Tournament: West Point | Round: 1 | Opponent: Cornell | Judge: Martinez
Indefinite Detention

The Plan:  The U.S. Congress should restrict indefinite detention by legislating these changes:  1) U.S. citizens and resident aliens are not eligible for indefinite detention; 2) indefinite detention should conform with the Law of Armed Conflict and be restricted to individuals who cannot be adequately prosecuted in the criminal justice system; 3) Individuals can be detained for providing substantial support only if it is necessary for the completion of a terrorist plot or the ongoing operation of a terrorist organization or a smaller sub-group thereof; 4) all individuals classified for prosecution by the Guantanamo Review Task Force Report of 2010, and not formally charged, should receive criminal trials in federal court.

Contention I: The NDAA ALLOWS FOR INDEFINITE DETENTION
The 2013 National Defense Authorization act gives the president vast powers to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens. It also prohibits prosecuting the detainees at Guantanamo in federal court
Mack, 2013, Troubling NDAA Provisions—2013 Edition, January 4, ACLU Maine; Ryan, p. http://www.aclumaine.org/troubling-ndaa-provisionsE280942013-edition (accessed: 9-2-13)

And, even if the government never detains US citizens, the public perceives and fears that it will
Chesney and Wittes, 2013, Protecting U.S. Citizens’ Constitutional Rights During the War on Terror, May 22, University of Texas law professor; Brookings Institution fellow; Robert; Benjamin, p. http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2013/05/22-war-on-terror-chesney-wittes (accessed: 9-1-13)

Contention II: Harms

SUBPOINT) A: TERRORISM
The counter-terrorism provisions of the NDAA will be harm domestic law enforcement in 3 ways: it will undermine intelligence gathering, chill information sharing by law enforcement and reduce cooperation from the Muslim American community
Jenkins, 2012, Foreign Affairs, The NDAA Makes It Harder to Fight Terrorism, February 1, initiated the RAND Corporation's research program on terrorism in 1972 and currently serves as Senior Adviser to the President of RAND; Brian Michael, p. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137070/brian-michael-jenkins/the-ndaa-makes-it-harder-to-fight-terrorism(accessed: 8-28-13)

And, the NDAA will damage international counter-terrorism cooperation with our allies
Jenkins, 2012, Foreign Affairs, The NDAA Makes It Harder to Fight Terrorism, February 1, initiated the RAND Corporation's research program on terrorism in 1972 and currently serves as Senior Adviser to the President of RAND; Brian Michael, p. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137070/brian-michael-jenkins/the-ndaa-makes-it-harder-to-fight-terrorism(accessed: 8-28-13)

A consensus of experts conclude nuclear terrorism has a high probability—motivation and means exist
Brill and Luongo, 2012, New York Times, Nuclear Terrorism: A Clear Danger, March 15, former U.S. ambassador to the I.A.E.A.; president of the Partnership for Global Security; Kenneth, Kenneth, p. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/nuclear-terrorism-a-clear-danger.html?_r=0 (accessed: 8-30-13)

A nuclear terrorist attack against the U.S. will collapse the global economy, undermine civil rights, and cause nuclear escalation leading to extinction
Daley, 2010, Apocalypse Never: Forging the Path to a Nuclear Weapon-Free World, J.D., Ph.D, heads the Abolishing War program of the Center for War/Peace Studies and former RAND Corporation member of the International Policy department; Tad, p. 52-55

And Mueller’s statistical analysis assigning low probability to nuclear terrorism is flawed  
Zimmerman, 2009, Defence Against Terrorism Review, Fall,  Dept of War Studies, King’s College, Peter, p. 4-5

SUBPOINT B) U.S. LEADERSHIP

Indefinite detention by the NDAA undermines U.S. soft power and legitimacy
Tineh, 2012, The state of NDAA: Why it still matters, indefinitely, July 10, Government Affairs Intern at CAir Chicago; Aseal, p.  http://www.cairchicago.org/2012/07/10/the-state-of-ndaa-why-it-still-matters-indefinitely/ (accessed: 8-29-13)

U.S. soft-power is key to US leadership to solve global warming
Ivaneishvili, 2012, Journal of Social Sciences, Obama Foreign Policy Doctrine: Preparing America to Succeed in Multipolar World, vol. 1, #1, Ph.D. Candidate in International Relations and Politics at the Faculty of Social Sciences, International Black Sea University; Baia, p. 29-30

Warming causes extinction
Comerford, 2013, A balance of questions: what can we ask of climate change economics?, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics Discussion Paper, January 6, School of Economics, University of Edinburgh; David, p. 

And, detention by the NDAA undermines US human rights leadership
Narine, 2012, Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, Volume 34, Number 3, December 2012, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations at St. Thomas University; Shaun, p. 382

US leadership is key to advancing global human rights
Mendelson, 2009, The Washington Quarterly, Dusk or Dawn for the Human Rights Movement?, April, director of the Human Rights and Security Initiative at CSIS; Sarah, p. 109-111

Human rights violations spark global wars and harm the global economy
Trachtman, 2012, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, From Rights to Reality: Mobilizing for Human Rights and Its Intersection with International Law: WHO CARES ABOUT INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS?: THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, Spring, Professor of International Law, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy; Joel, p. 856-61

Contention III: Solvency

First, Congress is the best actor to impose limits on indefinite detention—Courts will always remain deferential to the executive
Hammond, 2012, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT AND THE UNBOUND AUTHORITY TO DETAIN: A CALL TO CONGRESS, Fall, J.D. Candidate 2013, University of Southern California Gould School of Law; Kate, p.193-195

Second, substantial support should be limited to detention for disrupting terrorist plots or ongoing operations
Hammond, 2012, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT AND THE UNBOUND AUTHORITY TO DETAIN: A CALL TO CONGRESS, Fall, J.D. Candidate 2013, University of Southern California Gould School of Law; Kate, p.219-221

Third, Congress should require that criminal statutes are the first resort for prosecuting terrorists and that detention based on substantial support is available only for cases falling outside the criminal law
Hammond, 2012, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT AND THE UNBOUND AUTHORITY TO DETAIN: A CALL TO CONGRESS, Fall, J.D. Candidate 2013, University of Southern California Gould School of Law; Kate, p.222

Fourth, requiring criminal prosecutions as the first resort will reduce erroneous detentions and restore U.S. legitimacy
Hathaway, et al., 2013, The Yale Journal of International Law, The Power To Detain: Detention of Terrorism Suspects After 9/11, Winter, Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale Law School; Oona, p. 176-177

Fifth, civilian courts have a proven record in prosecuting high level terrorists
Rona and Wala, 2013, Guantanamo and Beyond: Exceptional Courts and Military Commissions in Comparative Perspective, eds., by F. Alolain and O. Gross, International Legal Director of Human Rights First; lawyer, Human Rights First; Gabor, Raha, p. 140-41

Sixth, the Classified Information Procedures Act protects sensitive intelligence sources and methods
Rona and Wala, 2013, Guantanamo and Beyond: Exceptional Courts and Military Commissions in Comparative Perspective, eds., by F. Alolain and O. Gross, International Legal Director of Human Rights First; lawyer, Human Rights First; Gabor, Raha, p. 150-151