Guantanamo harms the War on Terror:  The existence of Guantanamo Bay is cited by terrorists as a tool of "the great Satan" and is seen by Muslims in general as a demonstration of US disregard for their dignity. It is, in turn, an effective tool used by terrorists and Jihadists to bring recruits on-board. The highly unpopular existence of Guantanamo Bay also makes it more risky for intelligence sources to come out and provide useful information that they might otherwise be willing to provide. This is because, for many Muslims, Guantánamo stands as a confirmation of the low regard in which they believe the United States holds them. [1] Some of this stems from the association of detention at Guantanamo with the specifically anti-Islamic abuses which have reportedly occurred there, such as allegations of having a guard dog carry the Koran in its mouth, guards scrawling obscenities inside Korans, kicking Korans across the floor, urinating on the Koran, ridiculing the Koran, walking on the Koran, and tearing off the cover and throwing the Koran into trash or dirty water. [2] These associations not only make it easier for terrorists to recruit by inciting anti-American sentiments, but also harm the US' ability to argue that the War on Terror is not directed against all Muslims. President Obama announced in 2009 that closing the Guantanamo Bay detention centre would allow the US to reclaim the moral high ground and thus better prosecute the War on Terror. [3] ''  The existence of the detention facility creates a false sense of security and compromises principles of liberty. The US is in a worse position to combat terror abroad when the government makes unprincipled, piecemeal determinations about the cases in which to use preventive detention. [4]  [1] Sengupta, Somini and Masoods, Salman. "Guantanamo Comes to Define U.S. to Muslims". New York Times. May 21, 2005.   [2] Cohn, Marjorie. "Close Guantánamo Prison". TruthOut. May 23, 2005. www.archive.truthout.org  [3] Rhee, Foon. "Obama orders Guantanamo Bay closed, bans torture." The Boston Globe. 22 January 2009.   [4] Roth, Kenneth. "After Guantanamo." Foreign Affairs. May/June 2008.  (Full article requires subscription.)


It is possible to reform treatment at Guantanamo Bay without closing the facility. The conditions in the facility have in fact greatly improved since its establishment and in many ways differ from the public's negative perception of it. [1] But even if in fact these negative reports of the conditions at Guantanamo are true, it is likely that many of those detained at Guantanamo may not be even more anti-American than when they arrived, so releasing them could mean they pose an even greater threat to the US.  [1] Davis, Morris D. “The Guantánamo I Know”. New York Times. 26 June 2007.


Detainees have the right to trial in US courts:  Prisoners have been detained at Guantanamo for long periods without clear charges being filed and without trial. This is a violation of the international legal principle of habeas corpus. One of the primary problems is that, without clear charges and a presentation of evidence against a suspect, the suspect cannot contest the charges and prove their own innocence. And, as a matter of fact, numerous detainees have been found innocent, but only after excessively long periods without being charged or brought before a court. [1]  Many Guantanamo detainees may have never committed terrorist acts or fought against US forces in Afghanistan at all; they were simply turned over by Northern Alliance and Pakistani warlords for bounties of up to $25,000. For almost seven years they have been held without a fair hearing or opportunity to demonstrate those facts. Courts who reviewed the cases of 23 detainees to see if there was reasonable evidence for their continued detention found no credible basis for detaining 22 of them. [2] Other detainees were captured in places where, at the time of their arrest, there was no armed conflict involving US forces. The case of the six men of Algerian origin detained in Bosnia and Herzegovina in October 2001 is a well-known and well-documented example. [3]  Therefore the only way to resolve these issues is to try all the detainees at Guantanamo Bay in US courts, and release any against whom charges cannot be brought. Former US Secretary of Defense Colin Powell has endorsed this reasoning, arguing that "I would get rid of Guantanamo and the military commission system and use established procedures in federal law[...]It's a more equitable way, and more understandable in constitutional terms," [4] US courts are fully capable of dealing with terrorist trials, as shown by the fact that they have rendered 145 convictions in terror-related cases in the past. [5] Convictions in US courts would probably be seen internationally as having more legitimacy than those obtained through the current system of military tribunals, which is often viewed as rigged against the defendants. [6] Only by allowing full due process in American courts can the rights of the detainees be uaranteed and their guilt or innocence truly established.  [1] New York Times Opinion. "The President's Prison". New York Times. March 25, 2007.   [2] Wilner, Thomas J. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street Journal. 22 December 2008.   [3] United Nations Economic and Social Council. "Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Civil and Political Rights. Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay". United Nations Economic and Social Council. February 15, 2006.  [4] Reuters. "Colin Powell says Guantanamo should be closed". Reuters. 10 June 2007.   [5] Wilner, Thomas J. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street Journal. 22 December 2008.   [6] Wilner, Thomas J. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street Journal. 22 December 2008.


