query: A delay is necessary for national security  Kenya is at risk of terrorist attack. Al-Shabab, a group linked to Al Qaeda have launched a number of attacks against Kenya. In addition to the Westgate massacre, there have been grenade attacks on bus terminals [1] and suicide bombings in refugee camps [2] .  Kenya’s waters are also used by Somali based pirates as a ground for attacks on international shipping, including possibly targeting ships travelling towards the port of Mombasa.  It is more important to the international community to have credible action taken in order to protect the Kenyan people from terrorism. This needs a strong Kenyan government – which means that there cannot be a change due to an international trial.  [1] Associated Press, “Two grenade blasts rattle Nairobi; 1 dead”, USA Today, 25/10/2011   [2] Ombati, Cyrus, “Terror suspects die after bombs explode on them”, Standard Digital News,

positive: rnational africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Kenya is an advanced state with a functioning system of the rule of law – except for those in power. With modern video technology, Ruto and Kenyatta could oversee the governance of the country from The Hague, or, alternatively, participate in the trial through videolink.  Even so, Al-Shabab are unlikely to be defeatable within the terms of Kenyatta and Ruto. Such a delay would only be useful if there was government reform or fresh elections necessary, rather than anti-terrorist action.

negative: The war in Afghanistan is necessary for US and NATO security  The timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan means withdrawing by the end of 2012, regardless of the security situation, and handing over the conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaida (which will almost certainly still be going on) to a largely Afghan force which is ill-prepared to handle the war on its own. This means that proponents of the timetable withdrawal must support pulling NATO forces out of Afghanistan even if the war is going badly at the end of 2012 and it is clear that the withdrawal will benefit the Taliban and Al Qaeda on the battlefield. "Afghan forces simply do not currently have the capacity to do the protecting themselves at this point and, given the challenges of building up new institutions in Afghanistan after decades of war, will not necessarily have the ability until by the end of 2012.” US and NATO forces are needed to mentor and partner with Afghans as they build up an army and police force largely from scratch. Withdrawing before this task is completed adds up to a prescription for a drying up of intelligence and a Taliban victory. [1]  If the Taliban were thus to come to power in Afghanistan after the timetabled withdrawal, al-Qaeda would not be far behind. The USA's top nemesis would be able to salvage a victory in the very place from which it launched the 9/11 attacks eight years ago. Al-Qaeda would have its favourite bases and sanctuaries back, as well as a major propaganda win. [2]  This defeat for the West in Afghanistan would embolden its opponents not just in Pakistan, but all around the world, leaving it open to more attacks. [3]  The West has a security interest in preventing the region from slipping into a maelstrom of conflict. Pakistan, with 170m people and nuclear weapons, is vulnerable to the Taliban’s potent mixture of ethnic-Pushtun nationalism and extremist Islam, as its state power is tenuous. Anarchy in Afghanistan, or a Taliban restoration, would leave it prey to permanent cross-border instability. [4]  Therefore success in Afghanistan is key to the security in Pakistan. The US has even more reasons to care about the security of Pakistan when the India-Pakistan conflict is considered, especially as both sides of this have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan have come within a hair’s breadth from nuclear conflict twice over Kashmir. If Pakistan were to fall apart, it would potentially leave nuclear weapons and a large military in the hands of extremist Muslim groups, which could lead to a regional war with India. It is a compelling and vital American interest to prevent nuclear conflict in South Asia—which makes “fixing” Afghanistan in some way also a vital American interest, even if this means keeping the troops there past the timetabled withdrawal. [5]  The War on Terror cannot be won if the US and NATO pull out of Afghanistan and rely more simply on offshore military resources. During the 1990s, when the US tried to go after Osama bin Laden without access to nearby bases by using ships based in the Indian Ocean, the two- to four-hour flight times of drones and cruise missiles operating off such ships made prompt action to real-time intelligence impractical. [6]  Since 1979, the US has been involved in a long, complex conflict against Islamic extremism. It has fought this ideology in many ways in many places, and it is uncertain now how this conflict will evolve. However the US should understand that the conflict is unavoidable and that when extremism pushes, it is in the US and NATO'S long-term interests to push back — and that eventually, if they do so, extremism will wither. [7]  The timetabled withdrawal from Afghanistan could mean withdrawing before this struggle has been won, and handing a base for exporting terrorism to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Security comes before other state interests, largely because the rights of all citizens depend on their security first, and so the security dimension here is key. Therefore, in order to protect the security of the US and other NATO countries, the timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan should be abandoned, and the troops should remain there until the job is done.  [1] Bruce Riedel, Bruce and O'Hanlon, Michael. "Why we can't go small in Afghanistan". USA Today. September 4, 2009   [2] ibid  [3] The Economist. "Obama's War". 15 October 2009.   [4] ibid  [5] Foust, Joshua. "The Case for Afghanistan: Strategic Considerations". Registan. 27 August 2009.   [6] Bruce Riedel, Bruce and O'Hanlon, Michael. "Why we can't go small in Afghanistan". USA Today. September 4, 2009   [7] Brooks, David. "The Afghan Imperative". New York Times. 24 September 2009.

