Sanctions on Syria
Possible motions:
THW would put sanctions on Syria
THB that the international community should put sanctions on autocratic governments
THB that sanctions are beneficial
Definitions:
Sanction: an economic or military coercive measure adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication.
Economic sanctions can involve limiting exports to the sanctioned country, restricting imports, or impeding the flow of finance to the target country.
Background on issues in Syria:
Syria is a country with a 74% Sunni Muslim population, but the minority Alawi population is wealthier, in higher social status and has governmental control. Alawites are considered part of the Shia sect by Shia Muslims, but are not even recognized as Muslims by the Sunni sect, which views them as a heretical group that combines both Islamic and Christian ideals.
On March 21, demonstrators in the Syrian city of Dara’a set fire to the ruling Baath Parth’s headquarters and other government buildings. Police officers fired live ammunition into the crowds, killing at least one and wounding others. Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria, made some conciliatory gestures, but crowds continued to gather in Dara’a, demanding things such as the release of all political prisoners, trials for those who shot and killed protestors, the abolition of Syria’s 48-year emergency law, more freedoms, and an end to corruption in the government.
Since then, Syria has continued to crack down on protestors, killing around 2,200 of them, according to human rights groups. President Obama, as well as several European nations, have sanctioned al-Assad personally, as well as several of his chief officials. On August 18th, President Obama issued sanctions against Assad and his group of chief officials as well, freezing all of his assets that are under U.S. jurisdiction and preventing any American businesses from doing business with him. The EU recently increased the sanctions to cover 54 people within the Syrian government and 12 entities, mostly businesses, that are likely contributing resources to the military. The EU is currently holding talks to pass through another round of sanctions.
Pros and Cons
1. Sanctions can help influence autocrats to step down by limiting their ways to survive for long periods of time. 1. Unilateral sanctions (especially trade sanctions) don’t hurt a country enough to enact change, and still give the target country a way to survive.
2. Multilateral sanctions work well, especially against the U.S. in 2002-03 (U.S. steel tariff controversy) 2. Trade sanctions hurt the country handing out the sanction.
3. Large-scale political change can come from sanctions (South Africa) 3. Sanctions have the potential to hurt citizens without forcing political change (Iraq)
Case Studies!
1. U.S. embargo on Cuba- The United States embargo against Cuba is a commercial, economic, and financial embargo partially imposed on Cuba in October 1960. It was enacted after Cuba expropriated the properties of United States citizens and corporations and it was strengthened to a near-total embargo since February 7, 1962 (though in 2000, Clinton authorized the sale of certain "humanitarian" US products to Cuba). The stated purpose of the embargo, entitled the Cuban Democracy Act, was to maintain sanctions on the Castro regime so long as it continues to refuse to move toward "democratization and greater respect for human rights.”
It has been advocated that the pro-embargo Cuban-American exiles, whose votes are crucial in Florida, have swayed many politicians to also adopt similar views. The Cuban-American views have been opposed by business leaders whose financial interests prompt them to argue that trading freely would be good for Cuba and the United States. At present, the embargo, which limits American businesses from conducting business with Cuban interests, is still in effect and is the most enduring trade embargo in modern history. Despite the existence of the embargo, the United States is the fifth largest exporter to Cuba (6.6% of Cuba's imports are from the US). However, Cuba must pay cash for all imports, as credit is not allowed.
A U.S. arms embargo had been in force since March 1958 when armed conflict broke out in Cuba between rebels and the Fulgencio Batista government. In July 1960, in response to Cuba's new revolutionary government's seizure of US properties, the United States reduced the Cuban import quota of brown sugar by 700,000 tons, under the Sugar Act of 1948; the Soviet Union responded by agreeing to purchase the sugar instead, as Cuba's new government continued to take further actions to confiscate American businesses and privately owned property.
Interesting- Just before Kennedy extended the embargo against Cuba in 1962, he asked an aid to purchase 1,000 Cuban cigars for Kennedy's future use immediately before the extended embargo was to come into effect. Salinger succeeded, returning in the morning with 1,200 Petit H. Upmann cigars, Kennedy's favorite cigar size and brand.
In 1962, Cuba was expelled from the Organization of American States (OAS) "by a vote of 14 in favor, one (Cuba) against with six abstentions. Mexico and Ecuador, two abstaining members argued that the expulsion was not authorized in the OAS Charter." Multilateral sanctions were imposed by the OAS on July 26, 1964, but these were rescinded on July 29, 1975. Cuban relations with the Organization of American States have improved as of 3 June 2009 (membership suspension lifted).
Travel- The restrictions on U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba lapsed on March 19, 1977. Though the current regulation does not limit travel of US Citizens to Cuba per se, but it makes it illegal for US Citizens to have transactions (spend money or receive gifts) in Cuba under most circumstances without a US government Office of Foreign Assets Control issued license.
In response to pressure from some American farmers and agribusiness, the embargo was relaxed by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, which was passed by the Congress in October 2000 and signed by President Bill Clinton. The relaxation allowed the sale of agricultural goods and medicine to Cuba for humanitarian reasons. Although Cuba initially declined to engage in such trade having even refused US food aid in the past, seeing it as a half-measure serving U.S. interests, the Cuban government began to allow the purchase of food from the U.S. as a result of Hurricane Michelle in November 2001. These purchases have continued and grown since then. In 2007, the US was the largest food supplier of Cuba and its fifth largest trading partner.
This embargo does not prevent U.S. goods from getting to Cuba. Common American goods like Microsoft software and Coca-Cola can be purchased on certain parts of the island. The goods often come from third parties based in countries outside the US, even if the product being dealt originally had US shareholders or investors. This can be seen for example with Nestle products (which have a 10% US ownership) and can be bought in "Convertible Pesos” (CUCs)-hard currency, stores that are pegged to the US dollar, Euro and other currencies. But since 25 National Pesos equal just one Convertible Peso, and CUCs are not used to pay the already small wages, access to such goods by ordinary Cubans is highly restricted. This is a demonstration of how the embargo on Cuba actually hurts the U.S. economy. The president's Export Council, under Bush in 2000, estimated that sanctions (all including the Cuban embargo) imposed by the U.S. against other countries from 1993-2000 cost American exporters $15 billion to $19 billion in lost annual sales overseas.
These sanctions also don’t prevent Cuba’s tourist industry/economy from thriving. Currently many Canadian and European tourists visit Cuba for its tropical setting; even Americans visit occasionally, coming through Mexico or another country (which is ok because Cuba doesn’t stamp passports so there is no government evidence of the visit). On April 13, 2009, President Barack Obama loosened the travel ban, now allowing Cuban-Americans to travel freely to the country. The President has outlined a series of steps that Cuba could do to demonstrate a willingness to open its closed society, including releasing political prisoners, allowing United States telecommunications companies to operate on the island and ending government fees on money sent to Cubans by relatives living abroad. Thus far, however, the Cuban leadership has not altered any of its state-sponsored control over the Cuban population.
The US Chamber of Commerce estimates that the embargo costs the US economy $1.2 billion per year in lost sales and exports, while the Cuban government estimates that the embargo only costs the island itself $685 million annually. The US has spent over $500 million broadcasting Radio Marti and TV Marti, even though the transmission signals of the latter are effectively blocked by the Cuban government. The non-partisan Cuba Policy Foundation estimates that the embargo costs the US economy $3.6 billion per year in economic output.
The sanctions are also primarily detrimental to the Cuban people, not the government. The embargo has been criticized for its effects on food, clean water, medicine, and other economic needs of the Cuban population. The Cuban population is in dire need of most of these items. Some academic critics, outside Cuba, have also linked it to shortages of medical supplies and soap which have resulted in a series of medical crises and heightened levels of infectious diseases. It has also been linked to epidemics of specific diseases, including neurological disorders caused by poor nutrition and blindness. Travel restrictions embedded in the embargo have also been shown to limit the amount of medical information that flows into Cuba from the United States. Malnutrition and disease resulting from increased food and medicine prices have affected men and the elderly, in particular, due to Cuba's rationing system which gives preferential treatment to women and children.
Medical Stats (Dr. Miche`le Barry. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2000) - General practitioners and nurses deliver preventive care through the Family Doctor Program; one physician and one nurse are personally responsible for each neighborhood of 100 to 200 Cuban families. Cuba has twice as many physicians per capita as the United States, and the infant mortality rate is 10 per 1000 births. Since 1975, approximately 50% of all newly patented drugs distributed worldwide have been produced by U.S. drug companies; these drugs are unavailable in Cuba unless they are sold by an intermediary, often at prohibitive cost. A 1994 outbreak of the Guillain–Barre´ syndrome in Havana was caused by water that had been contaminated with Campylobacter species because chlorination chemicals were not available for purification.
2. U.N. sanctions against Iraq- The Iraq sanctions were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council against the nation of Iraq. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and continued until May 22, 2003, after the fall of the Saddam Hussein government in the US-led invasion earlier that year. Their stated purpose was at first to compel Iraq's military to withdraw from Kuwait and after that to compel Iraq to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction, and to do certain other things.
Initially the U.N. Security Council had adopted Resolution 661, a resolution that imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq. After the end of the 1991 Gulf War, those sanctions were extended and elaborated on, including linkage to removal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), by Resolution 687. The sanctions banned all trade and financial resources except for medicine and "in humanitarian circumstances" foodstuffs. They were perhaps the toughest, most comprehensive economic sanctions in human history, and caused much controversy over the increased child-and-infant mortality, poverty, and suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people, marked by two senior UN representatives in Iraq resigning in protest.
The benefits of the sanctions were marginal and not always agreed upon by analysts. Some architects of American war policy such as Douglas J. Feith (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for President Bush. 2001-2005) argue that the sanctions reduced the Iraqi military by cutting off the supply lines for much of its needed resources. In a 2004 Foreign Affairs journal article, the scholars George A. Lopez and David Cortright credit sanctions with: "Compelling Iraq to accept inspections and monitoring; winning concessions from Baghdad on political issue such as the border dispute with Kuwait; preventing the rebuilding of Iraqi defenses after the Persian Gulf War; and blocking the import of vital materials and technologies for producing weapons of mass destruction." This is supported by what Saddam Hussein told his FBI interrogator after he was captured, “[Iraq’s armaments] had been eliminated by the UN sanctions."
