Originally posted by The Troquelet
I'm part of the NFL, and this question is our Lincoln-Douglas Debate question for the fall. I thought it was interesting enough to post here for discussion. It's in the form of a "resolution" or "bill":
Be it resolved, that when the United States is involved in military conflict, the demands of national security should supersede the rights of the individual.
So, poll: yes, no, and why?
I voted no, officially, but it was a very tentative vote. Why? The lack of frame of reference and the vagueness of the language. The resolution is very broad, amendment type language, not specific-parameter language of US Code.
Considering that, I'd vote no because of the lack of specified limits of what can satisfy the "demands" versus which "rights" you're talking about sacrificing. Not to mention what specific category of military conflict? Does it include periods when we only have Special Forces advisers training counterinsurgency or security forces (which is almost constantly) or do we have to be in a state of declared war?
Honestly, to a great degree, this principle is how the US has always worked -- and
should work. It's just doesn't operate on an all-or-nothing scale like this simplistic resolution would suggest. Delve into it Troquelet, you'll see there is plenty of latitude and plenty of restriction, and most of it circles around the dissemination of classified information vs. First Amendment rights (freedom of speech).
In that case, I'm all for limiting your ability to blab, oh, say our war plan vs. Iraq -- like what the New York Times did in July. The dangers are when restrictions are imposed that may violate civil rights without just cause --or-- to hide embarrassments instead of actual, sensitive information (which, despite rules to prevent this, has happened; hence the "leak" that sometimes springs from inside the organization-in-question).
This is also big with employment issues in the formation of the Homeland Defense Department. I'm kind of split on this one: I see both the Executive necessity to do what needs to be done and I'm acutely aware of managerial abuses that are possible. Major problem for the union here: these folk aren't factory workers, these folk hold the security of our nation in their hands. When you are a gun-carrying, sworn "agent" or "officer" of the United States (there is a technical difference), you have a different set of responsibilities and expectations -- similar to being in the armed at forces at this point -- and if you look, you'll see the UCMJ works on a different level than USC. There are good reasons why.
So, again, "no," but only on basis vagueness.
Speech and Debate Club. L-D debates are a competition event modelled on a very formalized debate [like a bill in congress debate between two people: timed speeches, cross-examination, etc]: also there's Extemporaneous speeches, Impromptu speeches, Duo and Humorous interpretations of short plays-scenes, Persuasive Speeches, Original Oratory, Student Congress, etc.
you are all ready to become honorary Californians!