Reforms can always be made to the legal process at Guantanamo, and so this is not a reason to close the facility or to try the detainees in US courts. Moreover, much of the credible and reliable evidence that justifies the continued detention cannot be admitted in US courts for legal reasons, such as the fact that those captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere were not read their Miranda rights on their arrest. Other cases involve evidence that is insufficient for trial but still sufficient to determine that release is an unacceptable security risk. [1] Furthermore, If transferred to U.S. courts, some of the detainees might be freed because of the aggressive interrogation techniques used against them. Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 plot, was interrogated so severely at Guantanamo Bay that Bush administration officials said he was tortured and did not refer his case for prosecution. [2]  [1] Wall Street Journal. "Obama and Guantanamo". Wall Street Journal. 22 January 2009.   [2] Fox News. "Families Outraged by Obama Call to Suspend Guantanamo War Crimes Trials". Fox News. January 21, 2009.


Conditions at Guantanamo are unjust and unacceptable:  UN Reports indicate that the treatment of detainees since their arrests, and the conditions of their confinement, have had profound effects on the mental health of many of them. The treatment and conditions include the capture and transfer of detainees to an undisclosed overseas location, sensory deprivation and other abusive treatment during transfer; detention in cages without proper sanitation and exposure to extreme temperatures; minimal exercise and hygiene; systematic use of coercive interrogation techniques; long periods of solitary confinement; cultural and religious harassment; denial of or severely delayed communication with family; and the uncertainty generated by the indeterminate nature of confinement and denial of access to independent tribunals. These conditions have led in some instances to serious mental illness, over 350 acts of self-harm in 2003 alone, individual and mass suicide attempts and widespread, prolonged hunger strikes. The severe mental health consequences are likely to be long term in many cases, creating health burdens on detainees and their families for years to come. [1] Such conditions are clearly not acceptable to a nation such as the US which prides itself on its justice system and respect for human rights. The detention centre must be closed to the US can end its association with such practices.  [1] United Nations Economic and Social Council. "Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Civil and Political Rights. Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay". United Nations Economic and Social Council. February 15, 2006.


The fact that the majority of detainees may be guilty of terror-related crimes or attacks doesn't justify the continued detention of those who were clearly detained under mistaken information, and who will only be cleared through trial in a civilian court. Otherwise justice will never be truly served at Guantanamo Bay.


After years of detention and separation from the battle field and terrorist networks, many Guantanamo detainees have no more value to US intelligence gathering efforts and national security, and so this is not a reason to continue their detention. Moreover, there are tens of thousands of anti-American terrorists around the world. Releasing a handful of the 250 detainees that are actually terrorists but that can't be tried in the US would be a drop in the bucket for terrorism and the war on terror.


Guantanamo deters terrorists:  Guantanamo Bay and the threat of detention helps deter terrorists. This coupled with the lack of a trial adds to the fear of the place and thus denounces terrorism. What is a deterrent and why is it necessary? A deterrent is something which persuades someone not to act in a certain way. Similar to the accumulation of nuclear missiles actually deterring a war between large nations, a deterrent can be created around something deemed morally wrong (a prison which may/may not breech human rights) and yet help the greatest number of people and is, thus, justifiable. The whole basis of terrorism is formed upon an ideology and stems from indoctrination. If there is a seed of doubt then it is likely that the person in question will not commit acts of terror.