Another supposed goal of the sanctions was to remove Hussein from power. In 1991, a New York Times article wrote this: "Ever since the trade embargo was imposed on Aug. 6, after the invasion of Kuwait, the United States has argued against any premature relaxation in the belief that by making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people it will eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power." The article intended to point out the logically flawed assertion that by inflicting hardship on people of a tyrannical government, that people would rise up and somehow overthrow their government. When a dictator is the government, most often that person will remove from the people the ability to overthrow said government. Instead of sanctions causing an empowered people to act justly, they add international oppression to the domestic struggles that are already imposed on them by their own government. Thus, causing hardship on ordinary citizens is an ineffective and immoral way of creating political change.
The primary reason these sanctions against Iraq were so controversial was the dramatic humanitarian toll on the people of Iraq. Denis Halliday was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticize the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a program that satisfies the definition of genocide." Halliday's successor, Hans von Sponeck, subsequently also resigned in protest, calling the effects of the sanctions a "true human tragedy.” Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq, followed them.
The sanctions resulted in high rates of malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, and diseases from lack of clean water. Chlorine was desperately needed to disinfect water supplies, but was banned from manufacture in the country and its import severely restricted due to the potential that it may be used as part of a chemical weapon.
Children were particularly affected. In May 2000 a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) survey noted that almost half the children under 5 years suffered from diarrhea, in a country where the population is marked by its youth, with 45% being under 14 years of age in 2000. In 2000, BBC reported that before Iraq sanctions were imposed by the UN in 1990, infant mortality had "fallen to 47 per 1,000 live births between 1984 and 1989.” This compares to approximately 7 per 1,000 in the UK. The article also reported that in southern and central Iraq, infant mortality rate between 1994 and 1999 had risen to 108 per 1,000. In the spring of 2000 a U.S. Congressional letter demanding the lifting of the sanctions garnered 71 signatures, while House Democratic Whip David Bonior called the economic sanctions against Iraq "infanticide masquerading as policy." Child mortality rate, which refers to children between the age of one and five years, also drastically inclined from 56 to 131 per 1,000 (for the same year periods). However, in the autonomous northern region during the same period, infant mortality declined from 64 to 59 per 1000 and under-5 mortality fell from 80 to 72 per 1000, which was attributed to better food and resource allocation. Child casualty estimates for the sanctioned period range from 170,000 to well over 500,000 (by Western Estimates). The Iraqi government puts the number at well over 1 million.
Another effect on the Iraqi people was that the economy shrank. Normally this is the intended goal (either direct or indirect) of sanctions and would be deemed a success. However, instead of this depressed economic situation hurting the military or accomplishing one of the other goals of the sanctions, it hurt the people. In order to keep the military at full strength, social programs were cut. These programs included efforts in women’s education (which was very rare in Middle East), which was on the rise in Iraq prior to the depressed economy. Power shortages, lack of spare parts and insufficient technical education also lead to the breakdown of many modern facilities.
The overall literacy rate in Iraq had been 78% in 1977 and 87% for adult women by 1985, but declined rapidly since then. Between 1990 and 1998, over one fifth of Iraqi children stopped enrolling in school, consequently increasing the number of non-literates and losing all the gains made in the previous decade. The 1990s also saw a dramatic increase in child labor, from a virtually non-existent level in the 1980s. The per capita income in Iraq dropped from $3510 in 1989 to $450 in 1996, heavily influenced by the rapid devaluation of the Iraqi dinar.
3. Tariff Act of 1789/ Hamilton Tariff- The Hamilton Tariff (July 4, 1789) was the second statute ever enacted by the new federal government of the United States. Most of the rates of the tariff were between 5 and 10 percent, depending on the value of the item. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton was anxious to establish the tariff as a regular source of government revenue and to protect domestic manufacturing. The former was of immediate necessity; the latter was not. The Hamilton Tariff and much of Hamilton's financial plan can be attributed as one of the causes of the schism in the Federalist Party. It protected the Northern manufacturers (by making imported goods more expensive) but harmed Southern farmers (by making products more expensive). This factor was one of the major causes of the Civil War. It is argued that this tariff sent a very clear message. It was called the "Second Declaration of Independence" by newspapers because it was intended to be the economic means to achieve the political goal of a sovereign and independent United States.
4. 2002 United States Steel Tariff- The Section 201 steel tariff is a political issue in the United States regarding a tariff that President George W. Bush placed on imported steel on March 5, 2002 (took effect March 20). The tariffs were lifted by Bush on December 4, 2003. The 2002 United States steel tariff imposed tariffs that ranged from 8-30% on a variety of imported steel products for a period of three years. American steel producers supported the tariffs, but the move was criticized by some including the Cato Institute.
They were imposed to give U.S. steel makers protection from what a U.S. probe determined was a “detrimental surge in steel imports” that would endanger the viability of American steel companies. More than 30 steel makers had declared bankruptcy in recent years. Steel producers had originally sought up to a 40% tariff. Canada and Mexico were exempt from the tariffs because of penalties the U.S. would face under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Additionally, some developing countries such as Argentina, Thailand, and Turkey were also exempt. The typical steel tariff at the time was usually between zero and one percent, making the 8-30 percent rates exceptionally high. These rates, though, are comparable to the standard permanent US tariff rates on many kinds of clothes and shoes.
The tariffs drew domestic controversy from multiple organizations, one of the most prominent being the CATO Institute. CATO argued that, like all other tariffs, the steel tariffs are harmful because they infringe on the free market principles that the U.S. is founded on. It is argued that if a domestic industry is too inefficient to compete with international prices, then it should be allowed to fail. If it is not allowed to fail, we are supporting an inefficient economic structure that will, in the long run, end up hurting the domestic market. The counter to this is that the U.S.’s economy would collapse if they followed this policy because American industries cannot compete with the lower wages and working standards that make labor and goods from other countries cheaper.
The tariffs ignited international controversy as well. Immediately after they were filed, the European Union announced that it would impose retaliatory tariffs on the U.S., thus risking the start of a major trade war. To decide whether or not the steel tariffs were fair, a case was filed at the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization. Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Switzerland, Brazil and others joined with similar cases.
In late autumn of 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge - steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002 - and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America's WTO tariff-rate commitments. After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs; in retaliation and under WTO rules, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan — each tariff was calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. Faced with the threat, the United States backed down and withdrew the tariffs early.
5. South Africa- The case of South Africa is one of major controversy among economists and political analysts. Some say that the case of South Africa is one that points to the success of sanctions. However, some state that this is yet another example of failure because the gains were modest and that using South Africa as a model of success is a false comparison in most cases because of the country’s unique circumstances.
The sanctions imposed on South Africa came in the form of disinvestment. Disinvestment, sometimes referred to as divestment, refers to the use of a concerted economic boycott, with specific emphasis on liquidating stock, to pressure a government, industry, or company towards a change in policy, or in the case of governments, even regime change. Often divestment occurs through countries refusing to do business with multinational companies that operate in the targeted country.
Disinvestment from South Africa was first advocated in the 1960s by the U.N, in protest of South Africa's system of Apartheid (a system of legal racial segregation enforced by the government under which the rights of the majority black inhabitants of South Africa were curtailed and minority rule by whites was maintained.), but was not implemented on a significant scale until the mid 1980s. The disinvestment campaign, after being realized in federal legislation enacted in 1986 (see next paragraph) by the United States, is credited (by some) as pressuring the South African Government to embark on negotiations ultimately leading to the dismantling of the apartheid system. Though the U.N. attempted to impose sanctions starting in the 60’s, it failed to create any political change which is often attributed to the refusal of the U.K. and U.S. to recognize the sanctions.
Change within South Africa began in 1990, shortly after the U.S. passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, which imposed sanctions against South Africa and stated five preconditions for lifting the sanctions, including establishing a timetable for the elimination of apartheid laws and the release of political prisoner Nelson Mandela. The legislation banned all new U.S. trade and investment in South Africa and was a catalyst for similar sanctions in Europe and Japan. Direct air links were also banned, including South African Airways flights to U.S. airports. The withdrawal of operations from major corporations and the loss of confidence by the global banking community caused South Africa's economy to go into a deep recession. The act also required various U.S. departments and agencies to suppress funds and assistance to the then pro-apartheid government. (side-note: President Ronald Reagan attempted to veto the law but was overridden by Congress. This override marked the first time in the twentieth century that a president had a foreign policy veto overridden.)
Change in South Africa did occur though. In 1990 the National Party government took the first step towards dismantling discrimination when it lifted the ban on the African National Congress (ANC) and other political organizations. It released Nelson Mandela from prison after twenty-seven years' incarceration on a sabotage sentence. A negotiation process known as the Convention for a Democratic South Africa was started. The government repealed apartheid legislation. South Africa destroyed its nuclear arsenal and acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. South Africa held its first multi-racial elections in 1994, which the ANC won by an overwhelming majority. It has been in power ever since.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Friday, November 5, 2010
Brief-Vegetarianism
Motions: This house would go vegetarian; this house would stop consuming meat
Background:
Vegetarianism is the practice of following a plant-based diet including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, mushrooms, with or without dairy products and eggs. A vegetariandoes not eat meat, including red meat, game, poultry, fish, crustacea, and shellfish, and may also abstain from by-products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived rennet andgelatin.[1][2]
The earliest records of (lacto) vegetarianism come from ancient India and ancient Greece in the 6th century BCE.[12] In both instances the diet was closely connected with the idea of nonviolence towards animals (called ahimsa in India) and was promoted by religious groups and philosophers.[nb 1] Following the Christianisation of the Roman Empire in late antiquity, vegetarianism practically disappeared from Europe.[14]Several orders of monks in medieval Europe restricted or banned the consumption of meat for ascetic reasons, but none of them eschewed fish.[15] It re-emerged during the Renaissance,[16] becoming more widespread in the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1847, the first Vegetarian Society was founded in the United Kingdom;[17] Germany, the Netherlands, and other countries followed. The International Vegetarian Union, a union of the national societies, was founded in 1908. In the Western world, the popularity of vegetarianism grew during the 20th century as a result of nutritional, ethical, and more recently, environmental and economic concerns.