negative: Closing Guantanamo would harm US national security:  The current operations of Guantanamo Bay are aiding the War on Terror, and closing the facility would harm the US' security situation. Putting an important section of a terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda in prison obviously stops the coordination and the indoctrination of younger members. This makes it harder for terrorist groups to operate effectively. The presumption is that during that time the USA will have gathered adequate intelligence and information upon which to destroy the group and the war on terror is that little bit nearer to ending. Former US Vice President Dick Cheney has stated that, intelligence-wise, "Guantanamo has been very, very valuable [in the war on terror." [1]  Moreover, if released many Guantanamo detainees will likely return to terrorism. [5] Many of those that have been already released from Guantanamo done just that. The Washington Post reported in 2005 that at least 10 of the 202 detainees released from Guantanamo were later captured or killed while fighting U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is a relatively high number, given the fact that only a small percentage of those that returned to terrorism would later be caught or killed. One former detainee went on to become the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch, for example. [2] The Bush administration detained these enemy combatants because of their high likelihood to commit future crimes or their past history. The most dangerous detainees include the perpetrators of 9/11, the American embassy bombings of 1998, the USS Cole bombing of 2000, and the Bali bombings of 2002. [6]  Finally, trying detainees in US courts presents a catch-22: in some cases, the evidence required to build a case for trial would compromise the same intelligence sources that make information-gathering possible [4] . During the trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the “blind sheik”) and members of his terror cell for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, prosecutors turned over a list of 200 unindicted conspirators to the defense - as the civilian criminal justice system required them to do. Within 10 days, the list made its way to downtown Khartoum, and Osama bin Laden knew that the U.S. government was on his trail. By giving this information to the defense in that terrorism case, the U.S. courts gave al Qaeda valuable information about which of its agents had been uncovered. [3] Therefore the Guantanamo Bay detention centre should not be closed as this would harm the War on Terror and US national security.  [1] Reuters. “Don't close Guantanamo until terror war ends: Cheney”. Reuters. 15 December 2008.   [2] Worth, Robert F. “Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief”. New York Times. 22 January 2009.   [3] The Washington Times Editorial. “Obama and Gitmo”. The Washington Times. 12 November 2008.   [4] The Chicago Tribune. "Beyond Guantanamo." The Chicago Tribune. 22 January 2009.   [5] Cornyn, John. "Sen. Cornyn: Closing Guantanamo Could Make America Less Safe." Texas Insider. 23 January 2009.   [6] Joscelyn, Thomas. "Clear and Present Danger." The Weekly Standard. 1 December 2008.

negative: Fighting terrorism  While it was Tuareg separatists who first sparked the insurrection wanting to split Mali but now the North has been taken over by Islamists and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb presenting a terrorist threat that cannot be ignored. France’s Defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian says "France's goal is to lead a relentless struggle against terrorist groups," and that "We have to eradicate this terrorism". [1] The United States was already clearly worried about Mali becoming a center of terrorism having on the 7th December designated the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa a terrorist organisation while other groups involved in Mali such as al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb were already designated as such. The State department highlights several terrorist attacks the group has conducted such as “a March 2012 suicide attack on a police base in Tamanrasset, Algeria, which wounded 23 people”. [2]  [1] CNN Staff, ‘France determined to ‘eradicate’ terrorism in Mali, official says’, CNN, 13 January 2013,   [2] Office of the Spokesperson, ‘Terrorist Designations of the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa, Hamad el Khairy, and Ahmed el Tilemsi’, U.S. Department of State, 7 December 2012,

negative: The potential entrants are still weak and pose a threat to the growing EAC  Most of the countries showing interest in joining the EAC are still economically weak, politically unstable, and socially divided. Somalia is the poorest state in the world; it is unstable with a high rate of terrorism [1]. DRC has yet to fully end its civil war, and has large social divides [2]. And South Sudan is a newly independent country that has not yet finished forming its governing institutions but already faces conflicts both internal and external. Accepting all these countries to the East African community now would create instability; it would clear the way for more Al shabab attacks in both Kenya and Uganda due as the borders would be open, it would clear a path for the FDLR (a rebel group that includes some of those responsible for Rwanda’s genocide) from Congo to Rwanda, a threat that the EAC is not ready to manage.  [1] Ludger, Schadomsky, ‘No stability in sight for Somalia’, dw.de, 20 June 2013   [2] Jason, Stearns, ‘The Congo; a revolution deferred’, sscr.org, 8 March 2012,

negative: African states can’t afford the full cost  Africa is the least developed continent in the world and will struggle to independently maintain a specialised counter-terrorism force. Thirty four of its fifty four states are classed as ‘least developed countries’ [1] . The result of poor funding and bad governance is a decreased efficiency of security and military services in these states. In turn, this has resulted in destabilisation of the region. Wages, training, and military equipment are expenses which few African countries can afford alone. Kenya, for example, had to disband its Police Reserve unit in 2004 as unpaid officers had turned to corruption to ensure a decent wage, despite the need to combat terrorism in the state as shown by the attack on Nairobi’s Westgate shopping mall [2] . Aid from the United States enables these African states to field financially viable forces which can then participate in counter-terrorism. Before military aid was cut to Egypt in 2013, the US provided $1.3 billion annually to support one of the strongest militaries on the continent [3] .  [1] The World Bank ‘Least Developed Countries’  [2] Boniface,B., ‘Kenya to revive police reservists in Garissa to fight al-Shabaab’  [3] BBC ‘US withholds Egypt military aid over crackdown’

negative: Profiling is ineffective at increasing security:  Terrorists simply do not conform to a neat profile. Many suspects linked to past terrorist attacks that have been apprehended or identified come from within the United States and European Union countries. Profiling does not help against individuals with names and ethnic backgrounds like Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, David Headley and Michael Finton. [1] Many terrorists have been European, Asian, African, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern, male and female, young and old. A significant number of domestic and aspiring terrorists have been found to be “clean skins” – individuals with no prior link to known fundamentalists, who have radicalised themselves by seeking out terror related materials on the internet.  Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was Nigerian. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was British with a Jamaican father. Germaine Lindsay, one of the 7/7 London bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Dirty bomb suspect Jose Padilla was Hispanic-American. The 2002 Bali terrorists were Indonesian. Timothy McVeigh was a white American, as was the Unabomber. The Chechen terrorists who blew up two Russian planes in 2004 were female. Palestinian terrorists routinely recruit 'clean' suicide bombers, and have used unsuspecting Westerners as bomb carriers. [2]  Racial profiling is a shortcut based on bias rather than evidence. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a “terrorist profile.” There was in 2005a Belgian woman who became a suicide bomber in Iraq, would profiling have picked her up? [3] It is sometimes suggested to target Muslims, reasoning that some are bound to be “radicalized.” But Islam is a global religion. Which characteristics should the security services look at to determine whether someone is a Muslim? Name? Appearance? In 2000 63% of Arab Americans were Christian and only just under a quarter were Muslim. [4]  Inevitably only certain groups will be profiled, this then leaves open the possibility that terrorist organisations will simply recruit from other ones, as Michael German (a former FBI agent) argues: “Racial profiling is also unworkable. Once aware of national profiling, terrorists will simply use people from “non-profiled” countries or origins, like FBI most-wanted Qaeda suspect Adam Gadahn, an American. What will we do? Keep adding more countries to the list of 14 until we’ve covered the whole globe?" [5]  Terrorists can easily out manoeuvre profiling systems. Profiling creates two paths through airport security: one with less scrutiny and one with more. Terrorists will then want to take the path with less scrutiny. Once a terrorist group works out the profile they will be able to get through airport security with the minimum level of screening every time. [6] Massoud Shadjareh (the chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission,) argues: " What's to stop them dressing up as orthodox Jews in order to evade profiling-based searches?" [7] Moreover, the model of security practices, including profiling, in Israel is not applicable to other Western nations, such as the United States. Terrorists that threaten Israel are from well organised local groups, and from a particular group. America on the other hand faces groups from around the world. [8] This makes profiling far more efficacious in Israel and much less so in the United States, for example.  [1] Al-Marayati, Salam. "Get the Intelligence Right". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [2] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [3] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [4] World Directory of Minorities, ‘Arab and other Middle Eastern Americans’,   [5] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [6] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [7] Sawer, Patrick. “Muslim MP: security profiling at airports is ‘price we have to pay’”. The Telegraph. 2 January 2010.   [8] Thompson, Mark. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. 29 November 2010.