Sufficient justice and due process exists at Guantanamo:  The US Constitution does not extend to alien unlawful enemy combatants. They are entitled to protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which ensures they are afforded 'all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.' US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in the Hamdan decision that rejected an earlier plan for military commissions, observed that Article 75 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable. A comparison of Article 75 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 shows military commissions provide the fundamental guarantees. [1]  Moreover, enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay are afforded a form of habeas corpus (ie. charging the imprisoned with a specific crime), as each detainee accused receives a copy of the charges in his native language. [2] Claims that most of the prisoners are unconnected with terror organisations are not supported by the intelligence evidence that exists. US Defense officials have stated that 95% of detainees are connected to al Qaeda, the Taliban or their associates, and more than 70% have had a role in attacks on U.S. or coalition forces. [3] Military boards perform yearly reviews for continued detention, and prisoners are assigned court advocates. [4] In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay inmates have the right to appeal their cases to US federal courts. [5]  Therefore complaints that sufficient justice and due process does not exist at Guantanamo bay are unfounded. Trying the most dangerous terrorists at Guantanamo in civilian courts will just give them a forum in which to grandstand.  [1] Davis, Morris D. “The Guantánamo I Know”. New York Times. 26 June 2007.   [2] Davis, Morris D. “The Guantánamo I Know”. New York Times. 26 June 2007.   [3] Reuters. “Pentagon urges Congress to keep Guantanamo open”. Reuters. 9 May 2007.   [4] Washington Post. "Close Guantanamo?" Washington Post. 22 June 2006.   [5] Greenhouse, Linda. "Justices, 5-4, Back Detainee Appeals for Guantanamo." New York Times. 13 June 2008.


Closing Guantanamo would harm US national security:  The current operations of Guantanamo Bay are aiding the War on Terror, and closing the facility would harm the US' security situation. Putting an important section of a terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda in prison obviously stops the coordination and the indoctrination of younger members. This makes it harder for terrorist groups to operate effectively. The presumption is that during that time the USA will have gathered adequate intelligence and information upon which to destroy the group and the war on terror is that little bit nearer to ending. Former US Vice President Dick Cheney has stated that, intelligence-wise, "Guantanamo has been very, very valuable [in the war on terror." [1]  Moreover, if released many Guantanamo detainees will likely return to terrorism. [5] Many of those that have been already released from Guantanamo done just that. The Washington Post reported in 2005 that at least 10 of the 202 detainees released from Guantanamo were later captured or killed while fighting U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is a relatively high number, given the fact that only a small percentage of those that returned to terrorism would later be caught or killed. One former detainee went on to become the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch, for example. [2] The Bush administration detained these enemy combatants because of their high likelihood to commit future crimes or their past history. The most dangerous detainees include the perpetrators of 9/11, the American embassy bombings of 1998, the USS Cole bombing of 2000, and the Bali bombings of 2002. [6]  Finally, trying detainees in US courts presents a catch-22: in some cases, the evidence required to build a case for trial would compromise the same intelligence sources that make information-gathering possible [4] . During the trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the “blind sheik”) and members of his terror cell for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, prosecutors turned over a list of 200 unindicted conspirators to the defense - as the civilian criminal justice system required them to do. Within 10 days, the list made its way to downtown Khartoum, and Osama bin Laden knew that the U.S. government was on his trail. By giving this information to the defense in that terrorism case, the U.S. courts gave al Qaeda valuable information about which of its agents had been uncovered. [3] Therefore the Guantanamo Bay detention centre should not be closed as this would harm the War on Terror and US national security.  [1] Reuters. “Don't close Guantanamo until terror war ends: Cheney”. Reuters. 15 December 2008.   [2] Worth, Robert F. “Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief”. New York Times. 22 January 2009.   [3] The Washington Times Editorial. “Obama and Gitmo”. The Washington Times. 12 November 2008.   [4] The Chicago Tribune. "Beyond Guantanamo." The Chicago Tribune. 22 January 2009.   [5] Cornyn, John. "Sen. Cornyn: Closing Guantanamo Could Make America Less Safe." Texas Insider. 23 January 2009.   [6] Joscelyn, Thomas. "Clear and Present Danger." The Weekly Standard. 1 December 2008.


