America's Freedom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-N3dJvhgPg : Youtube video about Bin Laden's death.

When people think of the United States of America, they usually think of (beside the
hamburgers, Disneyland, and other fun and games) the Statue of Liberty, the
Declaration of Independence, the American Revolutionary War - things that represent
freedom. Ever since it came into being, the USA have declared liberty as one of its
most fundamental and primary values. Many wars - the Revolutionary War, the Civil
War, and others - have been fought to protect certain inalienable rights; many are still
being fought in the form of movements and unions today. Even in the affairs of the
world America has claimed the position of an international judge and protector of
liberty, aiding many countries and warning the others. Yet the question arises when we
see this same America stepping on this same freedom that it has sworn to protect.
Does America have the "right" to intrude on others' rights to protect its own citizens? To
break some rules so that it can carry out its own picture of world peace?

Such controversies have risen recently with the death - or rather, the assassination - of
Osama Bin Laden. Although Bin Laden's death has been hailed by many as a
substantial contribution to world peace, many question the legitimacy of the actual
steps taken to kill Bin Laden. The mission has been found to have gone against
international rules, which state that to dispatch troops in another nation, one must gain
consent or at least inform that nation of one's intentions. Pakistan was not even aware
of the fact that US troops were within its borders.

In order to really think about this question, we must look at the characteristics of a
nation. A nation is a unit of citizens comprised of those who (usually) agree to its
policies and culture, make their political and economic units, and in turn are protected
by the nation. In this sense that nations are self-serving units, nations are - or must be
-selfish for its own survival. Countries don't have to donate money and resources to
others, although it would be much appreciated. When they are attacked, it is only
natural that they must have a chance to defend themselves and their citizens. Following
this logic, the death of Bin Laden can be hailed or at least justified as a reasonable
action. After all, Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, for denying human rights to many
people, and other terrorism that threatened not only America but the rest of the world.
Yet the problem rises because of the fact that it went against international
security/military rules. The reason that these international rules exist is not trivial; once
they are gone, they would result in a multitude of slippery slopes. If Bin Laden's murder
was simply hailed as an end to terrorism (which is factually untrue),  then this would be
set as a prototype for other military missions in the future. Every nation would look to
the case of the USA - which is already being recognized as one of the world's
superpowers - and the set international rules would be mussed. This would lead to
more military chaos and eventually result in less safety. Not only realistically, but also
ideally must a nation follow international rules when they have good basis; countries
also form a certain society, after all. To defy to a rule that they have agreed to follow and
respect - because they know certain tangible harms would come of it - would break this
society apart, lessening world peace. As a world superpower, the effect of the USA is
even greater.

The actions that America took with Bin Laden can be seen as either selfish or
generous. It is selfish in the matter that America haughtily ignored the rules that it
needed to follow for the mission, and killed the terrorist leader without a shred of doubt.
Yet it is also generous in the matter that the world has been rid of a dangerous
terrorist. Although America, as a nation, does have rights to be selfish, it also must, as
a superpower, heed the rest of the world in its actions. This is where Bin Laden's death
 might be congratulated, but America's actions must be taken into criticism. If America
would really like to set a world example and settle world peace, then it should make
real changes: aid with the political and economic system to help the citizens and
persuade back the terrorists. Help with the humanitarian policies of the nation. These
solutions might sound very vague, but humanitarian interventions are always much
better - and longer-lasting - than military interventions. If America must be selfish and
protect its own borders, then let it play the part of the tortoise: slow and steady wins the
race, after all. Such are the steps to real protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/opinion/11friedman.html?ref=columnists
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/opinion/04friedman.html?ref=columnists
describes how real peace won't come until there are significant changes made within
the political structures of the Middle East.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/opinion/10iht-edcohen10.html?ref=columnists
celebrates the death of Bin Laden.

Possible Motions
THB military intervention is necessary to counter terrorism.
THB world superpowers have the right to military intervention.
THB America has a right to be a world superpower.