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks There is no reason to assume that nations cannot get along on the issue of cyber security just because cooperation has not been prevalent so far. The US and China despite regularly accusing each other of launching cyber-attacks have set up a joint US-China working group on cyber security. [1] There is clearly a willingness to work together on this issue.  As to working out who is behind attacks the United States at least claims to be capable of doing this. Panetta says the Department of Defence can track attacks so “Potential aggressors should be aware that the United States has the capacity to locate them and hold them accountable for actions that harm America or its interests.” [2] That computers in multiple countries should be taken over in order to launch an attack should simply provide another reason why all nations should want to be involved in preventing cyber-attacks.  [1] ‘US-China cyber security working group meets’, BBC News, 9 July 2013,   [2] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012,

negative: rnational africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Kenya does not need or want government by those who hand out illegal title deeds [1] and threaten the freedom of the press [2] as Kenyatta’s government does.  In addition to that, the allegations that the president used a banned occult gang, the Mungiki, in order to perform acts of mass murder is enough to end his credibility as a leader in the country – the best interests of good governance in Kenya mean that Kenyatta should go.  [1] Chanji, Tobias, “Raila Odinga says title deeds issued by President Uhuru Kenyatta illegal”, Standard Digital, November 25th 2013,   [2] Shiundu, Alphonce, “President retains punitive fines against media in new law”, Standard Digital, November 27th 2013,

negative: terrorism society minorities inequality house would use racial profiling part Randomly checking passengers’ identities is much safer than allowing terrorists to know in advance who the authorities are seeking.  Making statements in advance as to who is likely to be stopped at airports is the most dangerous action any government could take. There are innumerable ways in which it would be possible to perform a terrorist act, and random checks mean that all possible routes are equally likely to be apprehended.  By contrast, actively and visibly subjecting members of particular ethnic groups to stricter security checks will enable terrorists to determine where surveillance in airports is at its most lax. The most dangerous terrorist groups operate on an international level, recruiting attackers from a wide range of backgrounds and ethnic groups. It would therefore be comparatively easy for an organisation such as al Qaeda to mount an attack using only individuals who do not conform to the authorities’ profile of a potential terrorist.  More importantly random checks mean that all people, regardless of the background, age or appearance are equally deterred from considering criminal or terrorist acts.  On the basis that it would be impossible to search everyone at a major international airport, the deterrence factor offered by random stops is far more effective than searching a tiny proportion of a designated group.

negative: Shared experience of terrorism  A shared experience of terrorism means both have long term reasons to cooperate against it. Russia already had experience with terrorism with a string of bombings in the summer of 1999 which the Russian government blamed on the Chechans. [1] As a result of this on-going Chechen terrorism the Russian government was keen to cooperate in any counter terrorist effort there may be. Russian officials such as Sergey Ordzhonikidze spoke of the grief they shared with the American people “The hearts of Russians who know first-hand what terrorism is like are also filled with grief for all those who fell victim to terrorism in other parts of the planet.” [2] President Putin himself agreed with this immediately after the 9/11 attacks “[Russia is] deeply shocked by the reports of the tragic events that occurred today in the United States. The barbaric terrorist attacks against innocent people evoked the anger and indignation of the Russian people.” [3] Both the terrorists who had been attacking Russia and the 9/11 attackers were motivated by an extremist version of Islam, this gives both Russia and the United States a mutual interest in combating this terrorism wherever it may be occurring. This continues to give both Russia and the United States an interest in solving the problems that create terrorism such as the Israel-Palestinian conflict and keeping the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. That both understand the other’s motivations makes this link much stronger.  [1] Mark Kramer, Guerrilla Warfare, Counter Insurgency and Terrorism in the North Caucuses: The Military Dimension of the Russia-Chechen conflict, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol.57, No.2, (March, 2005), pp.209-290, p.212  [2] Statement by Sergey A. Ordzhonikidze, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, on agenda item 166 of the 56 session of the UN General Assembly: Measures to eliminate international terrorism New York, October 1, 2001  [3] Russian President Vladimir Putin telegram of condolence to US President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001,  accessed 20/4/11