The "deterrent effect" of Guantanamo on terrorists cannot be confirmed. This is mainly due to the fact that terrorists' feelings or fears in regards to the Guantanamo Bay prison cannot be statistically gathered. Similarly, the terrorists posing a threat to the safety of Western Nations are typically so ideologically fanatical and assured that their path is the righteous one, that there is nothing that would persuade them otherwise, including the risk of imprisonment at Guantanamo. These are often people who are willing to die for their cause.


The reasons for different categories is for escape risk – escape being the antithesis of a utilitarian purpose of prison, that of incapacitation. Those who are unlikely to seek to escape – prisoners serving short sentences or near the end of their sentence so have little reason to risk having their sentence extended – are those kept in more comfortable conditions. The measure in Connecticut meanwhile is a last minute political fudge, and one brought in solely to appease those who demand irrational justice policies such as retributivism.


Differences in treatment are already accepted  Differences between different categories of prisoner are already accepted in the criminal justice system – prisoners are generally kept in different conditions due to factors such as escape risk and other factors. For example the UK has open prisons which offer the freedom to move around within the prison and the system is aimed at reintegration so freedoms like alcohol are allowed, as are home visits. [1]  Once it is accepted that not all prisons and not all prisoners are treated the same then a difference in treatment based on the crime committed makes sense. If that is the case, it could be calibrated that those serving certain sentences for certain offences should be held in certain conditions – for example, in Connecticut (a state that has abolished the Death Penalty so LWOP is the greatest penalty imposed) those serving life without parole are now denied contact visits and are given no more than two hours of recreation per day [2] .  [1] James, Erwin, ‘Why life in an open prison is no holiday camp’, The Guardian, 13 January 2011,   [2] Blecker, p.230


Prison itself is already a deterrent. Harsher prison conditions do not prevent recidivism, and could actually make convicts more likely to reoffend when released. Chen and Shapiro estimate that if all inmates were housed in above minimum security facilities there would be “an increase in the crimes committed by former convicts of approximately 82 per 100,000 Americans” – this would be higher than the reduction of 58 crimes per 100,000 found by Katz et al. as a result of deterring those outside prison [1] .  [1] Chen, M. Keith, and Shapiro, Jesse M., ‘Do Harsher Prision Conditions Reduce Recidivism? A Discontinuity-based Approach’, American Law and Economics Review, Vol.9, No.1, 2007


Punishment is good  Retributive theories of justice accept that the reason why a criminal justice exists is to punish offenders – society declaring its rejection of crime by inflicting deliberately unpleasant punishments. Prisons do not reflect this – a prisoner is a prisoner, and prison officers generally do not care about what offence they are convicted of. Their motivation for doing this being to make the prison easier to administrate. [1]  “The past counts”. If we are making prisoners stay in prison we should make them feel as if they are being punished. This means deprivation of more than just the liberty to move from the prison but also of other luxuries.  [1] Blecker, p.103


This is all based on the vengeance-fuelled concept of “retributive justice”. This is not a model of thinking that has much merit. Imprisonment in the criminal justice works by deterring individuals from crime (prison always will be a deterrent), and incapacitating criminals, making them unable to commit crimes due to the fact they are in prison. The intent of prison is to prevent crime, not to impose harsh conditions of punishment.  Imprisonment with legitimate utilitarian goals is acceptable. Simply inflicting conditions on people for no practical reason is mere sadism.


Harsher conditions are a deterrent  Worse prison conditions for particular offences would act as a deterrent. If people, in prisons generally and in society as a whole, see that those who are convicted of particularly bad crimes will be deterred from committing those worse crimes.  If prison is simply a holding place that prevents people inside from committing crime then it is failing in creating deterrence; criminals sometimes feel it is better to commit a crime when released in order to get back into prison. [1] Katz, Levitt, and Shustorovich using death rates show how harsh prison conditions are likely to mean lower crime rates overall – though a doubling of the death rate only reduces the crime rate by a few percentage points. [2]  [1] Blecker, p.68  [2] Katz, Lawrence et al., ‘Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence’, American Law and Economics Review, Vol.5, No.2, 2003  , p.340


Punishment is irrational, but it is a legitimate desire for a justice system to meter out retribution to those convicted of serious crimes. Punishment does not have to have a beneficial impact on public safety to make it the right thing to do. The desire for victims for retribution is legitimate; they should not have to see a criminal who abused them live a cushy life in prison – at their expense.