The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada have stated that at all stages of life, a properly planned vegetarian diet is "healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases". Large-scale studies have shown that mortality from ischaemic heart disease was 30% lower among vegetarian men and 20% lower among vegetarian women than in nonvegetarians.[23][24][25] Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy.[26] Vegetarian diets offer lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein, and higher levels of carbohydrates, fibre, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals.[27]
Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index, lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, osteoporosis, dementias such as Alzheimer’s Disease and other disorders.[28] Non-lean red meat, in particular, has been found to be directly associated with increased risk of cancers of the esophagus, liver, colon, and the lungs.[29] Other studies have shown no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or prostate cancer, although the sample of vegetarians was small and included ex-smokers who had switched their diet within the last five years.[24] A 2010 study compared a group of vegetarian and meat-eating Seventh Day Adventists in which vegetarians scored lower on depression tests and had better mood profiles.[30]
The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada have stated that at all stages of life, a properly planned vegetarian diet is "healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases". Large-scale studies have shown that mortality from ischaemic heart disease was 30% lower among vegetarian men and 20% lower among vegetarian women than in nonvegetarians.[23][24][25] Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy.[26] Vegetarian diets offer lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein, and higher levels of carbohydrates, fibre, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals.[27]
Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index, lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, osteoporosis, dementias such as Alzheimer’s Disease and other disorders.[28] Non-lean red meat, in particular, has been found to be directly associated with increased risk of cancers of the esophagus, liver, colon, and the lungs.[29] Other studies have shown no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or prostate cancer, although the sample of vegetarians was small and included ex-smokers who had switched their diet within the last five years.[24] A 2010 study compared a group of vegetarian and meat-eating Seventh Day Adventists in which vegetarians scored lower on depression tests and had better mood profiles.[30]
Arguments for:
Healthier to eat vegetarian (note background information)
Unethical to eat animals-reduces animal suffering
• Animals go through incredible abuse and suffering through our process of breeding them and killing them for meat. If we get rid of that system, we get rid of the suffering for animals
Environmental benefits
• Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in our rivers. Beef farming is one of the main causes of deforestation, and as long as people continue to buy fast food in their billions, there will be a financial incentive to continue cutting down trees to make room for cattle. Because of our desire to eat fish, our rivers and seas are being emptied of fish and many species are facing extinction. Energy resources are used up much more greedily by meat farming than my farming cereals, pulses etc. Eating meat and fish not only causes cruelty to animals, it causes serious harm to the environment and to biodiversity.
Arguments against:
We should let people choose how they want to live, not tell them
• A government has no right to dictate the life choices of people, whether they are better for the people or not.
• People have the right to choose whichever lifestyle they please, and it is not the government’s role to be involved in that choice
The current system abuses animals and causes suffering
• We have options today that reduce suffering of animals (free-range, organic farms)
• We should reform the system if we want the conditions to be better, not completely eliminate it altogether
It is natural to eat animals
• We are above the animals because we use the environment to our advantage and consume everything that we can from it.
• We have the biological adaptations (sharp canine teeth, digestive systems) that are perfect for eating meat, fish and vegetables. We should eat what our bodies are made to eat.
Background:
Vegetarianism is the practice of following a plant-based diet including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, mushrooms, with or without dairy products and eggs. A vegetariandoes not eat meat, including red meat, game, poultry, fish, crustacea, and shellfish, and may also abstain from by-products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived rennet andgelatin.[1][2]
The earliest records of (lacto) vegetarianism come from ancient India and ancient Greece in the 6th century BCE.[12] In both instances the diet was closely connected with the idea of nonviolence towards animals (called ahimsa in India) and was promoted by religious groups and philosophers.[nb 1] Following the Christianisation of the Roman Empire in late antiquity, vegetarianism practically disappeared from Europe.[14]Several orders of monks in medieval Europe restricted or banned the consumption of meat for ascetic reasons, but none of them eschewed fish.[15] It re-emerged during the Renaissance,[16] becoming more widespread in the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1847, the first Vegetarian Society was founded in the United Kingdom;[17] Germany, the Netherlands, and other countries followed. The International Vegetarian Union, a union of the national societies, was founded in 1908. In the Western world, the popularity of vegetarianism grew during the 20th century as a result of nutritional, ethical, and more recently, environmental and economic concerns.
The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada have stated that at all stages of life, a properly planned vegetarian diet is "healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases". Large-scale studies have shown that mortality from ischaemic heart disease was 30% lower among vegetarian men and 20% lower among vegetarian women than in nonvegetarians.[23][24][25] Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy.[26] Vegetarian diets offer lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein, and higher levels of carbohydrates, fibre, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals.[27]
Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index, lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, osteoporosis, dementias such as Alzheimer’s Disease and other disorders.[28] Non-lean red meat, in particular, has been found to be directly associated with increased risk of cancers of the esophagus, liver, colon, and the lungs.[29] Other studies have shown no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or prostate cancer, although the sample of vegetarians was small and included ex-smokers who had switched their diet within the last five years.[24] A 2010 study compared a group of vegetarian and meat-eating Seventh Day Adventists in which vegetarians scored lower on depression tests and had better mood profiles.[30]
The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada have stated that at all stages of life, a properly planned vegetarian diet is "healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases". Large-scale studies have shown that mortality from ischaemic heart disease was 30% lower among vegetarian men and 20% lower among vegetarian women than in nonvegetarians.[23][24][25] Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy.[26] Vegetarian diets offer lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein, and higher levels of carbohydrates, fibre, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals.[27]
Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index, lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, osteoporosis, dementias such as Alzheimer’s Disease and other disorders.[28] Non-lean red meat, in particular, has been found to be directly associated with increased risk of cancers of the esophagus, liver, colon, and the lungs.[29] Other studies have shown no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or prostate cancer, although the sample of vegetarians was small and included ex-smokers who had switched their diet within the last five years.[24] A 2010 study compared a group of vegetarian and meat-eating Seventh Day Adventists in which vegetarians scored lower on depression tests and had better mood profiles.[30]
Arguments for:
Healthier to eat vegetarian (note background information)
Unethical to eat animals-reduces animal suffering
• Animals go through incredible abuse and suffering through our process of breeding them and killing them for meat. If we get rid of that system, we get rid of the suffering for animals
Environmental benefits
• Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in our rivers. Beef farming is one of the main causes of deforestation, and as long as people continue to buy fast food in their billions, there will be a financial incentive to continue cutting down trees to make room for cattle. Because of our desire to eat fish, our rivers and seas are being emptied of fish and many species are facing extinction. Energy resources are used up much more greedily by meat farming than my farming cereals, pulses etc. Eating meat and fish not only causes cruelty to animals, it causes serious harm to the environment and to biodiversity.
Arguments against:
We should let people choose how they want to live, not tell them
• A government has no right to dictate the life choices of people, whether they are better for the people or not.
• People have the right to choose whichever lifestyle they please, and it is not the government’s role to be involved in that choice
The current system abuses animals and causes suffering
• We have options today that reduce suffering of animals (free-range, organic farms)
• We should reform the system if we want the conditions to be better, not completely eliminate it altogether
It is natural to eat animals
• We are above the animals because we use the environment to our advantage and consume everything that we can from it.
• We have the biological adaptations (sharp canine teeth, digestive systems) that are perfect for eating meat, fish and vegetables. We should eat what our bodies are made to eat.
Brief-Iranian Sanctions
Motion: This house would repeal the sanctions placed on Iran
Background:
In 1979, after the U.S. permitted the exiled Shah of Iran to enter the United States for medical treatment, and after rumors of another U.S. backed coup and re-installation of the Shah, a group of radical students took action in Tehran by seizing the American Embassy and taking hostage the people inside.[1] The United States responded by freezing about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties. Some assets — Iranian officials say $10 billion, U.S. officials say much less — still remain frozen pending resolution of legal claims arising from the revolution.
After the invasion of Iran by Iraq, the U.S. increased sanctions against Iran. In 1984, sanctions were approved prohibiting weapons sales and all U.S. assistance to Iran. The U.S. also opposed all loans to Iran from international financial institutions. In 1987, the U.S. further prohibited the importation and exportation of any goods or services from Iran.
In April 1995, President Bill Clinton issued a total embargo on U.S. dealings with Iran, prohibiting all commercial and financial transactions with Iran. Trade with the U.S., which had been growing following the end of the Iran–Iraq War, ended abruptly. One exception is that US-made goods can be supplied to Iran under certain circumstances as long as they are shipped to Iran from another country.
In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Iran–Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). Under ILSA, all foreign companies that provide investments over $20 million for the development of petroleum resources in Iran will have imposed against them two out of seven possible penalties by the U.S.:[2]
• denial of Export-Import Bank assistance;
• denial of export licenses for exports to the violating company;
• prohibition on loans or credits from U.S. financial institutions of over $10 million in any 12-month period;
• prohibition on designation as a primary dealer for U.S. government debt instruments;
• prohibition on serving as an agent of the United States or as a repository for U.S. government funds;
• denial of U.S. government procurement opportunities (consistent with WTO obligations); and
• a ban on all or some imports of the violating company.