negative: The Schengen Agreement is an anachronism of a safer age.  Since the Schengen Agreement was first designed and implemented the world has moved on and become a much more dangerous place. The war on terror has already brought bombings to a number of European cities, and this changed circumstance makes Schengen a luxury the EU can no longer afford. September 11th has created a preoccupation with the security of the Union’s external borders. [1] Even before September 11th 2001 the drawbacks of open borders in terms of crime were obvious - which is why Paris controversially imposed stricter checks against drugs flowing into France from the more relaxed regime in the Netherlands using a broad interpretation of the rules for temporary issues of public order. [2] Since 9/11 there is a pressing need for stricter border controls to catch international terrorists and prevent the movement of dangerous materials which could be used in terror attacks.  [1] Batt, Judy, ‘The enlarged EU’s external borders – the regional dimension’, Partners and neighbours: a CFSP for a wider Europe, (September 2003), pp.102-118,  p.104  [2] Easton, Susan H., ‘Honor Thy Promise: Why the Dutch Drug Policies Should Not Be a Barrier to the Full Implementation of the Schengen Agreement’ Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Vol.23., Issue 1., (12-1-1999),   See also the Text of Schengen Agreement, especially Article 2.2

negative: Almost all of the cases where people have been indicted before the ICC – DR Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic and the Ivory Coast – have been referred to the court by African nations themselves. Those that have not were referred to the UN Security Council. The only case where the Office of the Prosecutor started a case leading to incitement was the Kenya case, Kenya having signed and ratified the Rome Statute. The ICC can only act where it has jurisdiction [1] - it is not a kangaroo court for particular cases.  The ICC has looked in to cases outside Africa, including in Afghanistan, Honduras, the Mediterranean sea (an Israeli attack on Comorosian, Greek and Cambodian ships), Korea, Colombia, Georgia and Palestine [2] .  [1] Rome Statute, Article 22  [2] Office of the Prosecutor, Report in to Preliminary Examination Activities, 2013,

negative: political philosophy house believes civil liberties should be sacrificed The threat of terrorism and security risks are overstated.  The threat of terrorism is greatly over exaggerated. Western governments all over the world are effectively selling the threat of terrorism to their citizens in order to increase their powers of control. The threat, however, has to be exaggerated in order for the electorate to believe that the security measures are needed. The motives of governments doing this vary; some just want the new security measures to make their jobs easier; others however, see it as an opportunity to increase state control and power over the average citizen. There is not enough evidence to show that terrorism has evolved into something more threatening since than it had been for several decades. For example there was the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988 killing 270 people or the 1983 bombing of the US embassy in Beirut which killed 63. [1] While the scale is smaller than the 9/11 attacks they are just as terrible and were met with a much more measured response that did not involve infringing civil liberties. Governments are likely to take advantage of anti-terrorist mania and seize the moment to strengthen their regimes. Modern government bodies fighting terrorism are sophisticated enough to counteract terrorism with little use of 'draconian' measures. It is not acceptable to curb citizen rights because of isolated events.  [1] PBS Frontline, ‘terrorist attacks on americans, 1979-1988’,  , accessed 9 September 2011

negative: The no-fly zone on its own was not sufficient to protect civilians on the ground. It was the responsibility of NATO to take further action aimed at protecting people whose lives were at risk from gaddafi’s soldiers. This NATO did by attacking military targets such as artillery. This was also part of the UNSC agreement “permit all necessary measures to protect civilians”[1].  Specifically, NATO targeted military weapon stores and facilities not homes and camps as Gaddafi’s military did. 72 civilians were killed during this bombing campaign [2] a small number compared to the thousands of sorties. No one can know how long the conflict would have lasted without NATO intervention, it is therefore impossible to state that the conflict lasted six times longer than it would have without NATO involvement.  [1] Richard, Roth, ‘UN Security council approves no fly zone in Libya’, cnn.com, 18 March 2011  [2] BBC news Africa, ‘Nato hits back at Libya's civilian deaths report’, bbc.co.uk, 14 May 2012

negative: ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal Witnesses might be identified and placed in danger  Televising criminal trials may cause a number of problems with witnesses. It may make individuals less likely to give evidence, make them more likely to play to the television audience, or make the already intimidating process of giving evidence in court more so. Also, television broadcasts make it more likely that the identities of anonymized witnesses would leak out – something that has already happened at the ICC in the Ruto-Sang case [1] .  The ICC already has problems with witnesses, including allegations of bribing and intimidating prosecution witnesses in the Ruto case [2] , which has led to Walter Barasa, a Kenyan Journalist, being subject to an arrest warrant [3] . Ending the televising of trials may go some way to remedy those problems.  [1] Lattus, Asumpta, ‘Evenson: ‘First time arrest warrant has been issued in Kenya case’, Deutsche Welle, 2 October 2013,   [2] Stewart, Catrina, ‘ICC on trials along with Kenya’s elite amid claims of bribery and intimidation’, The Guardian, 1 October 2013,   [3] ‘ICC seeks Walter Barasa arrest for Kenya ‘witness tampering’, BBC News, 2 October 2013,

negative: Internment without trial fails to make society safer.  Giving the government the power to detain suspects without due process of law will not in fact make society any safer. The proposition's arguments rely upon the accuracy of secret intelligence, which supposedly identifies individuals planning terrorist acts, but which cannot be revealed in open court. Past examples suggest that such intelligence is often deeply flawed. For example, when internment was introduced in Northern Ireland in 1971 over 100 of the 340 original detainees were released within two days when it was realised much of the Special Branch intelligence that had been used to identify them was incorrect 1. Recent intelligence failures in the campaign against Al-Qaeda point to the difficulties western intelligence services have in penetrating and understanding non-white groups, while intelligence on Iraq's weapons programmes was also clearly flawed. So not only will many of the wrong people be unjustly locked up, many dangerous ones will be left at liberty.  1 West, C. (2002, January 2). Internment: methods of interrogation. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News:

negative: A moral imperative to intervene  When a massacre is about to happen it is legal to intervene to prevent that massacre. The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ which was accepted by the UN in 2005. Resolution 60/1 at the 2005 World Summit stated, there was international responsibility “to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action in a timely and decisive manner.” Though this will only happen “should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations”. [1] This is most certainly the case in Syria where the national authorities are the ones doing much of the killing.  It must be proved that the Syrian regime is responsible for the attacks; the US and UK say there is such evidence but so far the link is not crystal clear. Even the UK government accepts that there must be “convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief”. [2] As the doctrine states peaceful means must have been tried – and in Syria after two years of conflict we can safely say a peaceful resolution is not in sight. And the use of force must be proportionate – which since there is no plan for a full scale invasion in Syria it will be. [3]  [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity’, Resolution 60/1 2005, p.30   [2] ‘Chemical weapon use by Syrian regime – UK Government legal position’, gov.uk, 29 August 2013,   [3] Cassese, Antonio, ‘Ex iniuria ius oritur: Are We Moving towards International Legitimation of Forcible Humanitarian Countermeasures in the World Community?’, EIJL, Vol.10, 1999,

