Colby has had to back out of the debate that I proposed earlier. As I told him, I’m open to revisions in the specific of the debate but I think it’s an important discussion to have. I know there’s someone out there who actually believes that the architects of U.S. foreign policy should be subject to international justice. Care to discuss why?
Wiley, as I indicated to you previously, it is specious (at best) to have a debate where one considers an undefined class of people subject to the law. Who are the “architects” of US foreign policy? Bush? Cheney? Wolfowitz? Bremer? Rice? Clinton? Clark? Kissinger? Reid? Marine Corporal Joe Smith? Yes, some of these people have broken international law, and I would adore seeing them hauled before a court because of it. But neither international or American law applies to general (and remarkably unspecified) classes of people. You might as well propose a debate question of this: Should any American at all be subject to international law? (And I notice, as I have before, that you continue to equate the words “law” and “justice”. That stacks the deck, don’t you think?)
Yes, it is probably an important discussion to have. On this we cannot agree more. But the terms you’ve laid out are not exactly honest.
Now, as to the debate you really want to have. Should any American at all be subject to international law? No. We didn’t sign off on the Hague accords because we thought ourselves above international law, even though we were the ones who set the very president for it. In fact, we’ve violated (grossly) treaties we have signed. Bushes and Clinton (and Saint Reagan, to be honest). We are above reproach, as we’ve indicated quite clearly, and other nations despise us for it. We will reap what we’ve sown because of it. When China and India and the Latin American countries kick sand in our face, well we were bullies and that happens. But it’s best we not think of it as justice …
I would do this, but a man’s got to know his limitations. The rigors of structured debate don’t fit with my scattergun style. I know it’s a weakness, but I yam what I yam.
More interesting to me is why you righties don’t get out on the blogs and give us a what-for. You don’t - you stay nested and secure, and wait for us to bring the fight to you.
It’s really interesting. There’s a reason, and just as my reason for not entering a structured debate doesn’t shine favorably on me, so too does righty absence out in the trenches make you look bad.
Wulfgar, I specifically tailored the Resolution to be vague because I want to give you as much room to define the debate into grounds you are comfortable defending. It’s up to you - Aff - to determine who the architects of US foreign policy are and what international law should mean. You get to “narrow the scope” by making these definitions in the first post. The idea was for me to avoid pigeon-holing you into a specific advocacy - one that frankly I don’t understand. As I told Colby, I’m completely open to redefining the Resolution before we kick it off. I think the hope is to have a discussion about Pogie’s original post - whether Bush - or his cronies - ought to be held to a “higher justice” or a “higher law” or whatever you think should happen.
So, Wulfgar, you up for it? Tell me what you want to debate. I’ll meet you on the battlefield. By the way - note that I give you first and last word in the format.
By the way - note that I give you first and last word in the format.
As is the LD standard; the burden of proof is on the affirmative in all cases, for obvious reasons.
I do find it interesting that you issue a challenge, but the challenge is for others to assert an idea. Normally when you challenge, you start things off…
Well, the grounds were more or less set by Pogie’s original post - the position was held fast by the loyal left and so i wanted to give you all a chance to put your views formally to the test.
I suppose it could go the other way, but giving you the right and ability to define the grounds of the debate was meant as an advantage, not some trick to gain an upper hand. My goal is to avoid pigeonholing anyone into a position they don’t want to argue. I prefer to give you all the rope you need :).