The fact that the prison system is not designed to be punitive doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. Retributive justice demands that criminals are punished. Prison should do that, and it should fit the crime, by having more than one category of punishment based on the offence. It is understandable that prison services themselves do not consider their task to be to punish; they claim that is done by the judge or jury that hands out the sentence. This however in effect means that no one takes responsibility for punishing those who have done wrong. Instead each stage of the criminal justice system becomes solely an attempt to prevent future crime without consideration to past victims.


A tiered system already exists  To some extent, prisoners will be categorized according to the offences they have committed. For example, those convicted of offences like armed robbery and many murders will start of at a higher level on the security system, which will mean restrictions in terms of activities, prison work and association with other prisoners.  A person convicted of a sex offence against children, or anything else particularly notorious, would be likely to be placed in some sort of protective custody. In the UK, this is done under Rule 45 of the Prison Rules [1] .  [1] England and Wales prison rules, available from  , rule 45


Harsh punishment is counterproductive  Punishment for its own sake achieves nothing practical. When putting people in prison we need to look to the future, not to the past. However, harsher prison conditions can act in a way that makes individuals more likely to reoffend [1] . This is because those who have suffered harsh conditions do not become prepared for life outside; they do not learn the necessary skills that would bring them a job when released. Harsher prison conditions also breed mental health problems; isolation in supermax prisons has been observed to cause anxiety, paranoia, hallucinations, and self mutilation – one study has found isolation in a secure housing unit caused 88% of prisoners to suffer from irrational anger and 91% anxiety. [2] It is notable that the opposite is also the case the Bastøy prison in Norway, derided by some for its supposedly “soft” conditions, has a reoffending rate less than a quarter of that of the European average [3] .  [1] Chen, 2007  [2] Haney, Craig, ‘Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and “Supermax” Confinement’, Crime & Delinquency, Vol.49, No.1, January 2003,  , pp.133-4  [3] James, Erwin, ‘Bastoy: The Norwegian prision that works’, The Guardian, 4 September 2013,


Punishment is not purpose of prison  Prison itself already has punishment value: the loss of liberty and exclusion from society. However, punishment is not the purpose of prison. This is accepted in the US, where state prison systems do not claim punishment is a goal: see California [1] , New York [2] and Nevada (“Protect the public by confining convicted felons according to the law, while keeping staff and inmates safe.“) [3] . Similarly, the UK’s Ministry of Justice does not list “punishment” as a priority of HM Prison Service [4] . Instead the aim is to prevent crime by holding prisoners, and to rehabilitate criminals so that when they are released they are able to reintegrate into society without reoffending.  [1] California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, ‘Vision, Mission, Values, and Goals’, CA.gov, accessed 6/2/2014   [2] Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, ‘The Departmental Mission’, NY.gov, accessed 6/2/2014,   [3] Nevada Department of Corrections, ‘Mission Statement’, NV.gov, accessed 6/2/2014   [4] HM Prison Service, ‘About HM Prison Service’, justice.gov.uk, accessed 6/2/2014,


That system is based on security risk, not the actual offence per se. There is no extra punitive value attached to the offence in terms of prison conditions for the pure reason of the offence.  The reason why those inmates are kept separate is for their own safety (capital punishment should not be meted out by other prisoners!), not based on any ideal of punishment.


Deterrence only works if the court actually prosecutes people; however, its crippling inefficiency renders its deterrent effect nonexistent.  To date, the ICC has yet to actually punish anyone. The lack of hard power and enforcement mechanisms makes it impossible for the ICC to be effective. Tribunals like the ICTY were effective because of US support, military backing, and financial power; the ICC lacks this type of sway and is destined to fail. (See more in the opposition point #2). If the court does not actually punish people, there is little to no deterrent effect, since it poses no credible threat to criminals.1  1 Goldsmith, Jack. "The Self-Defeating International Criminal Court." The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, Winter 2003, 89-104.