Judge Comments

The graph doesn't go up for some reason ㅠㅠ


Seungmin Oh PM
ARGUMENTATION 8.5
STYLE 8.0
OVERALL 8.5
DEFINE
Osama Bin Laden - terrorist
-- It would be better not to define a person, as a "~terrorist~" but rather give some
background - preferably with emotion so the judges think, "Oh, that's a bad guy" or
something like that.
ARGUMENTATION
1. Assassination protects human rights
- every human: right to live
- OBL interfered on these rights by killing ppl
- killing OBL protecting from further terrorism and protecting human rights
-- include more statistics to make it more convincing. + also details, like how did he kill
people and whom? for what exact purpose?
-- Why would killing OBL stop the killing of people? OBL has other men under him. Give
proof that OBL is the leading force behind these killings and to assassinate him would
stop (or at least decrease) them.
2. Strong message to the public
- public afraid of OBL
- ppl only aware that there was terror
- more aware of how US is going to stop terror, harms of terror
- US gov can give a message that if terror, going to retaliate
-- not very convinced. ppl only aware that there was terror? 9/11 was a hard hit on most if
not all of Americans
-- also the backside that this "message" might hint how brutal US could be....
Changwoo Lee LO
ARGUMENTATION8.7
STYLE 8.0
OVERALL 8.6
- social contract: every person is guranteed of a natural right, same on intl basis
--- dangerous opening; this could be used against you (when you actually BREAK the
social contract by harming others' rights, then your rights could be breached in turn)
REBUTTALS
- (first argument) : every  criminal has a right to get judged by the law
- (second argument) : might bring about revenge
-- words like "the government insisted" are good; makes the opposition sound v. stubborn
and illogical
1. disobeying the international law
Geneva Convention - cannot kill citizen of other country w/o permission
-- why do we need to follow the Geneva Convention? it's not written in stone. why do we?
- serious disobeying of int law
- Bin Laden cannot be an exception even when he is a criminal
 ex. Nazis also were judged by court before sentenced to death
-- good example. you might also want to mention that a law was disobeyed for no
significant purpose, and explain how killing Bin Laden would not only not stop the mass
murders of people, but actually result in more deaths and violence.
2. alternative was possible
- although US had the power to capture him, killed him
- OBL no resistance.
- killing can never be justified

Jegug Ih DPM
ARGUMENTATION 8.9
STYLE 8.2
OVERALL 8.8
REBUTTALS
- terrorists have rights : no when that much destruction and mayhem
- message : message to the public. 9/11~.
- third world war... war against terrorism.
- in war can kill others.
- cannot trust the Pakistan gov (too much trouble)
- OBL need to be judged? - no. already confessed to crimes, so already proved of
guiltiness.
- OBL might have been disarmed but guards.
--- the war thing is a bit too radical for my tastes, but I think it could work with some
people. but we're still not at war legally or explicitly.
3. need fast and speedy action
- scenario: escape? terrors?
- when he's dead the dangers are much less.
-- what about the possibility of vengeful terrors?
-  wrongfully trialed and found innocent... like Nazi...
- for the message to be strong, need to be quick and brief.

Wonhyuk Lee  DLO
ARGUMENTATION 8.6
STYLE 8.7
OVERALL 8.7
REBUTTALS
- terrorists have harrassed human rights... no right to be respected? : human right not a
concept of good and bad. although in jail cannot deprive them of human rights

--- unsteady, goes against LO's intro about social contract. also following this logic - then
can't we punish murderers and mass killers? I guess this goes over to capital
punishment...
- message: effect goes down when terrorists become angry
(GW rebut: arrest --> anger too. ) -- arrest then think about it..?
3.
- US trying to justify by saying decreasing symbol of terror. but did nothing but bring up
revenge. (actually said)
- no reason for OBL to be hit at the spot
- assassination cannot happen even in the aspect of blocking terrorism
-- if you had stats about the potential risings of revenge terror, then this would be very
persuasive.
---- a few halts but I liked your style: calm and steady. A bit more emotion might be good
- unclear situation, unsteady situation. revenge terrorism!!

Seungchan Kim GW
ARGUMENTATION 8.7
STYLE 8.7
OVERALL 8.8
1) human rights vs gov actions
- v. important, valuable.
- but in the case of a war....
-- I wish you had taken LO's social contract theory and turned that against them; that
would have been less radical than claims of war. But preferences differ.
- 9/11 - killed+feared
- so different from simple crimes of murder... this is terror -- murder - traditional process,
but in the case of terror, need to take speedy action
-- explain WHY we need speedy action - because we have it on a bigger scale? why?
- OBL given chance to prove innocence? - but already in war, already claimed guilty.
- people are unarmed, cannot kill people? - but a lot of destruction already made
-- I had a feeling that this clash was unorganized, try to put it into points rather than merely
saying "the opp said this and that"
2) speedy action
- alternative of jurisdiction
- but other scenarios... also planned other terrorism, can be still an icon
- support could also grow for OBL
-- change title of clash, it's misleading (OPP didn't respond to speedy action claim)
3) social message 
- strong message
- anger rises even in jurisdiction, so better to give strong message