In response to the election of Iranian reformist President Mohammad Khatami, President Clinton eased sanctions on Iran. A debate in the US Congress on whether to allow the expiration of ILSA, which some legislators argued hindered bilateral relations, and others argued would be seen as a concession on an effective program, ended on August 5, 2001, with its renewal by the Congress and signing into law by President George W. Bush.[3]
After being elected president in 2005 Ahmadinejad reversed the retroactive nuclear policy and lifted the suspension of uranium enrichment, that had been put in place by the reformists. This raised red flags in the United States government, which began pushing for international sanctions against Iran over its atomic ambitions.[6]
Iranian financial institutions are barred from directly accessing the U.S. financial system, but they are permitted to do so indirectly through banks in other countries. In September 2006, the U.S. government imposed sanctions on Bank Saderat Iran, barring it from dealing with U.S. financial institutions, even indirectly. The move was announced by Stuart Levey, the undersecretary for treasury, who accused the major state-owned bank in Iran of transferring funds for certain groups, including Hezbollah. Levey said that since 2001 a Hezbollah-controlled organization had received 50 million U.S. dollars directly from Iran through Bank Saderat. He said the U.S. government will also persuade European banks and financial institutions not to deal with Iran.[7]
As of early 2008, the targeted banks, such as Bank Mellat, had been able to replace banking relationships with a few large sanction-compliant banks with relationships with a larger number of smaller non-compliant banks.[11] The total assets frozen in Britain under the EU (European Union) and UN sanctions against Iran are approximately 976,110,000 pounds ($1.64 billion).[12] In 2008, the US Treasury ordered Citigroup Inc. to freeze over $2 billion allegedly held for Iran in Citigroup accounts.[13]
In June, 2010 in the case United States v. Banki, the use of the Hawala method of currency transfer led to a criminal conviction against a U.S. citizen of Iranian origin.
On June 9, 2010, the United Nations Security council passed 12-2 a resolution to impose new sanctions on Iran for the continued disagreement over its nuclear portfolio.
On June 24, 2010, the United States Senate and House of Representatives passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), which President Obama signed into law July 1, 2010.
Arguments for:
The sanctions are hurting people, not the government
They hurt the U.S. more than they hurt Iran
• According to Bloomberg News, Exxon and Boeing have said that the new sanctions would cost $25 billion in U.S. exports
• According to the U.S. National Foreign Trade Council, Iran could reduce the world price of crude petroleum by 10%, which would save the U.S. up to $75 billion annually, if we were to repeal the sanctions
• Due to the strict restrictions on the Iranian economy, Iran was actually protected from the global recession that began in 2007.
• We as the U.S. are losing money, and we could be gaining so much more economically if we repealed these sanctions. We are really only protecting Iran, and since this is the fourth set of sanctions since 2006, it’s obvious that Iran will not concede anytime soon. It’s better to cut our losses now for the great gains that we can make in the future
The sanctions actually push the government further away from negotiating
• "The goal of these sanctions is to change the political behavior of the government - in the nuclear field," Mohammad Nahavandian, the head of the Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Mines said. "But instead it has intensified their political stances."
• By stifling the Iranian economy, we have only hardened their stance to continue attempting to enrich uranium. The sanctions are not leading to a true solution of the problem
Arguments against:
The international community is in danger
• This is the best way that we have to prevent Iran from enriching uranium and developing nuclear weapons
• Iran has shown over and over again that they wish to use nuclear force against the U.S. and Israel
• If we simply repeal the sanctions, we are opening the door for Iran to use nuclear weapons against us or our allies
We cannot concede to a totalitarian dictatorship
• Iran’s leader, Ahmadinejad, runs a dictatorship that shuts off any opposition or questions about his authority. We have a duty as leader of the free world to stand up for our Western democratic values and not let a dictatorship like this win out in this conflict
• If we simply concede, we send a message internationally that we are weak and will back down easily
Sanctions are successful
• Case study: Indonesia
o In a time when Indonesia’s economy was crippled and the threat of bringing sanctions upon financial institutions in Jakarta was given, we saw that the Indonesian government gave in to international demands and pushed back the militias that were preventing East Timor from gaining independence. (1999)
Sources
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/9/obama-hails-un-vote-new-iran-sanctions/?page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran
http://www3.mb.com.ph/articles/261467/iran-sanctions-good-us
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF11Ak04.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/22607/limits_of_new_iran_sanctions.html
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=177983
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65859420100610
Background:
In 1979, after the U.S. permitted the exiled Shah of Iran to enter the United States for medical treatment, and after rumors of another U.S. backed coup and re-installation of the Shah, a group of radical students took action in Tehran by seizing the American Embassy and taking hostage the people inside.[1] The United States responded by freezing about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties. Some assets — Iranian officials say $10 billion, U.S. officials say much less — still remain frozen pending resolution of legal claims arising from the revolution.
After the invasion of Iran by Iraq, the U.S. increased sanctions against Iran. In 1984, sanctions were approved prohibiting weapons sales and all U.S. assistance to Iran. The U.S. also opposed all loans to Iran from international financial institutions. In 1987, the U.S. further prohibited the importation and exportation of any goods or services from Iran.
In April 1995, President Bill Clinton issued a total embargo on U.S. dealings with Iran, prohibiting all commercial and financial transactions with Iran. Trade with the U.S., which had been growing following the end of the Iran–Iraq War, ended abruptly. One exception is that US-made goods can be supplied to Iran under certain circumstances as long as they are shipped to Iran from another country.
In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Iran–Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). Under ILSA, all foreign companies that provide investments over $20 million for the development of petroleum resources in Iran will have imposed against them two out of seven possible penalties by the U.S.:[2]
• denial of Export-Import Bank assistance;
• denial of export licenses for exports to the violating company;
• prohibition on loans or credits from U.S. financial institutions of over $10 million in any 12-month period;
• prohibition on designation as a primary dealer for U.S. government debt instruments;
• prohibition on serving as an agent of the United States or as a repository for U.S. government funds;
• denial of U.S. government procurement opportunities (consistent with WTO obligations); and
• a ban on all or some imports of the violating company.
In response to the election of Iranian reformist President Mohammad Khatami, President Clinton eased sanctions on Iran. A debate in the US Congress on whether to allow the expiration of ILSA, which some legislators argued hindered bilateral relations, and others argued would be seen as a concession on an effective program, ended on August 5, 2001, with its renewal by the Congress and signing into law by President George W. Bush.[3]
After being elected president in 2005 Ahmadinejad reversed the retroactive nuclear policy and lifted the suspension of uranium enrichment, that had been put in place by the reformists. This raised red flags in the United States government, which began pushing for international sanctions against Iran over its atomic ambitions.[6]
Iranian financial institutions are barred from directly accessing the U.S. financial system, but they are permitted to do so indirectly through banks in other countries. In September 2006, the U.S. government imposed sanctions on Bank Saderat Iran, barring it from dealing with U.S. financial institutions, even indirectly. The move was announced by Stuart Levey, the undersecretary for treasury, who accused the major state-owned bank in Iran of transferring funds for certain groups, including Hezbollah. Levey said that since 2001 a Hezbollah-controlled organization had received 50 million U.S. dollars directly from Iran through Bank Saderat. He said the U.S. government will also persuade European banks and financial institutions not to deal with Iran.[7]
As of early 2008, the targeted banks, such as Bank Mellat, had been able to replace banking relationships with a few large sanction-compliant banks with relationships with a larger number of smaller non-compliant banks.[11] The total assets frozen in Britain under the EU (European Union) and UN sanctions against Iran are approximately 976,110,000 pounds ($1.64 billion).[12] In 2008, the US Treasury ordered Citigroup Inc. to freeze over $2 billion allegedly held for Iran in Citigroup accounts.[13]
In June, 2010 in the case United States v. Banki, the use of the Hawala method of currency transfer led to a criminal conviction against a U.S. citizen of Iranian origin.
On June 9, 2010, the United Nations Security council passed 12-2 a resolution to impose new sanctions on Iran for the continued disagreement over its nuclear portfolio.
On June 24, 2010, the United States Senate and House of Representatives passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), which President Obama signed into law July 1, 2010.
Arguments for:
The sanctions are hurting people, not the government
They hurt the U.S. more than they hurt Iran
• According to Bloomberg News, Exxon and Boeing have said that the new sanctions would cost $25 billion in U.S. exports
• According to the U.S. National Foreign Trade Council, Iran could reduce the world price of crude petroleum by 10%, which would save the U.S. up to $75 billion annually, if we were to repeal the sanctions
• Due to the strict restrictions on the Iranian economy, Iran was actually protected from the global recession that began in 2007.
• We as the U.S. are losing money, and we could be gaining so much more economically if we repealed these sanctions. We are really only protecting Iran, and since this is the fourth set of sanctions since 2006, it’s obvious that Iran will not concede anytime soon. It’s better to cut our losses now for the great gains that we can make in the future
The sanctions actually push the government further away from negotiating
• "The goal of these sanctions is to change the political behavior of the government - in the nuclear field," Mohammad Nahavandian, the head of the Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Mines said. "But instead it has intensified their political stances."
• By stifling the Iranian economy, we have only hardened their stance to continue attempting to enrich uranium. The sanctions are not leading to a true solution of the problem
Arguments against:
The international community is in danger
• This is the best way that we have to prevent Iran from enriching uranium and developing nuclear weapons
• Iran has shown over and over again that they wish to use nuclear force against the U.S. and Israel
• If we simply repeal the sanctions, we are opening the door for Iran to use nuclear weapons against us or our allies
We cannot concede to a totalitarian dictatorship
• Iran’s leader, Ahmadinejad, runs a dictatorship that shuts off any opposition or questions about his authority. We have a duty as leader of the free world to stand up for our Western democratic values and not let a dictatorship like this win out in this conflict
• If we simply concede, we send a message internationally that we are weak and will back down easily
Sanctions are successful
• Case study: Indonesia
o In a time when Indonesia’s economy was crippled and the threat of bringing sanctions upon financial institutions in Jakarta was given, we saw that the Indonesian government gave in to international demands and pushed back the militias that were preventing East Timor from gaining independence. (1999)
Sources
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/9/obama-hails-un-vote-new-iran-sanctions/?page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran
http://www3.mb.com.ph/articles/261467/iran-sanctions-good-us
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF11Ak04.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/22607/limits_of_new_iran_sanctions.html
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=177983
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65859420100610
Brief-Capital Punishment
Motion: This house would abolish the death penalty for all crimes in the U.S.