If supported, the ICC will set a precedent and deter leaders from committing crimes against humanity.  The ICC demonstrates that there is an existing legal court that will hold individuals accountable should they decide to commit grave crimes. The mere existence of the court and the possibility of prosecution (even if not 100%) is beneficial in terms of deterring future atrocities. No leader wants to lose power, and an ICC warrant limits the movement and liberties of leaders. This is empirically true – in Uganda, high-ranking officials of the Lord’s Resistance Army specifically cited potential prosecution by the ICC as a reason they put down their arms. LRA officials like Joseph Kony have to spend valuable time on evading the ICC that would otherwise be used to perpetuate crimes, showing that there are still marginal benefits even if leaders themselves are not always apprehended. [i]  [i] Scheffer, David and John Hutson. “Strategy for U.S. Engagement with the International Criminal Court.” Century Foundation, 2008.  . Accessed 14 August 2011.


Pursuance by the ICC doesn't actually result in punishment of the leader; empirically, it has actually strengthened criminals' power after criticizing them.  Nations, such as African nations like Chad, have painted the actions of the ICC as signs of Western imperialism and domination. Sudan's Bashir, accused of genocide and other crimes against humanity, used the ICC's arrest warrant against him as a sign of heroism and created a rally-around-the-flag effect, further strengthening his regime. Moreover, the ICC's work encourages leaders to cling to their power rather than give it and face prosecution, making punishment even more difficult. At worst, the ICC is actually counterproductive when it comes to punishing leaders and giving them retribution; at best, it is simply an ineffective court.1  1 "The International Criminal Court: Why Africa Still Needs it." The Economist, 3 June 2010.


Efforts to strengthen the ICC will promote global cooperation, norms against crimes, and international stability.  There is a growing global consensus that crimes against humanity need to be punished, as demonstrated by the tribunals to address the crimes of Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The question is no longer whether we should set up an international court but rather how to best do it, and the ICC gives the international community a framework within which to work to establish a strong courts.1 Rejection of the ICC has become a symbol of rejection of international norms, and countries that have refused to ratify the Rome Statute in the name of national interest, such as the United States, have been seen as imperialist, isolationist, and against global efforts to tackle important issues.  1 Prakash, K. P. "International Criminal Court: A Review." Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 40, October 5-11, 2002, pp. 4113-4115.  2Carter, Ralph G. "Leadership at Risk: The Perils of Unilateralism." Political Science and Politics, Vol. 36 No. 1, January 2003, 17-22


The ICC is the best way to prosecute serious crimes because of its permanence; individual tribunals are not enough.  The ICC is uniquely beneficial because of its intention to be a permanent force that will always hold people accountable, instead of slowly reacting to crimes after-the-fact. It is intended to be universal and apply to every situation without mandating the creation of a new tribunal every time something happens, and may be even more effective than tribunals at responding to crimes. Even though tribunals such as the ones for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda may have worked, they were "necessarily limited in scope" and cannot be applied on a large scale, which is what is needed.1 Additionally, those tribunals were relatively ineffective, as they took two years to set up, and relying on establishing new tribunals every single time wastes precious time. Doing so would also let smaller but still serious crimes slip under the radar, as they would not warrant the creation of a new tribunal, but may still count as a crime against humanity.2  1 Kirsch, Philippe. "The International Criminal Court: Current Issues and Perspectives." Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 64 No. 1, Winter 2001, 3-11.  2 Marler, Melissa K. "The International Criminal Court: Assessing the Jurisdictional Loopholes in the Rome Statute." Duke Law Journal, Vol. 49 No. 3, December 1999, 825-853.


Individual tribunals are actually better at addressing the specific situation.  The idea of "universal jurisdiction" becomes dangerous when it is regarded as a blanket solution. For example, after the Spanish Civil War, post-Franco Spain decided to avoid trials for the sake of national reconciliation that enabled it to become a peaceful democracy. Setting a precedent of universal jurisdiction for punishment unnecessarily precludes better reactions more tailored to the specific scenario.1 (See opposition argument #3 for elaboration).  1 Kissinger, Henry. "The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction." Foreign Affairs, July/August 2001, Accessed 14 August 2011.