negative: americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey joining the EU would help the international fight against terrorism  Turkey is a key geo-political strategic ally to the West and should be integrated fully in order to ensure its continued cooperation. "Turkey is a secular Muslim democracy and a crucial ally for the West. The eastern flank of NATO, straddling Europe and Asia, it played a critical role in containing the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the 1990s, it helped monitor Saddam Hussein and protect Iraqi Kurds by permitting U.S. warplanes to use its bases. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, it became a staging area for coalition forces in Afghanistan, where Turkish forces eventually assumed overall command of the International Stabilization Force. Turkey continues to be a pivotal partner in the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, despite attacks by radical Islamists at home." [1]  [1]  ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004

negative: All modern military roles are combatant anyway  Many modern conflicts are L.I.C.s which involve terrorist groups using guerilla tactics. In these situations, there are no clear ‘front-lines’, and no clear difference between combatant and non-combatant roles. All women serving in the military are exposed to “front-line risks”. [1] Attacks on soldiers are as likely to occur on the military’s bases themselves as they are when the soldiers are out on patrol.  For example, in late June of 2005 in Iraq, two women marines were killed and about a dozen injured in a pair of suicide attacks. [2] That frontline combat operations are not always much more dangerous than other roles can be shown by the casualties in Iraq comparing the initial invasion and reconstruction phases. The United States lost very few casualties in the invasion phase of the war up to President Bush’s declaration of victory on 1 May 2003 with only 138 dead, [3] compared to an overall death toll of 4422. [4] If men and women are already in practice facing the same risks and as women and men are equal, there should be equality when it comes to being considered being in frontline combat service.  [1] Clark-Flory, Tracy, ‘Should women fight on the front lines?’, Salon, 5 November 2010.  [2] Glanz, James, et al., ‘Iraq Bombing Kills 4 U.S. Women, a Record Toll’, The New York Times, 25 June 2005.  [3] ‘U.S. Casualties in Iraq’, GlobalSecurity.org.  [4] ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) U.S. Casualty Status Fatalities As Of: July 24 2012’, Department of Defense.

negative: The bombing was immoral and illegal  The use of the Atomic bomb raised immediate moral questions as to its use.  Albert Einstein argued “The American decision [to use the bomb] may have been a fatal error, for men accustom themselves to thinking a weapon which has been used once can be used again... [on the other hand] Our renunciation of this weapon as too terrible to use would have carried great weight” [1] So far Einstein has been proved wrong and the precedent thus set has not been followed. That the bombs are ‘to terrible to use’ does seem to have sunk in.  The use of the bombs was also illegal as it would have breached the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907, signed by the US. Of Hague IV The Laws and Customs of War on Land it probably breached articles 23, forbidding the use of weapons that cause ‘unnecessary suffering’, and article 25 forbidding the attack of undefended towns. It would certainly by its indiscriminate nature have breached article 27 “In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes” [2] as well as the attendant declaration forbidding attack from aircraft!  Clearly such sections forbidding attack from aircraft, or balloons in the 1899 version make the Hague convention seem antiquated but the laws of war in general remain even now as they were codified in 1907. [3] The International Court of Justice has referred back to these precedents “In the view of the vast majority of states as well as the writers there can be no doubt as to the applicability of humanitarian law to nuclear weapons. The Court shares that view.” [4] That humanitarian law included the Hague conventions. The court reconfirmed the view that “States must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets” [5] It is noteworthy that dissensions from a position of banning the use of nuclear weapons entirely focus on the possible use with minimal civilian casualties. [6] Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings did not attempt to minimize civilian casualties the implication is that their use was illegal based upon the Hague conventions that were already in force.  [1] Albert Einstein, quoted by Rudolph A. Winnacker, ‘The Debate About Hiroshima’, Military Affairs, vol.11, no.1, Spring 1947, p.25.  [2] Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907   [3] Malcom H. Shaw, International Law (Cambridge, 1997), p.807.  [4] International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, paragraphs 85-6.   [5] ibid. para. 78.  [6] ibid. para. 91.

negative: Poverty means more crime  Despite many problems that Africa has to face, one of the biggest is its extreme poverty. Currently more than 48.5% of the population of Sub-Saharan Africa lives on less than 1.25 dollars a day (1). As a result of this poverty people’s security is being threatened on two main levels.  On the first level of analysis, poverty can lead to crime. Poverty can create desperation to provide for family or yourself. As poverty is widespread in Africa, there are many people who are willing to steal, threaten, abduct or kill someone, in order to have something to eat. At 17.4 per 100,000 citizens, more than double the world average, Africa has the highest homicide rate among all regions of the world.(2) The other side of this is that a poor state can’t provide the level of policing that richer states can, a people in poverty usually results in a poor government. This in turn means that the police force is small, badly trained and underfunded so not fit for preventing crime.  On the second level of analysis, desperate people are much easier to manipulate. This makes them easy targets for military groups in Africa who are searching for members to fight for their causes. It is not coincidental that we have so many militias and juntas in Africa, such as Somali Pirates, AQAP, AQIM, Al-Shabab, Touareg( Mali), Boko Haram(Nigeria), M23 and dozens of others. The militias offer those in poverty what they need most, food, shelter, and protection in return for their “services”. Poverty provides an additional benefit for these groups due to the stark difference between potential reward, such as from piracy or winning control of mines, and a normal income. As with the drugs trade the lure of the fast buck can be used to encourage risk-taking.  In conclusion, poverty both enables crime and encourages militia groups.  (1) The World Bank, ‘Poverty’, data.worldbank.org, 2013,   (2) Me, Angela, et al., ‘2011 Global Study on Homicide trends, contexts, data’, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes, 2011,