Background
In the U.S., 15 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment. Of the 35 "death-penalty states," one-third rarely sentence anyone to death and another third impose death sentences but rarely carry them out. In many states, the only people to be executed are "volunteers" -- death row inmates who abandon an appeals process that would otherwise keep them alive. Eighty percent of executions now take place in the states of the former Confederacy, the vast majority of them in Texas. Death sentences have also decreased in recent years. One reason is that states now give juries the power to impose life imprisonment without parole. Another is that prosecutors advise victims' families that they may be better off seeking a prison sentence instead of capital punishment. That way, they will not have to watch year after year as the murderer goes to court seeking to have the death sentence overturned.
Capital punishment in the United States varies by jurisdiction. In practice it applies only for aggravated murder and more rarely for felony murder or contract killing.[1] Capital punishment existed in the colonies that predated the United States and that were later annexed to the United States under the laws of their mother countries and continued to have effect in the states and territories they became.
The methods of execution and the crimes subject to the penalty vary by jurisdiction and have varied widely throughout time. Some jurisdictions have banned it, others have suspended its use, but others are trying to expand its applicability. There were 37 executions in 2008.[2] That is the lowest number since 1994[3] (largely due to lethal injection litigation).[4][5] There were 52 executions in the United States in 2009, 51 by lethal injection and 1 by electric chair (Virginia).
International
More than two-thirds of the countries of the world have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. While 58 countries retained the death penalty in 2009, most did not use it. Eighteen countries were known to have carried out executions, killing a total of at least 714 people; however, this figure does not include the thousands of executions that were likely to have taken place in China, which again refused to divulge figures on its use of the death penalty.
In 1977, only 16 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes. As of December 2009 that figure stands at 95 and more than two thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
Of the 58 retentionist countries, only 18 are known to have carried out executions in 2009.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948, recognizes each person’s right to life. It categorically states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Article 5). In Amnesty International’s view, the death penalty violates these rights.
The community of states has adopted four international treaties specifically providing for the abolition of the death penalty. Through the years, several UN bodies discussed and adopted measures to support the call for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty.
In December 2007 and 2008 the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted resolutions 62/149 and 63/168, calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Since then, other regional bodies or civil society coalitions adopted resolutions and declarations advocating for a moratorium on executions as a step towards global abolition of the death penalty.
Arguments for
The death penalty is too expensive
• A state study in Indiana showed that capital sentences cost 10 times more than life-without-parole cases
• An appeals case in federal court can cost up to $275,000 and people are allowed to appeal multiple times, as opposed to the $20,000 it costs to keep an inmate in prison each year.
• A December 2009 news article from Lubbock, Texas revealed that a capital punishment case in the state at the time cost $1 million whereas the average cost of a case devoid of capital punishment is $3,000. This does not include the cost of appeals in capital punishment cases, either, which can more than double the cost. Then there is the cost while the person is in prison. It costs $47.50 to house a criminal in prison in the state of Texas for one day. If someone were sentenced to life in prison, it would cost $693,500 to house him or her for 40 years. That is still only a fraction of the cost of a death penalty court case. Also, prisoners on death row spend, on average, at least 12 years in prison before they are executed. In Texas, this would mean an extra $208,050 added to the high cost of the court case and appeals process.
• In Florida, budget problems resulted in the early release of 3,000 prisoners. In Texas, prisoners serve an average of 20% of their sentences and rearrests are common. Georgia laid off 900 correctional personnel and New Jersey had to dismiss 500 police officers. Yet these states also pour millions of dollars into the death penalty. The costs of the death penalty are decreasing the amount of police on the streets, and increasing the amount of criminals on the streets, which only increases the danger for our society
• In a small county in Washington, the anticipated death penalty costs are causing them to delay pay raises to 350 of their employees, let one government position to go unfilled, and drain their $300,000 contingency fund. In another county in Washington, $346,000 has been spent to seek the third death sentence for Mitchell Rupe. He is dying of liver disease, but the state is making extreme efforts to keep him alive so they can execute him.
Innocent people get killed
There have been 113 people released from death row since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, but only 907 executions since that time. That means that for every 7 executions in the U.S., 1 person has been found innocent on death row
Case studies of innocent people on death row:
• Gary Gauger - Illinois - Conviction: 1993, Released: 1996 --- He was convicted of killing his parents, but was found innocent after his conviction, when police heard the real murderers talking about the killing.
• Sabrina Butler - Mississippi - Conviction: 1990, Released 1995: --- Convicted of murdering her nine-month old child. When she found her baby not breathing, she performed CPR and took him to the hospital. Even after doing this, the police thought that she was the killer, and she ended up getting sentenced to death. It is now believed that the child died of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome).
• Andrew Golden - Florida - Conviction: 1985, Released: 1995 --- Convicted of killing his wife, even though the prosecution failed to prove that his wife's death was anything more than an accident. He was finally released from death row in 1995, "to the waiting arms of his sons."
It is not effective in deterring crime
• According to the 2009 FBI Uniform Crime Report, the South has the highest percentage of executions (80 percent). Yet from 2001 to 2009, the region saw no significant drop in its murder rate.
• In one study done in Oklahoma, it was found that after Oklahoma resumed capital punishment, no deterrent effect was found - in fact, a brutalization effect (increase in homicides) was reported
• A 1995 poll of police chiefs showed that the police do not believe that the death penalty lowers homicide rates. In fact, they ranked the death penalty last (1%) in effective ways to decrease violent crime
• The studies and evidence show that the death penalty is not effective in deterring criminals from committing murders. Therefore the death penalty is unnecessary and unneeded
The death penalty is racist
• African-Americans constitute 12% of the U.S. population, but make up 40% of the prisoners on death row
• People executed for interracial murders:
o White defendant/black victim – 11
o Black defendant/white victim – 167
• 84% of victims in death penalty cases are white, although only 50% of murder victims are white
• Roughly 98% of our nation’s prosecutors are white
Arguments against
The death penalty is used responsibly
• Last year in the U.S., there were over 15,000 murders, yet only 52 of those murderers were executed.
• Our system works in weeding out the people who deserve the death penalty from those who deserve a different sentence or are innocent
• We rarely convict people who turn out to be innocent, but we have parts of our justice system that allow time for appeals for the truth to be found for when the original trial is flawed or makes a mistake
We could save money in the long run using the death penalty
• It costs an average of $20,000 per year to keep someone in prison. There are currently 143,000 people in prison for life or on death row. To keep these criminals alive and away from society costs almost $2.9 billion a year.
• If we are able to execute these murderers and harmful criminals that are going to sit in jail for life already, then we can save a considerable amount of money
The problem is not the death penalty, it is the appeals system
• Obviously, there is a major problem in the costs and time it takes to go through the appeals courts
• The proper response is not to eliminate the death penalty altogether, but to reform this system so that we spend less money and waste less time
Quotations
“The evidence on whether it has a significant deterrent effect seems sufficiently plausible that the moral issue becomes a difficult one,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago who has frequently taken liberal positions. “I did shift from being against the death penalty to thinking that if it has a significant deterrent effect it’s probably justified.”
Professor Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, a law professor at Harvard, wrote in their own Stanford Law Review article that “the recent evidence of a deterrent effect from capital punishment seems impressive, especially in light of its ‘apparent power and unanimity,’ ” quoting a conclusion of a separate overview of the evidence in 2005 by Robert Weisberg, a law professor at Stanford, in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science.
“Capital punishment may well save lives,” the two professors continued. “Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.”
Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights#Rights_to_physical_integrity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_debate
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/thoughts.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?_r=1
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=106
http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-the-us-abolish-the-death-penalty
http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com
https://www.msu.edu/~millettf/DeathPenalty/morality.html
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/crown-point/article_726fe7a3-97df-599e-bc64-599c8b9af3de.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/all-charges-dismissed-against-former-texas-death-row-inmate-139th-exoneration-nationally
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/13/AR2008041302605_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071602717.html
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=13&did=2180165061&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1288922345&clientId=20972
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=14&did=2180165051&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1288922345&clientId=20972
http://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Capital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHMENT.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
Background
In the U.S., 15 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment. Of the 35 "death-penalty states," one-third rarely sentence anyone to death and another third impose death sentences but rarely carry them out. In many states, the only people to be executed are "volunteers" -- death row inmates who abandon an appeals process that would otherwise keep them alive. Eighty percent of executions now take place in the states of the former Confederacy, the vast majority of them in Texas. Death sentences have also decreased in recent years. One reason is that states now give juries the power to impose life imprisonment without parole. Another is that prosecutors advise victims' families that they may be better off seeking a prison sentence instead of capital punishment. That way, they will not have to watch year after year as the murderer goes to court seeking to have the death sentence overturned.
Capital punishment in the United States varies by jurisdiction. In practice it applies only for aggravated murder and more rarely for felony murder or contract killing.[1] Capital punishment existed in the colonies that predated the United States and that were later annexed to the United States under the laws of their mother countries and continued to have effect in the states and territories they became.
The methods of execution and the crimes subject to the penalty vary by jurisdiction and have varied widely throughout time. Some jurisdictions have banned it, others have suspended its use, but others are trying to expand its applicability. There were 37 executions in 2008.[2] That is the lowest number since 1994[3] (largely due to lethal injection litigation).[4][5] There were 52 executions in the United States in 2009, 51 by lethal injection and 1 by electric chair (Virginia).
International
More than two-thirds of the countries of the world have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. While 58 countries retained the death penalty in 2009, most did not use it. Eighteen countries were known to have carried out executions, killing a total of at least 714 people; however, this figure does not include the thousands of executions that were likely to have taken place in China, which again refused to divulge figures on its use of the death penalty.
In 1977, only 16 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes. As of December 2009 that figure stands at 95 and more than two thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
Of the 58 retentionist countries, only 18 are known to have carried out executions in 2009.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948, recognizes each person’s right to life. It categorically states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Article 5). In Amnesty International’s view, the death penalty violates these rights.
The community of states has adopted four international treaties specifically providing for the abolition of the death penalty. Through the years, several UN bodies discussed and adopted measures to support the call for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty.
In December 2007 and 2008 the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted resolutions 62/149 and 63/168, calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Since then, other regional bodies or civil society coalitions adopted resolutions and declarations advocating for a moratorium on executions as a step towards global abolition of the death penalty.