Promoting the ICC will only further split the global community by allowing the court to become a political tool.  The US Department of State published a report explaining that one of the reasons it opposes ratification of the Rome Statute is because it would complicate military cooperation with allies, who would be obligated to hand over US nationals even without US permission if a warrant were issued for their arrest. This would strain international relations. Additionally, this would decrease global stability by discouraging the US from conducting missions abroad that are key to political stability in numerous areas; US peacekeepers are currently in about 100 nations.1 (See the last opposition argument for more information)  1 Grossman, Mark (Under Secretary for Political Affairs). Remarks to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Washington, DC, 6 May 2002, US Department of State.


The ICC actually fails to account for the individual nature of crimes and is not the best solution for a "globalizing world" because it promotes retribution at the expense of peace.  Sometimes, amnesty and reconciliation are better than pursuing retribution and punishment. Even if the ICC does punish people, it may be doing so at the expense of the overall protection of human rights – emphasizing prosecution potentially detracts from goals like democratic reconstruction and conflict resolution. For example, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Committee was widely considered successful because it promoted peace even while giving amnesty to many criminals. Ultimately, it accounted for victims, allowed for open dialogue, and laid the foundation for South Africa to transition to a stable situation. The ICC’s focus on arrest and punishment precludes these types of solutions. [i]  [i] Mayerfeld, Jamie. “Who Shall be Judge? The United States, the International Criminal Court, and the Global Enforcement of Human Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, February 2003, 93-129.


The ICC will prosecute leaders who commit the most severe crimes and give them their due.  The only way to ensure that leaders get what they deserve is to establish a free-standing, independent court that holds people accountable. The ICC acts as a permanent international court (as opposed to tribunals set up by a specific group of nations).1 By issuing arrest warrants for leaders who would otherwise continue their actions without any blame, the ICC attempts to punish them. The goal is to ensure that no individual gets away with committing terrible crimes. Additionally, the court gives victims a role in the process, has the power to give them reparations, and ensures they see criminals brought to justice.2The court has not punished anyone yet because it is still considerably young, but has proceedings going on currently.  1 Carroll, James. "The International Criminal Court." Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 54 No. 1, Autumn 2000, 21-23.  2Duffy, Helen. "Toward Eradicating Impunity: The Establishment of an International Criminal Court." Social Justice, Vol. 26 No. 4, Winter 1999, 115-124.


The ICC is the most suited towards the rising nature of crimes in a globalizing world.  In today's world, crimes are no longer confined to single nations and affect the world due to the effects of globalization. An international court is necessary as a global solution to problems that often involve multiple actors; a permanent international court accounts for all parties involved.1 For example the Lord's Resistance Army has been mostly active in Uganda but has often hidden from the Ugandan military by crossing into Southern Sudan or the Democratic Republic of Congo. Because it is not limited to a specific territory, the ICC has truly global jurisdiction and therefore is most appropriate given the recent rise of international crimes. Joining the ICC would also encourage nations to recognize that crimes are no longer confined to specific borders and that the notion of territoriality provides a dangerously limited view of the scope of crimes today; ratifying the Rome Statute would force nations to recognize that domestic and international law inevitably interact.2 The domestic-foreign distinction has allowed states to ignore or commit certain atrocities in the name of national interest.  1 Ferencz, Benjamin B. "A Nuremberg Prosecutor's Response to Henry Kissinger's Essay 'The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction.'" Published by Derechos Human Rights, 27 September 2002. Accessed 14 August 2011.  2 Ralph, Jason. "International Society, the International Criminal Court and American Foreign Policy." Review of International Studies, Vol. 31 No. 1, January 2005, 27-44.


The ICC has jurisdiction to defy unwilling governments and is still a step towards global enforcement of rights, even if it does not completely solve the problem.  The ICC can have jurisdiction over criminals whose states refuse to prosecute them (provided certain conditions are met), meaning that they can issue warrants for those who come from or lead countries that will not comply with the ICC. Moreover, the ICC centralizes prosecution efforts under one court, making possible prosecution much more efficient and likely and increasing whatever original chance there was of prosecuting the leader.  Even if the ICC does have trouble fully enforcing its decisions, it is still a step towards the idea of "collective enforcement," which entails states agreeing upon and following international norms by incorporating them into domestic law and promoting their enforcement. Ratification of the Rome Statute represents a commitment by national governments to assist the ICC with prosecution efforts.1  1 Mayerfeld, Jamie. "Who Shall be Judge? The United States, the International Criminal Court, and the Global Enforcement of Human Rights." Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, February 2003, 93-129.


