[CX-L] new high school topic

[Kuswa, Kevin]

Good point, Stefan--maybe the PSI is topical.  I'm doing some work on the concept of "detain without charge" and it sounds like this is the same issue being discussed in the hearings involving Gonzales' appointment to Attorney General.  What are the best interpretations of "detain without charge" ?  
 
You cannot define "charge" alone, because the context points to "charge with a legal infraction."  On the other hand, legal definitions of what constitutes a "charge" are somewhat amorphous.  
 
The concept came up a few days ago in the Gonzales hearings....he has apparently made it a priority to INCREASE the administration's authority to detain and search suspects.  Does this mean "without charge," or is the profile of a "terrorist" enough to constitute a charge, especially during war time??
 
kevin

The Frontrunner, January 5, 2005 Wednesday

HEADLINE: Gonzales Expected To Face Tough Questions On Legal Advice About Terror War

USA Today (1/5, Frank, Locy) reports, "Alberto Gonzales has held four jobs during the past decade, each given to him by George W. Bush. As White House counsel, Gonzales is one of the president's most trusted advisers and defenders. As the chief architect of the Bush administration's legal strategy against terrorism, Gonzales sought to expand his boss' authority to detain and question suspects and justify the use of 'stress and duress' interrogation techniques that are banned under international law." Gonzales "will face a barrage of questions about a January 2002 memo in which he called the war on terrorism 'a new kind of war' that requires the United States to go to unusual lengths to get information about potential terrorist plots." The American Civil Liberties Union "and other critics of the administration say the memo set the tone for the subsequent abuse of suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and others held in Afghanistan and Iraq. They also say it invited legal challenges that embarrassed the administration." Gonzales "is expected to win confirmation this month and become the first Hispanic to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer." 

The Christian Science Monitor (1/5, Chaddock) also says that despite "strong concerns over issues such as torture of foreign prisoners," the US Senate is "expected to confirm...Gonzales as attorney general." The expected confirmation "will mark a sharp contrast with the treatment of the last top Hispanic nominee with an inspiring personal story, Miguel Estrada, who withdrew his bid to be appointed to the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2003 after more than two years and a record seven Senate filibusters." The Monitor adds, "One difference is political context. While few voters can name an appeals court judge, the US attorney general is a high-visibility appointment, and Mr. Gonzales would be the first Hispanic to hold it. Key Hispanic groups that actively opposed the Estrada nomination are backing -- or muting objections -- to Gonzales."

 
So, it looks like the affirmative will have some good inherency evidence :).  let me know if you have additional thoughts about this question.
 
Kevin Kuswa
Richmond debate
www.g36debate.com
 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: SSbauschard2 at aol.com [mailto:SSbauschard2 at aol.com] 
	Sent: Thu 1/6/2005 9:39 PM 
	To: Kuswa, Kevin; kerpen at fiatutopia.com; cx-l at debate.net 
	Cc: sclemmons at hotmail.com 
	Subject: Re: [CX-L] new high school topic
	
	
	
	Another note...
	 
	The topic (intentionally) does not say "in the United States."
	 
	Is restraining the Prolif and Security Initiative topical?