Arguments for
The death penalty is too expensive
• A state study in Indiana showed that capital sentences cost 10 times more than life-without-parole cases
• An appeals case in federal court can cost up to $275,000 and people are allowed to appeal multiple times, as opposed to the $20,000 it costs to keep an inmate in prison each year.
• A December 2009 news article from Lubbock, Texas revealed that a capital punishment case in the state at the time cost $1 million whereas the average cost of a case devoid of capital punishment is $3,000. This does not include the cost of appeals in capital punishment cases, either, which can more than double the cost. Then there is the cost while the person is in prison. It costs $47.50 to house a criminal in prison in the state of Texas for one day. If someone were sentenced to life in prison, it would cost $693,500 to house him or her for 40 years. That is still only a fraction of the cost of a death penalty court case. Also, prisoners on death row spend, on average, at least 12 years in prison before they are executed. In Texas, this would mean an extra $208,050 added to the high cost of the court case and appeals process.
• In Florida, budget problems resulted in the early release of 3,000 prisoners. In Texas, prisoners serve an average of 20% of their sentences and rearrests are common. Georgia laid off 900 correctional personnel and New Jersey had to dismiss 500 police officers. Yet these states also pour millions of dollars into the death penalty. The costs of the death penalty are decreasing the amount of police on the streets, and increasing the amount of criminals on the streets, which only increases the danger for our society
• In a small county in Washington, the anticipated death penalty costs are causing them to delay pay raises to 350 of their employees, let one government position to go unfilled, and drain their $300,000 contingency fund. In another county in Washington, $346,000 has been spent to seek the third death sentence for Mitchell Rupe. He is dying of liver disease, but the state is making extreme efforts to keep him alive so they can execute him.
Innocent people get killed
There have been 113 people released from death row since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, but only 907 executions since that time. That means that for every 7 executions in the U.S., 1 person has been found innocent on death row
Case studies of innocent people on death row:
• Gary Gauger - Illinois - Conviction: 1993, Released: 1996 --- He was convicted of killing his parents, but was found innocent after his conviction, when police heard the real murderers talking about the killing.
• Sabrina Butler - Mississippi - Conviction: 1990, Released 1995: --- Convicted of murdering her nine-month old child. When she found her baby not breathing, she performed CPR and took him to the hospital. Even after doing this, the police thought that she was the killer, and she ended up getting sentenced to death. It is now believed that the child died of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome).
• Andrew Golden - Florida - Conviction: 1985, Released: 1995 --- Convicted of killing his wife, even though the prosecution failed to prove that his wife's death was anything more than an accident. He was finally released from death row in 1995, "to the waiting arms of his sons."
It is not effective in deterring crime
• According to the 2009 FBI Uniform Crime Report, the South has the highest percentage of executions (80 percent). Yet from 2001 to 2009, the region saw no significant drop in its murder rate.
• In one study done in Oklahoma, it was found that after Oklahoma resumed capital punishment, no deterrent effect was found - in fact, a brutalization effect (increase in homicides) was reported
• A 1995 poll of police chiefs showed that the police do not believe that the death penalty lowers homicide rates. In fact, they ranked the death penalty last (1%) in effective ways to decrease violent crime
• The studies and evidence show that the death penalty is not effective in deterring criminals from committing murders. Therefore the death penalty is unnecessary and unneeded
The death penalty is racist
• African-Americans constitute 12% of the U.S. population, but make up 40% of the prisoners on death row
• People executed for interracial murders:
o White defendant/black victim – 11
o Black defendant/white victim – 167
• 84% of victims in death penalty cases are white, although only 50% of murder victims are white
• Roughly 98% of our nation’s prosecutors are white
Arguments against
The death penalty is used responsibly
• Last year in the U.S., there were over 15,000 murders, yet only 52 of those murderers were executed.
• Our system works in weeding out the people who deserve the death penalty from those who deserve a different sentence or are innocent
• We rarely convict people who turn out to be innocent, but we have parts of our justice system that allow time for appeals for the truth to be found for when the original trial is flawed or makes a mistake
We could save money in the long run using the death penalty
• It costs an average of $20,000 per year to keep someone in prison. There are currently 143,000 people in prison for life or on death row. To keep these criminals alive and away from society costs almost $2.9 billion a year.
• If we are able to execute these murderers and harmful criminals that are going to sit in jail for life already, then we can save a considerable amount of money
The problem is not the death penalty, it is the appeals system
• Obviously, there is a major problem in the costs and time it takes to go through the appeals courts
• The proper response is not to eliminate the death penalty altogether, but to reform this system so that we spend less money and waste less time
Quotations
“The evidence on whether it has a significant deterrent effect seems sufficiently plausible that the moral issue becomes a difficult one,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago who has frequently taken liberal positions. “I did shift from being against the death penalty to thinking that if it has a significant deterrent effect it’s probably justified.”
Professor Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, a law professor at Harvard, wrote in their own Stanford Law Review article that “the recent evidence of a deterrent effect from capital punishment seems impressive, especially in light of its ‘apparent power and unanimity,’ ” quoting a conclusion of a separate overview of the evidence in 2005 by Robert Weisberg, a law professor at Stanford, in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science.
“Capital punishment may well save lives,” the two professors continued. “Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.”
Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights#Rights_to_physical_integrity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_debate
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/thoughts.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?_r=1
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=106
http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-the-us-abolish-the-death-penalty
http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com
https://www.msu.edu/~millettf/DeathPenalty/morality.html
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/crown-point/article_726fe7a3-97df-599e-bc64-599c8b9af3de.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/all-charges-dismissed-against-former-texas-death-row-inmate-139th-exoneration-nationally
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/13/AR2008041302605_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071602717.html
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=13&did=2180165061&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1288922345&clientId=20972
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=14&did=2180165051&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1288922345&clientId=20972
http://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Capital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHMENT.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
Brief-data privacy
Background:
The modern World Wide Web as we know it was first invented in 1989 by Sir Tim Berners-Lee while he was working for CERN. Since that time, the use of the internet and computers in general has exploded exponentially. Now businesses, banks, hospitals, and almost all other areas of society store data via computers and transfer information through the internet.
However, the current system of data storage and internet security still contains many flaws, which have led to security breaches, leaking of information, and robbery. In October 2010, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced S. 3898, a bill that would extend EFTA’s Regulation E protections to certain local government entities, including municipalities and school districts. Another bill, the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, presented by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) would “prevent and mitigate identity theft, to ensure privacy, to provide notice of security breaches, and to enhance criminal penalties, law enforcement assistance, and other protections against security breaches, fraudulent access, and misuse of personally identifiable information.” These two bills are still waiting to be voted on by Congress.
Motion: This House should increase protections over the data of its citizens
Arguments for:
The current system is not protected enough—the new regulations are not perfect, but they will be better than what we have now
• Organized cyber thieves, meanwhile, have stolen more than $70 million from small to mid-sized businesses, nonprofits, towns and cities, according to the FBI.
• On Sept. 29, computer crooks stole $600,000 from the coastal town of Brigantine, N.J.; seven months earlier, computer crooks stole $100,000 from Egg Harbor Township just 20 miles away. In late December 2009, an organized cyber gang took $3.8 million from the Duanesburg Central School District in New York.
• In 2008 alone, the total cost of data privacy breaches in U.S. corporations was $721 million.
Extra governmental protection for businesses will save money
• If we can provide a system to adequately protect and keep this information safe, then much of the money that is continually lost will be kept and used by the schools, businesses, cities, etc.
The protections will benefit the lives of citizens
• We can further protect the data of individual citizens, as well as important areas in their lives. If hospitals, schools, and towns are all more protected, then they will all be able to offer better services to the citizens in their areas.
• Citizens should have their privacy protected by the government
• American citizens live under a government that is supposed to “promote the general welfare” of its citizens. The government needs to do that in the area of data privacy, where currently it lets its citizens be open to attack, fraud and theft with little to no legislature that would put the criminals in prison.
• We send a message of weakness to our own citizens if we choose not to protect them from such a prevalent problem
Arguments against:
The government has no right to interfere with business
• The government should not involve itself in business affairs. Businesses should be left to decide for themselves which risks to take and how to protect their own information. Letting the government help do the job will only slow down business and bring down profits if businesses have to follow a new, stricter security protocol
• Involving the government will only open up more problems, like who has access to the secure information, and if the government will have access to private business records. There is only a greater chance for security breaches and corruption by bringing in another group to handle this security issue
Citizens should be able to protect themselves
• There are plenty of simple steps to take to ensure that you do not get your identity stolen or have your bank accounts broken into.
• Citizens should have freedom to choose how to protect their information, if at all, without the government telling them exactly which way is the best for them
The government needs to educate and inform rather than step in and take action
• It would be a much better idea for the government to provide some simple (optional) steps for businesses and individuals to take in order to secure their data. This leaves open the option of personal choice, as well as limits the government’s involvement in this area
• Businesses that have a grasp on how to protect themselves can find ways to do it effectively without needing the government’s intervention
Sources
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/564
http://www.mikesprouse.com/2010/10/26/the-online-privacy-debate/
http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/trends/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228000243&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All
http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/08/online-privacy-debates-heat-up.html
http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/privacy-day-sparks-debate.php
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1490
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/apr2010/ca2010049_718474.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/opinion/25weds2.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/01/eu-online-privacy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/28/filesharing-acs-law
The modern World Wide Web as we know it was first invented in 1989 by Sir Tim Berners-Lee while he was working for CERN. Since that time, the use of the internet and computers in general has exploded exponentially. Now businesses, banks, hospitals, and almost all other areas of society store data via computers and transfer information through the internet.
However, the current system of data storage and internet security still contains many flaws, which have led to security breaches, leaking of information, and robbery. In October 2010, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced S. 3898, a bill that would extend EFTA’s Regulation E protections to certain local government entities, including municipalities and school districts. Another bill, the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, presented by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) would “prevent and mitigate identity theft, to ensure privacy, to provide notice of security breaches, and to enhance criminal penalties, law enforcement assistance, and other protections against security breaches, fraudulent access, and misuse of personally identifiable information.” These two bills are still waiting to be voted on by Congress.