negative: An ICC referral may be the only UNSC option.  The UN Security Council has so far been undecided over any future action in Syria. China has so far been unconvinced over any action. Russia has supported Assad, selling the Assad regime arms. Russia and China, being permanent members of the UNSC means that they can block any action on this issue that the other permanent members (USA, UK and France) may wish to bring for any form of sanction towards the Assad regime.  While it may not be possible to get Russia to support a military intervention, which is something that they are opposed to [1] , it may be possible to swing Russia round to a position where they abstain on a reference to the ICC [2] . Russia has had a flexible (or, more cynically, hypocritical, view on the ICC before, opposing a Syria reference in February 2013 [3] but supporting one in to the actions of NATO in the Syrian conflict [4] ) position on the ICC, having voted in favour of references to it before. Because the involvement of the ICC would mean investigating both sides it would not be entirely impossible for a diplomatic solution to be reached for Russia to abstain on a reference.  [1] Al Jazeera and agencies, ‘Russia and Iran warn against attack on Syria’, Al Jazeera, 27 August 2013,   [2] Kaye, David, ‘Responsibility to Object’, Foreign Policy, 10 January 2013,   [3] Baczynska, Gabriela, ‘Russia opposes referring Syrians to ICC now: official’, Reuters, 19 February 2013,   [4] ‘Russia wants ICC to examine NATO bombings’, United Press International, 18 May 2012,

negative: national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster Cluster Bombs Cause Unacceptable Harm to Civilians  In a modern warfare scenario, the vast majority of combat takes place in civilian areas, such as cities. Whilst cluster bombs are obviously not used for peacekeeping purposes they are used in initial assaults on these areas, particularly against larger formations of enemy troops. This means that due to the indiscriminate nature of cluster bombs, in the same way as with land mines, often both military and civilian targets are encompassed in the blast radius. This is what happened in Zagreb as Martic was targeting Croat forces but the attack due to the use of cluster weapons also killed civilians.  Further, cluster bombs often have a few bomblets which are duds and do not go on initial impact. The issue with bomblets is that they are often brightly coloured and when used in cities or populous areas they can often attract the attention of children who are very unlikely to know to be careful around them. This can result in significant harm to civilian populations well after the attack has been carried out.  Further, due to the sheer volume of duds that cluster bombs put out, attempts to demine cluster bomb bomblets is an incredibly dangerous process that in of itself costs lives.1,2,3

negative: It can be argued that conventional bombing could have brought about a Japanese surrender without the recourse to the use of the atomic bombs. Compared to conventional bombings the atomic bombs caused disproportionate amounts of civilian casualties. The Strategic Bombing survey estimated that in the 9 months prior to the surrender there were 806,000 Japanese civilian casualties inclusive of A-bombs, of which 330,000 were deaths. Therefore nearly a third of civilian deaths were as a result of the atomic bombings (and that is only counting those who died immediately). In Hiroshima 72% of buildings were destroyed, in Nagasaki 37.5% of buildings were destroyed. However in a conventional raid Yokohama was 47% destroyed in an hours bombing, for the comparatively light cost of 5,000 civilian fatalities. [1] Of course some conventional raids, particularly fireraids caused very heavy casualties, in particular the Tokyo firebombing of March 9th 1945 killed 100,000 and destroyed 15.8 square miles. However that is still three times the area destroyed of Hiroshima. Since the only possible justification for attack on cities is the destruction of infrastructure conventional bombing was similarly effective while being the cause of many fewer civilian deaths.  According to the United States Strategic Bombing Survey “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” [2] The accuracy of this prediction has since been called into question, [3] after all the allies dropped far more bombs on Nazi Germany without securing surrender. However the fact remains that the conventional bombing campaign was only just starting to get going and might have achieved decisive results.  Possibly even more important for the prospects of a conventional victory, and one not clouded by the stigma of massive bombing campaigns against civilians, was the maritime blockade. By the end of the war Japan had only 700,000 tons of shipping remaining, she had started the war with 6,337,000 tons. Of 122,000 sailors in the merchant marine 27,000 were killed 89,000 wounded. For an island nation reliant on imports not just to run its industry but also to keep its people fed this was devastating. The result was starvation in the Japanese home islands. After the war it was reported that up to 10 million would die of starvation without American food aid, as a post war report to the Diet (Japanese Parliament) put it ‘the greatest cause of defeat was the loss of shipping’. [4]  [1] United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War),  pp.20, 23-24.  [2] United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War),  p.26.  [3] Gian Peri Gentile, ‘Advocacy or Assessment? The United States Strategic Bombing Survey of Germany and Japan’, in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007) pp.123-4.  [4] Joel Ira Holwitt, “Execute against Japan”: The US decision to conduct unrestricted submarine warfare, (College Station TX, 2008) pp.166-9

negative: The Sudanese regime has a history of supporting terrorism and other unsavoury groups  The Sudanese government’s unsavoury behaviour goes beyond its actions in Darfur. Its campaign against the southern rebels was replete with atrocities, and it has a long history of supporting terrorism including hosting Osama Bin Ladin in the early 1990s. [1]  While Sudan has been more cooperative in recent years against Al-Quada, it continues to harbour Islamic extremist groups responsible for attacks in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  Combined with the conflict in Darfur there was a pressing case for regime change, and reason to think Sudan’s neighbours would be open and supportive of the idea as well.  [1] Bhattacharji, Preeti, ‘State Sponsors: Sudan’, Council on Foreign Relations, 2 April 2008,

