I negate: Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same due process protections

it grants to citizens. I value morality as implied by the resolution. orality is only an applicable value if it can be applied to a !orthy moral cause. " democratic government should attempt to uphold the nation#s popular conception of moral methods of governing. The United States# citizens universally identify national security as a moral necessity for the government$ thus the value criterion for this round is maximizing national security. This criterion is preferable because: First, the governments primary obligation is to protect homeland security. Under the social contract, people consent to laws and contribute to the state via taxation and social participation in exchange for protection from violence. Absent such protection, there would be no incentive for people to accept the government as legitimate. Second$ governmental action is zero sum. States face resource tradeoffs !ith every policy decision$ !hich ma%es it unrealistic to re&uire governments to protect all of humanity. "s such$ states should defer to protecting their citizens first. I' "((ITI)'$ since states have a proactive obligation to protect citizens and al!ays choose bet!een policy options$ states are responsible for harms they don#t prevent.
Contention 1: Using the conventional system re&uires the release of sensitive information adeline Morris writes et. al$ *rofessor of +a! at (u%e University$ ,une -.th, 2009$ /"fter 0uantanamo:
1ar$ 2rime$ and (etention.3 4arvard +a! and *olicy Revie!. http:55scholarship.la!.du%e.edu5cgi5vie!content.cgi6 article789-.:context7faculty;scholarship:sei " second problem fre&uently affecting terrorism prosecutions concerns classified information. he !resentation

o" certain evidence at trial #$y the !rosecution or the de"ense% may com!romise sensitive intelligence&or reveal the methods or sources used "or gaining intelligence&with resultant damage to national security. Some commentators dismiss this problem$ noting that many terrorism cases have been successfully prosecuted in federal courts. <ut the relevant 'uestion is not whether some terrorism cases can $e !rosecuted success"ully in "ederal courts&clearly, some can&$ut, rather, whether some cannot. There is no
publicly available list of the terrorism cases that !ere not prosecuted because of the national-security costs that !ould have been associated !ith disclosing the necessary evidence in those trials.

Since all cases cannot be prosecuted in civilian courts !ithout compromising sensitive information$ it is not a viable course of action to try all accused terrorists in civilian courts. The release of sensitive information has far-reaching effects that result in the decreased effectiveness of future anti-terrorism efforts. Important sensitive information that !ould be re&uired to secure a conviction in civilian courts$ such as ho! the suspect !as caught$ the identification of informants$ and the capabilities of the "merican military to combat terrorism !ould all be revealed$ and !ould no longer be effective. That !ould directly contradict the criterion of maximizing national security$ because !e !ould be less successful in preventing terrorist attac%s against the United States in the future. This fails to conform to the value for the round$ morality$ because it is immoral to sacrifice future security for immediate prosecution of one suspect$ !hen the more

viable option of military tribunals exists. Thus$ I negate.