Motion: This House should increase protections over the data of its citizens
Arguments for:
The current system is not protected enough—the new regulations are not perfect, but they will be better than what we have now
• Organized cyber thieves, meanwhile, have stolen more than $70 million from small to mid-sized businesses, nonprofits, towns and cities, according to the FBI.
• On Sept. 29, computer crooks stole $600,000 from the coastal town of Brigantine, N.J.; seven months earlier, computer crooks stole $100,000 from Egg Harbor Township just 20 miles away. In late December 2009, an organized cyber gang took $3.8 million from the Duanesburg Central School District in New York.
• In 2008 alone, the total cost of data privacy breaches in U.S. corporations was $721 million.
Extra governmental protection for businesses will save money
• If we can provide a system to adequately protect and keep this information safe, then much of the money that is continually lost will be kept and used by the schools, businesses, cities, etc.
The protections will benefit the lives of citizens
• We can further protect the data of individual citizens, as well as important areas in their lives. If hospitals, schools, and towns are all more protected, then they will all be able to offer better services to the citizens in their areas.
• Citizens should have their privacy protected by the government
• American citizens live under a government that is supposed to “promote the general welfare” of its citizens. The government needs to do that in the area of data privacy, where currently it lets its citizens be open to attack, fraud and theft with little to no legislature that would put the criminals in prison.
• We send a message of weakness to our own citizens if we choose not to protect them from such a prevalent problem
Arguments against:
The government has no right to interfere with business
• The government should not involve itself in business affairs. Businesses should be left to decide for themselves which risks to take and how to protect their own information. Letting the government help do the job will only slow down business and bring down profits if businesses have to follow a new, stricter security protocol
• Involving the government will only open up more problems, like who has access to the secure information, and if the government will have access to private business records. There is only a greater chance for security breaches and corruption by bringing in another group to handle this security issue
Citizens should be able to protect themselves
• There are plenty of simple steps to take to ensure that you do not get your identity stolen or have your bank accounts broken into.
• Citizens should have freedom to choose how to protect their information, if at all, without the government telling them exactly which way is the best for them
The government needs to educate and inform rather than step in and take action
• It would be a much better idea for the government to provide some simple (optional) steps for businesses and individuals to take in order to secure their data. This leaves open the option of personal choice, as well as limits the government’s involvement in this area
• Businesses that have a grasp on how to protect themselves can find ways to do it effectively without needing the government’s intervention
Sources
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/564
http://www.mikesprouse.com/2010/10/26/the-online-privacy-debate/
http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/trends/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228000243&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All
http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/08/online-privacy-debates-heat-up.html
http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/privacy-day-sparks-debate.php
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1490
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/apr2010/ca2010049_718474.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/opinion/25weds2.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/01/eu-online-privacy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/28/filesharing-acs-law
Brief-Net Neutrality
Background:
The basic concept of net neutrality originated in the age of the telegram around 1860. Telegrams were routed “equally” without attempting to discern their contents or adjusting for one application or another. These networks were called “end-to-end neutral”. Current U.S. law classifies telegrams and the phone network (public switched telephone network or PSTN) as common carriers. This means that they are treated as public utilities and are overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). These networks are specifically regulated to ensure fair pricing and access, and to prevent preferential treatment.
Past legal issues
Originally, the Internet was not legally available for commercial use. It became available in the late 1980s.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, consumers and businesses began to attach new devices to their Internet connections, and use Internet services that were not in existence in the mid-1990s.
One reaction of many broadband operators was to impose various contractual limits on the activities of their subscribers. In the best known examples, Cox Cable disciplined users of virtual private networks (VPNs) and AT&T, as a cable operator, warned customers that using a Wi-Fi service for home-networking constituted "theft of service" and a federal crime.[56] Comcast blocked ports of VPNs, forcing the state of Washington, for example, to contract with telecommunications providers to ensure that its employees had access to unimpeded broadband for telecommuting applications.
Cable modem Internet access has always been categorized under U.S. law as an information service, and not a telecommunications service, and thus has not been subject to common carrier regulations, as upheld in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services. High-speed data links, which make up the Internet's core, are also not regulated by common carrier law. On the other hand, Internet access across the phone network, including DSL, was for a long time categorized as a telecommunications service, and subject to common carrier regulations. However, on August 5, 2005, the FCC reclassified DSL services as information services rather than telecommunications services, and replaced common carrier requirements on them with a set of four less-restrictive net neutrality principles.[7] These principles, however, are not FCC rules, and therefore not enforceable requirements.
1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Actually implementing the principles requires either official FCC rule-making or federal legislation. As the principles do not impose specific regulations, they sparked a debate over whether or not Internet service providers should also be allowed to discriminate between different service providers by offering higher network priority to higher-paying companies and customers, allowing some services to operate faster or more predictably and ultimately become more acceptable to end users.
In a June 2007 report, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urged restraint with respect to the new regulations proposed by network neutrality advocates, noting the "broadband industry is a relatively young and evolving one," and given no "significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm from conduct by broadband providers," such regulations "may well have adverse effects on consumer welfare, despite the good intentions of their proponents."[14]
On February 25, 2008, Kevin Martin, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said that he is "ready, willing and able," to prevent broadband Internet service providers from irrationally interfering with their subscribers' Internet access.[20]
In August 2008, the FCC ruled that Comcast broke the law when it throttled the bandwidth available to certain customers for video files in order to make sure that other customers had adequate bandwidth.[21][22] Comcast also planned to set a cap at 250 gigabytes for how much data users could download and upload each month, with a plan in mind to terminate accounts for a year if they went above the cap twice in a period of 6 months.
January 2008, Time Warner Cable first introduced their intention to move to a "consumption based billing" plan to continue profitable net neutrality. In 2009, information was released that packages would be 10GB, 20GB, 40GB, and 60GB, and featured overage charges of $1 per GB, capped at $75, and Time Warner launched the pricing system in several markets including Rochester, NY, Beaumont, TX and Austin, TX. There was a public outcry. Early April, they announced that they would offer larger packages. Public dissatisfaction did not recede. On April 16, they were forced to abandon the plan altogether.
In May 2010, after reports indicated the FCC would drop their effort to enforce net neutrality, they announced they would continue their fight. It was believed the FCC would not be able to enforce net neutrality after a Federal court's overthrow of the agency's Order against Comcast.[23]
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.
Arguments For
Nondiscrimination is a foundation of the Internet
• Nondiscrimination is a basic obligation of all network operators under Title II of the Communications Act. Almost 40 years ago, the Federal Communications Commission was confronted with the question of how to handle the transmission of data over telecommunications networks.
• In a series of proceedings beginning in 1968 known as the Computer Inquiries, the FCC decided that the companies providing communications services would not be allowed to interfere with or discriminate against information services. When a federal court broke up Ma Bell in 1982, it required the Baby Bells to provide nondiscriminatory interconnection and access to their networks. These decisions to require the communications network to treat information service in a nondiscriminatory manner were the key building block of the Internet -- its First Amendment.
• Under these protections, the physical wires over which data and information flow were treated differently than the data and information themselves. When network owners can’t mess with the content, the content market remains free and vigorously competitive. This separation of the physical communications layer from the content and applications layers was a cornerstone of telecommunications law--putting control of the Internet in the hands of the users at the edges but in the summer of 2005 -- under intense pressure from phone and cable lobbyists -- the FCC removed this cornerstone.
• In the years since then, these network owners have openly declared that they intend to build business models based on discrimination, extorting money from online content and applications providers and favoring the Web sites and services that they own or with whom they strike special deals. This plan violates the fundamental principle of nondiscrimination that has been law for generations, and which gave us a free-flowing Internet that allows the best ideas to emerge on their own merits.
• Advocates of Net Neutrality are not promoting new regulations. We are attempting to restore tried and tested consumer protections and network operating principles that made the Internet a great engine for free speech and innovation. By passing Net Neutrality legislation we're restoring under law the open Internet's most fundamental principle.
A lack of net neutrality will allow companies to distort the market and undermine competition
• Without net neutrality, companies can give more priority to the sites that give them more money, and they can restrict speed to the customers that pay less for their internet. This is unfair to the consumer, and it not only gives companies too much power to abuse the consumer, it gives them power to keep competition out of the way. For example, if Facebook pays more money to an ISP than Myspace, then Facebook will probably come up first on search results and will run more quickly than Myspace. Companies should not be able to control the internet by their own whims.
Arguments Against
If companies attempt to place restrictions on consumers, there will be a consumer backlash along with many users finding ways around the restrictions. Net neutrality will stay alive without legislation
There are already laws to protect net neutrality
• The Communications Act of 1934 (Title 1) gives the federal government power to protect consumers from online discrimination. Amazon is one of the strong corporate supporters of Net neutrality regulation but even its spokesman has agreed that this gives the FCC power to take action if presented with unfair business tactics by broadband providers.
• In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly recognized federal authority to protect consumers’ online rights.
• Other protections for Net users include multiple antitrust laws, laws against unfair competition and the FCC’s own “Four Principles” for an open Internet. The first principle is clear: “Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.”
High cost to consumers if legislation is enacted
• When Net neutrality emerged in Congress in 2006, a Forrester Research analysis predicted that if Congress passed it, “Legal costs will shoot through the roof – draining the pockets of everyone involved.”
• ISP’s are investing $24 billion in network upgrades this year to handle the oncoming crush of video streams, movie downloads and other online traffic. But given the surging growth of online data, even this by itself won’t be enough. We need smart networks capable of differentiating between a movie stream that needs prioritization and an email that can be delayed a few seconds.
• Net neutrality’s complex pricing regulations would create a legal loophole that pushes the huge cost for tomorrow’s Internet entirely onto the Net user. A net neutrality law would let Google, Amazon and other large online companies avoid paying anything toward the cost of deploying these networks.