negative: The military operations were proportionate to the threat:  Operation Cast Lead was justified as it was proportionate to Hamas' rocket attacks against Israel. It should be remembered that 250,000 Israelis living in the southern part of the country had lived under years of terrorism before Operation Cast Lead was launched, often in bomb shelters, and the economy has suffered. The world's media may only have paid attention when Israel responded to Hamas' barrage, but this does not mean that Israel was not already under severe attack by this point.(1) Moreover, the Israeli strikes were rightly measured to disable Hamas rocket attacks.(11)  Terror groups fire indiscriminately at innocent Israelis and then complain of excessive or disproportionate force when Israel fires back. But according to internationally accepted laws of war, Israel is permitted to respond with the force necessary to end the conflict.(2)  Israel was legitimate in using full force to win its war on Hamas; Israel was under no obligation to restrain itself in what is, on Hamas' own terms, an existential war. Provoked by Hamas, Israel had every right to wage a disproportionate and overwhelming response. Hamas has repeatedly stated that its objective is to destroy Israel. Such an existential threat goes beyond simply Hamas' rocket attacks, as it portends much more destructive attacks in the future. This justifies defensive attacks from Israel that go beyond responding merely to the Hamas rockets, and would even justify Israeli efforts to fully demobilize or destroy Hamas.(12) In spite of this, Israel was actually far more restrained and proportionate than it was obligated to be. Israeli precision strikes sought to minimize civilian deaths, as Benjamin Netanyahu argued: "In launching precision strikes against Hamas rocket launchers, headquarters, weapons depots, smuggling tunnels and training camps, Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties."(13) Unlike Hamas, Israeli strikes targeted military sites, not civilians. As Gary Grant argued: "Even if you target your action at military sites, civilians are inevitably going to get killed...these need to be contrasted with the actions of Hamas where every single rocket is designed to attack civilian populations, so every single act of Hamas in firing these rockets is clearly an illegal act without any legal justification."(2)  Israel may have been justified in acting disproportionately, but instead chose to respond in a proportionate and limited manner which minimized civilian deaths in Gaza, and thus the Israeli military operations were certainly justified.

negative: Profiling will increase terrorism not combat it:  Profiling alienates groups needed in the fight against terrorism. Treating all Muslims as suspects, or being perceived as such, undermines efforts to gain intelligence on terrorists. Profiling the very communities we need information from to catch terrorists would be counter-productive as they would be less inclined to come forward. Umar Abdul-Muttallab’s father for example gave us such information to prevent the Dec. 25 terror plot. [1] Even if security profiling did make airport security more effective as supporters claim (although it would not) without personal intelligence and assistance the security situation will be far worse than it is now.. Normal security screening does not alienate these groups in the same way, as it is applied to everyone (and so they do not feel singled out) and it can be applied in culturally sensitive ways (for example, ensuring that pat-downs of Muslim women are always carried out only by female security officers). [2]  Profiling also gives terrorists a justification for their acts. As Michael German argues: "when we abandon our principles, we not only betray our values, we also run the risk of undermining international and community support for counterterrorism efforts by providing an injustice for terrorists to exploit as a way of justifying further acts of terrorism." [3] In general profiling contributes to an environment of fear and insecurity, in which some communities feel victimized and others feel under constant threat, leading to even more tensions and an increased risk of violence on either side. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said in December of 2009 after the Christmas Day Bomber incident: "While everyone supports robust airline security measures, racial and religious profiling are in fact counterproductive and can lead to a climate of insecurity and fear." [4] True success in preventing terrorism will require the active co-operation of Muslim communities, both at home and abroad, in identifying and isolating terrorist suspects and training groups. This cannot be achieved if it is perceived that the West regards all Muslims as terrorist suspects. The distinction which almost all Muslims currently see between themselves and the violent jihadis of the terrorist networks should be fostered, rather than sending the opposite message by implying we cannot tell the difference, or even that we believe there is no difference between them. For this reason, instituting security profiling at airports would be counter-productive, and thus should not be done.  [1] Al-Marayati, Salam. "Get the Intelligence Right". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [2] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [3] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [4] Groening, Chad. “U.S. airport security - 'profiling' a must”. OneNewsNow. 31 December 2009.

negative: Far from creating a liberated and free democracy western intervention has set Libya on the path to becoming a failed state. The country is today ranked among the most insecure countries in the world [1]. Two years after the war, The country has not managed to form a unified police force or a professional army, and it has even formally recognised several of the militias, entrusting them with security tasks [2]. It may be better but freedom of information in Libya is still under threat [3]? The threat is simply different; less from the state, and more from a chaotic situation. Freedoms are also not gaining ground in all areas; notably there are concerns that religious freedom is declining with the country moving towards Sharia law, and with minorities being attacked and forced to convert to Islam [4].  [1] The New York times, ‘Clashes and car bombings highlight insecurity across Libya’, nytimes.com, 4 November 2012  [2] Euronews, ‘Libya’s internal insecurity appears long-term militia problem’, euronews.com, 10 October 2013  [3] World press freedom index, ‘Middle east and North Africa’, rsf.org  [4] Nzwili, Fredrick, ‘Christians in Libya cast anxious eye at religious freedom’, The Washington Post, 10 January 2014

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks Clearly cyber-attacks are not currently deadly but this does not mean they will not become so in the future. Leon Panetta has warned “A cyber-attack perpetrated by nation states or violent extremist groups could be as destructive as the terrorist attack of 9/11”. Such an attack would be indirect – unlike setting a bomb – but could be just as effective “An aggressor nation or extremist group could gain control of critical switches and derail passenger trains, or trains loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country.” [1] At the moment systems are not really connected enough to allow this but it is pretty much certain that technology will become more sophisticated, control more systems, and become more and more connected. This is immensely beneficial economically but does create vulnerability.  [1] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012,

negative: political philosophy politics terrorism house believes terrorism can be Not all attention that follows terrorism is positive. After the 9/11 attacks, aid workers in Afghanistan were forced to cut off food supplies in the country, even though 7 to 8 million civilians were dependent on them. [1] The kind of terrorist attacks that attract the most attention are the violent ones, and they are likely to be met with reactions of disgust and grief. This means that the international community is less likely to sympathize with their cause, which results in less support.  [1] Chomsky, N. (2001, October 18). Terrorism Works. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Media Monitors Network:

negative: Profiling is effective and necessary:  It is an unavoidable fact that most terrorists today fit into certain demographics and categories, and so it is worth creating profiles of these categories and investigating more thoroughly anyone who fits into these profiles, as they are far more likely to be potential terrorists. As Asra Q. Nomani argued in 2010: "As an American Muslim, I’ve come to recognize, sadly, that there is one common denominator defining those who’ve got their eyes trained on U.S. targets: MANY of them are Muslim—like the Somali-born teenager arrested Friday night for a reported plot to detonate a car bomb at a packed Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Oregon. We have to talk about the taboo topic of profiling because terrorism experts are increasingly recognizing that religious ideology makes terrorist organizations and terrorists more likely to commit heinous crimes against civilians, such as blowing an airliner out of the sky. Certainly, it’s not an easy or comfortable conversation but it’s one, I believe, we must have." [1]  This resolution would not require the targeting of all Muslims, but rather those who meet further profile characteristics. As Dr Shaaz Mahboob, of British Muslims for Secular Democracy, said in 2010: "We have seen that certain types of people who fit a certain profile – young men of a particular ethnic background – have been engaged in terror activities, and targeting this sort of passenger would give people a greater sense of security. Profiling has to be backed by this type of statistical and intelligence-based evidence. There would be no point in stopping Muslim grandmothers." [2] Profiles would be compiled and acted on using a range of information, not just details of passengers’ ethic and racial backgrounds. Information about passengers is already voluntarily provided so this information can be used to eliminate the 60-70% of passengers who are of negligible risk.. State-of-the art screening technologies could then be applied to the remaining pool of passengers, for which less information is known. As a consequence, these individuals may be subjected to the highest level of security screening, and in some cases, prevented from flying. [3]  Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International, argues: "I have been an ardent supporter of passenger profiling for many years. It is the only solution that addresses the problems of the past as well as those of the future. The problem is the word “profiling” itself, as it conjures up negative connotations. A traveler’s appearance, behavior, itinerary and passport are factors to consider in effective profiling. Effective profiling is based on the analysis of the appearance and behavior of a passenger and an inspection of the traveler’s itinerary and passport; it does not and should not be based on race, religion, nationality or color of skin. We need an intelligent approach to aviation security that deploys common sense to the security checkpoint. We require highly trained, streetwise, individuals who can make risk assessments of passengers as they arrive at the airport and determine which technology should be used for screening." [4]  Intelligent, well designed and responsive profiling systems study passenger’s behavior in-situ in addition to their background and appearance. Police officers and security camera operators can be trained to recognize signs of nervous or apprehensive behavior that passengers might exhibit. Brigitte Gabriel, founder and president of ACT! for America, said in December of 2009: "We're not talking only about profiling Muslims. We need to take a lesson from the Israelis. When you go through security checkpoints in Tel Aviv airport, you have very highly trained screeners. Someone who is about to carry on a terrorist attack acts nervous, acts suspicious [under such scrutiny]." [5] Profiling would probably have picked up on would-be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who notably paid for his ticket in cash, did not have any checked luggage, had booked a one-way ticket to the United States, and claimed he was coming to a religious ceremony. [6] Together, these actions are extremely suspicious and it would have been correct, justified and indeed prudent for airport security to have investigated him on the basis that he met the profile of a possible terrorist. It was only later luck which meant that he was caught instead of succeeding in his attack, all on the basis of the absence of security profiling – fully eight years after the 9/11 attacks.  Passenger profiling has a record of success in Israel. As Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, argues: "No country has better airport security than Israel – and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport security people don't have to strip passengers naked electronically or have strangers feeling their private parts. Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs? 'Security' may be the excuse being offered for the outrageous things being done to American air travelers, but the heavy-handed arrogance and contempt for ordinary people that is the hallmark of this [G. W. Bush] administration in other areas is all too apparent in these new and invasive airport procedures. [...] What do the Israeli airport security people do that American airport security does not do? They profile. They question some individuals for more than half an hour, open up all their luggage and spread the contents on the counter - and they let others go through with scarcely a word. And it works.” [7] Therefore until such security resources are used appropriately, we will never achieve a secure air transportation system, and terrorism and its awful human consequences will remain a constant threat and fear.  [1] Nomani, Asra Q. "Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims". The Daily Beast. 29 November 2010.   [2] Sawer, Patrick. “Muslim MP: security profiling at airports is ‘price we have to pay’”. The Telegraph. 2 January 2010.   [3] Jacobson, Sheldon H. "The Right Kind of Profiling". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [4] Baum, Philip . "Common Sense Profiling Works." New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [5] Groening, Chad. “U.S. airport security - 'profiling' a must”. OneNewsNow. 31 December 2009.   [6] Groening, Chad. “U.S. airport security - 'profiling' a must”. OneNewsNow. 31 December 2009.   [7] Sowell, Thomas. "Profiling at airports works for Israel". The Columbus Dispatch. 24 November 2010.

negative: Countries and governments have an obligation to protect human rights and defend their citizens from harm  We can no longer argue that sovereignty must be considered absolute. Sovereignty was created as the means by which states justified the control of their territory to prevent foreign aggression. Since the creation of the United Nations, sovereignty is no longer as necessary to protect states, as most wars are not about territorial acquisition. Now it is primarily a barrier to the international community intervening when the state is abusing its own population. A better principle is if governments today are unable or unwilling to perform the duty to protect their people from harm (including state-imposed harm), then their claims to sovereignty lose their moral force and intervention becomes justified [1] . For example, Qaddafi of Libya was likening his citizens to cockroaches and rats, threatening to kill them house-by-house whilst speaking of his intent to indiscriminately attack the population of Benghazi [2] . As such, there was significant concern that violence would have devastating impacts on Libyan civilians. The United Nations, in response, authorized NATO action [3] . Through unleashing state military assets to attack his own population, Qaddafi made it clear that he was not a fit leader. The United Nations, as the representative of the international community, has the responsibility to protect those whose leaders have let them down.  [1] International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect”,   [2] BBC News (2011), “Libya Protests: Defiant Gaddafi refuses to quit”, BBC News,   [3] Chivers, C.J. (2011), “In Libya’s West, Signs of Growing Frustration With NATO”, New York Times,