Sumin Park  OW
ARGUMENTATION 8.7
STYLE 8.8
OVERALL 8.8
- intro: child w/ fever. to let him cool down, give coke and ice. cool down but won't cure the
cold. short-term remedy, like what gov has tried to argue
--- uuhhhh... so the assassination is the coke?
1) efficiency interventing terrorism
- both agree that OBL symbol of 9/11 and related to terrorism in US
- assassination - short-term stop to terrorism; Al-Kaeda left w/o leader
-- don't spend too much time repeating opposition
- but in long-term, chaos.
 1. counter-attacks, counter-terrorism
 - destroyed facilities in Pakistan , b/c  of chance that P. gov collaborated with US
 - bully example.. but not as simple as that
 -- too many real-life small-scale examples.... cut it down
 - violent nature will result in counter-terrorism
 - PROP argues bring sympathy to terrorist groups? - but already numerous
supporters, possible leaders.
 2. did not follow proper proceedings of judicial system
 - innocent until proven guilty; must be put on a trial

 -- so why must we take this procedure? explain the significance
 -  infringed individual's rights and prevented truth to be discussed in a courtly
environment.

2) based on a righteous cause
- US proven to change their stances, hide their facts of the crime scene... so the US claim
cannot be trusted

A Little Bit of Blaphesmy, or Perhaps the Truth

I realized that this post hadn't gone up (but remained unposted), so I'm uploading it again :(

People usually "know what they see." Most of the time they rely their knowledge and beliefs on what they can actually observe or experience, preferring to have evidence in soldifying their opinions. Yet this inclination is broken in one field: religion. Despite the fact that there is hardly any "clear" evidence for the presence of a or multiple gods - miracles and the like excepted - many people of the past and the present tend to indulge themselves in a religion. In fact, the importance of religion goes beyond the scope of daily lives; many conflicts within the history of humanity is related to religion in some way, such as the Crusades or the animosity between the Shi'a and the Sunnis of Islam. Either for better or for worse, religion continues its grasp on people today.

With a family of mixed religions - my grandparents' generation is Buddhist, while my parents' generation is Catholic - I've come to view religion in a somewhat looser manner. During my childhood I've been to both temples and churches, and have both a baptized name and a name based on Buddhist concepts. Although today I consider myself as a Catholic - the influence of parents is big, after all - I'm also not very strict within my beliefs, unlike some people who shout in pub lic to convert to Christianity or "go to hell." Perhaps because of this freer perspective, I have come to occasionally have qualms about the standing religions - Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Jewish, and the rest.

Religions, after all, are not defined by a god or gods; no god has ever directly come out of the skies to preach to people about how to pray or build churches. Rather, it is people who have defined the concept of god, made rituals to serve their god, and wrapped it up and called it a religion. And if we are to strictly follow the psychological reasons for the creation of religions, we have to attribute the creation of gods to people's anxieties. Are gods only remnants of people's fears, beings created as people long ago became afraid of lightning and other natural disasters?

Perhaps there's some credit to this fear-theory, but I believe that there is more to this than that. By stating that it is humans who have defined religion, I'm not saying that there is no god - I'm saying that there are, or should be, no boundaries. Perhaps there is only one god and all the religions of the world are different perceptions, different analyses of the same - being - or someone - that I couldn't possibly know about. Whether Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Jewish - they are all different facets of the same being, a being people have to define with religious texts and rituals because they can't simply define it - Him? - any other way.

I've sometimes feared that my thoughts might be considered blaphesmy in some aspects. After all, to argue that actually all religions are valid and that it's quite stupid to argue about who's right is, whether in churches or in the Middle East, something not recommended. But it is quite stupid. It's not about creating a universal religion. It's about religious tolerance and actually respecting people's views. Every religion has some essence of truth in it, and it's up to the people to not contradict their own beliefs with their actions.

* Apparently according to the five-element theory, I have too much hwa or fire within my spirit, which means that my name must contain a Chinese character with properties of water to prevent a fiery personaity / disaster. ("Yeon" from my name, 涓, stands for a small river or brook)