Legislation will restrict competition
• Example: Interstate Commerce Commission
o In 1887, the ICC was created to regulate the railroads. The Interstate Commerce Act was very similar to today’s network neutrality proposals: it prohibited discrimination by railroads toward their customers and created the ICC to enforce the regulations. The first ICC chairman was a railroad ally, and the railroads quickly gained full control of the commission. It used its control of the commission to reduce competition from the trucking industry in 1930. The ICC was supposed to protect the consumer from the railroads, but it mostly protected railroads from competition.
o Any net neutrality regulation that Congress passes will be enforced by the FCC, and no one has more influence over the FCC than telecom companies. The FCC has repeatedly promoted the interests of large telecom companies, and it will most likely use the new legislation to promote whatever the big corporations want, which will significantly restrict competition. As an example of a precedent, AT&T used regulatory barriers in the 1960s to prevent another company, MCI, from entering the long-distance market for about a decade
The basic concept of net neutrality originated in the age of the telegram around 1860. Telegrams were routed “equally” without attempting to discern their contents or adjusting for one application or another. These networks were called “end-to-end neutral”. Current U.S. law classifies telegrams and the phone network (public switched telephone network or PSTN) as common carriers. This means that they are treated as public utilities and are overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). These networks are specifically regulated to ensure fair pricing and access, and to prevent preferential treatment.
Past legal issues
Originally, the Internet was not legally available for commercial use. It became available in the late 1980s.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, consumers and businesses began to attach new devices to their Internet connections, and use Internet services that were not in existence in the mid-1990s.
One reaction of many broadband operators was to impose various contractual limits on the activities of their subscribers. In the best known examples, Cox Cable disciplined users of virtual private networks (VPNs) and AT&T, as a cable operator, warned customers that using a Wi-Fi service for home-networking constituted "theft of service" and a federal crime.[56] Comcast blocked ports of VPNs, forcing the state of Washington, for example, to contract with telecommunications providers to ensure that its employees had access to unimpeded broadband for telecommuting applications.
Cable modem Internet access has always been categorized under U.S. law as an information service, and not a telecommunications service, and thus has not been subject to common carrier regulations, as upheld in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services. High-speed data links, which make up the Internet's core, are also not regulated by common carrier law. On the other hand, Internet access across the phone network, including DSL, was for a long time categorized as a telecommunications service, and subject to common carrier regulations. However, on August 5, 2005, the FCC reclassified DSL services as information services rather than telecommunications services, and replaced common carrier requirements on them with a set of four less-restrictive net neutrality principles.[7] These principles, however, are not FCC rules, and therefore not enforceable requirements.
1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Actually implementing the principles requires either official FCC rule-making or federal legislation. As the principles do not impose specific regulations, they sparked a debate over whether or not Internet service providers should also be allowed to discriminate between different service providers by offering higher network priority to higher-paying companies and customers, allowing some services to operate faster or more predictably and ultimately become more acceptable to end users.
In a June 2007 report, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urged restraint with respect to the new regulations proposed by network neutrality advocates, noting the "broadband industry is a relatively young and evolving one," and given no "significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm from conduct by broadband providers," such regulations "may well have adverse effects on consumer welfare, despite the good intentions of their proponents."[14]
On February 25, 2008, Kevin Martin, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said that he is "ready, willing and able," to prevent broadband Internet service providers from irrationally interfering with their subscribers' Internet access.[20]
In August 2008, the FCC ruled that Comcast broke the law when it throttled the bandwidth available to certain customers for video files in order to make sure that other customers had adequate bandwidth.[21][22] Comcast also planned to set a cap at 250 gigabytes for how much data users could download and upload each month, with a plan in mind to terminate accounts for a year if they went above the cap twice in a period of 6 months.
January 2008, Time Warner Cable first introduced their intention to move to a "consumption based billing" plan to continue profitable net neutrality. In 2009, information was released that packages would be 10GB, 20GB, 40GB, and 60GB, and featured overage charges of $1 per GB, capped at $75, and Time Warner launched the pricing system in several markets including Rochester, NY, Beaumont, TX and Austin, TX. There was a public outcry. Early April, they announced that they would offer larger packages. Public dissatisfaction did not recede. On April 16, they were forced to abandon the plan altogether.
In May 2010, after reports indicated the FCC would drop their effort to enforce net neutrality, they announced they would continue their fight. It was believed the FCC would not be able to enforce net neutrality after a Federal court's overthrow of the agency's Order against Comcast.[23]
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.
Arguments For
Nondiscrimination is a foundation of the Internet
• Nondiscrimination is a basic obligation of all network operators under Title II of the Communications Act. Almost 40 years ago, the Federal Communications Commission was confronted with the question of how to handle the transmission of data over telecommunications networks.
• In a series of proceedings beginning in 1968 known as the Computer Inquiries, the FCC decided that the companies providing communications services would not be allowed to interfere with or discriminate against information services. When a federal court broke up Ma Bell in 1982, it required the Baby Bells to provide nondiscriminatory interconnection and access to their networks. These decisions to require the communications network to treat information service in a nondiscriminatory manner were the key building block of the Internet -- its First Amendment.
• Under these protections, the physical wires over which data and information flow were treated differently than the data and information themselves. When network owners can’t mess with the content, the content market remains free and vigorously competitive. This separation of the physical communications layer from the content and applications layers was a cornerstone of telecommunications law--putting control of the Internet in the hands of the users at the edges but in the summer of 2005 -- under intense pressure from phone and cable lobbyists -- the FCC removed this cornerstone.
• In the years since then, these network owners have openly declared that they intend to build business models based on discrimination, extorting money from online content and applications providers and favoring the Web sites and services that they own or with whom they strike special deals. This plan violates the fundamental principle of nondiscrimination that has been law for generations, and which gave us a free-flowing Internet that allows the best ideas to emerge on their own merits.
• Advocates of Net Neutrality are not promoting new regulations. We are attempting to restore tried and tested consumer protections and network operating principles that made the Internet a great engine for free speech and innovation. By passing Net Neutrality legislation we're restoring under law the open Internet's most fundamental principle.
A lack of net neutrality will allow companies to distort the market and undermine competition
• Without net neutrality, companies can give more priority to the sites that give them more money, and they can restrict speed to the customers that pay less for their internet. This is unfair to the consumer, and it not only gives companies too much power to abuse the consumer, it gives them power to keep competition out of the way. For example, if Facebook pays more money to an ISP than Myspace, then Facebook will probably come up first on search results and will run more quickly than Myspace. Companies should not be able to control the internet by their own whims.
Arguments Against
If companies attempt to place restrictions on consumers, there will be a consumer backlash along with many users finding ways around the restrictions. Net neutrality will stay alive without legislation
There are already laws to protect net neutrality
• The Communications Act of 1934 (Title 1) gives the federal government power to protect consumers from online discrimination. Amazon is one of the strong corporate supporters of Net neutrality regulation but even its spokesman has agreed that this gives the FCC power to take action if presented with unfair business tactics by broadband providers.
• In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly recognized federal authority to protect consumers’ online rights.
• Other protections for Net users include multiple antitrust laws, laws against unfair competition and the FCC’s own “Four Principles” for an open Internet. The first principle is clear: “Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.”
High cost to consumers if legislation is enacted
• When Net neutrality emerged in Congress in 2006, a Forrester Research analysis predicted that if Congress passed it, “Legal costs will shoot through the roof – draining the pockets of everyone involved.”
• ISP’s are investing $24 billion in network upgrades this year to handle the oncoming crush of video streams, movie downloads and other online traffic. But given the surging growth of online data, even this by itself won’t be enough. We need smart networks capable of differentiating between a movie stream that needs prioritization and an email that can be delayed a few seconds.
• Net neutrality’s complex pricing regulations would create a legal loophole that pushes the huge cost for tomorrow’s Internet entirely onto the Net user. A net neutrality law would let Google, Amazon and other large online companies avoid paying anything toward the cost of deploying these networks.
Legislation will restrict competition
• Example: Interstate Commerce Commission
o In 1887, the ICC was created to regulate the railroads. The Interstate Commerce Act was very similar to today’s network neutrality proposals: it prohibited discrimination by railroads toward their customers and created the ICC to enforce the regulations. The first ICC chairman was a railroad ally, and the railroads quickly gained full control of the commission. It used its control of the commission to reduce competition from the trucking industry in 1930. The ICC was supposed to protect the consumer from the railroads, but it mostly protected railroads from competition.
o Any net neutrality regulation that Congress passes will be enforced by the FCC, and no one has more influence over the FCC than telecom companies. The FCC has repeatedly promoted the interests of large telecom companies, and it will most likely use the new legislation to promote whatever the big corporations want, which will significantly restrict competition. As an example of a precedent, AT&T used regulatory barriers in the 1960s to prevent another company, MCI, from entering the long-distance market for about a decade
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Fallacy Hunt assignment
Video: BP Demo Debate from IDEA Youth Forum
False analogy: compares violent crimes to protect the environment, with foreign relations. These two are too dissimilar to be an applicable analogy.
Material fallacy: no cited authority on the claim: war is the most environmentally harmful action that you can take.
Unrepresentative evidence: uses story of Shell Corporation in Africa, hurting environment and hurting people’s lives. This example does not reflect all corporations across the board.
Slippery slope fallacy: argued that allowing violence to protect the environment would lead to people killing anti-gays because of their beliefs.
Straw man fallacy: misrepresents the Government side by saying they are advocating militias taking over water sources and selling water to poor people, when the Government case only advocates violence against the sources of environmental harm.
False analogy: compares violent crimes to protect the environment, with foreign relations. These two are too dissimilar to be an applicable analogy.
Material fallacy: no cited authority on the claim: war is the most environmentally harmful action that you can take.
Unrepresentative evidence: uses story of Shell Corporation in Africa, hurting environment and hurting people’s lives. This example does not reflect all corporations across the board.
Slippery slope fallacy: argued that allowing violence to protect the environment would lead to people killing anti-gays because of their beliefs.
Straw man fallacy: misrepresents the Government side by saying they are advocating militias taking over water sources and selling water to poor people, when the Government case only advocates violence against the sources of environmental harm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)