Up "The Mess": The D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals And The Burden Of Proof In The Guantanamo Habeas Cases”, Spring, 36 Harv. J.L. and Pub. Pol'y 873, lexis, ldg)
The work of the court of appeals regarding the burden of proof in the Guantanamo
AND
been relegated to ancillary status had the burden of proof been set lower.
Positive peace’s refusal of all hierarchies is an impossible demand turns structural violence.
Boulding, Direct of the International Peace Research Institute, 1977, (Kenneth E., “Twelve Friendly Quarrels with Johan Galtung,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 14, No. 1, TH, p. 80-81)
Closely related to Galtung's horror of in-equality is his horror of dominance,
AND
price. Galtung's hatred of dominance prevents him from ever formulating this problem.
Epistemological debate is irrelevant - concrete action is inevitable - they fail to create useful knowledge
Friedrichs, Oxford politics lecturer, 2009
(Jorg, “From positivist pretense to pragmatic practice: Varieties of pragmatic methodology in IR scholarship. International Studies Review 11(3): 645–648)
As Friedrich Nietzsche (1887 1994:1; cf. Wilson 2002)
AND
device for the generation of useful knowledge are two sides of the same coin
Nuke war threat is real and o/w structural and invisible violence-~--their expansion of structural violence to an all-pervasive omnipresence makes preventing war impossible
Ken Boulding 78 is professor of economics and director, Center for Research on Conflict Resolution, University of Michigan, “Future Directions in Conflict and Peace Studies,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Jun., 1978), pp. 342-354
Galtung is very legitimately interested in problems of world poverty and the failure of development
AND
, increases with every improvement in technology, either of war or of peacex
The status quo is structurally improving
Dash 2/4 Co-Founder and Managing Director at Activate, a new kind of strategy consultancy that advises companies about the opportunities at the intersection of technology and media co-founder and CEO of ThinkUp, which shows you how to be better at using your social networks, publisher, editor and owner of Dashes.com, my personal blog where I've been publishing continuously since 1999, entrepreneur, writer and geek living in New York City (Anil Dash, 4 February 2013, “THE WORLD IS GETTING BETTER. QUICKLY.,” http://dashes.com/anil/2013/02/the-world-is-getting-better-quickly.html)
The world is getting better, faster, than we could ever have imagined.
AND
of resources, time and effort to tackling the problems we have left.