To date, the ICC has empirically only issued warrants against leaders that nations have almost universally agreed upon committed heinous crimes. The existence of the ICC would only deter actions that are so atrocious, they would be comparable to the ones committed by those the ICC is currently pursuing. Countries that refuse to prosecute its own individuals should submit to the court to ensure that there is a baseline standard for rights protection, even in times of war. Otherwise, these crimes go unexposed and unpunished – for example, there has been very little discussion about certain US actions because certain presidential administrations have been adamant about prioritizing national interest over global standards of rights. US attacks on a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, US invasion of Panama in 1989, US choice of targets in Afghanistan in 2001, and other actions have been left unexamined because of the lack of a third party with the consent to regulate international action; the ICC could solve this. [i]  [i] Forsythe, David P. “U.S. Action Empirically Goes Domestically Unchecked.” The United States and International Criminal Justice, Vol. 24 No. 4, November 2002, 985.


The ICC does not have enough checks on prosecutorial powers, inviting prosecutorial abuse.  The issues the ICC deals with are inherently subjective, as there is clear disagreement about what counts as a war crime or what the exact definition of genocide is. This leaves dangerous room for the prosecutor to simply decide what he thinks counts as a crime under the statute. Under the Rome Statute, the prosecutor has the power to both initiate an investigation based on reasonable evidence (of which there are no clear standards for outlined in the Rome Statute) and refuse to follow up on an investigation in the name of "justice." There are no clear higher checks on the prosecutor, putting too much power in the hands of one single individual. Additionally, there is very limited judicial review, as the pre-trial chamber is composed of 1 or 3 judges, and the prosecutor is able to find a judge who is sympathetic to his views.1  1 Rubin, Alfred P. "The International Criminal Court: Possibilities for Prosecutorial Abuse." Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 64 No. 1, Winter 2001, 153-165.


The ICC infringes upon national sovereignty by inherently implying that there is a higher court nations must answer to.  The ICC forces nations to accept that there is a binding power that overrides national law, undermining the government. John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, explains: "The ICC's failing stems from its purported authority to operate outside (and on a plane superior to) the U.S. Constitution, and thereby to inhibit the full constitutional autonomy of all three branches of the U.S. government, and indeed, of all states party to the statute. ICC advocates rarely assert publicly that this result is central to their stated goals, but it must be for the court and prosecutor to be completely effective."1 More specifically, Article 12 of the Rome Statute entails that the ICC's jurisdiction applies to all individuals, even of states that have not ratified the treaty. Governments cannot unconditionally bind its citizens to laws that are inflexible and contrary to the idea of sovereignty.2  1 Bolton, John. "The Risks and Weaknesses of the International Criminal Court from America's Perspective." Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 64 No. 1, Winter 2001, 167-180.


The ICC is not democratic in nature and is likely to be used as a political tool by powerful nations.  Parts of the Rome Statue, such as the clauses relating to the Security Council, make it seem like a tool that will be used by the politically powerful. The Security Council has the power to refer cases to the prosecutor. Article 16 of the Rome Statute declares that the Security Council may postpone investigation and prosecution for 12 months if it decides, and may infinitely renew this delay, giving it final say on what gets tried and what doesn't. The ICC is not a truly independent judiciary and gives certain nations more power than others, making it an unfair and unjust court that does not treat its members equally.1  1 Teitelbaum, Alejandro. "Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Critique." Social Justice, Vol. 26 No. 4, Winter 1999, 107-114.


The ICC has no real enforcement mechanism and cannot be a force for good if it has no way of ensuring prosecution.  The court has no obvious enforcement mechanism, as it ultimately relies on states to take action in finding and turning over criminals. Although it can issue search warrants and declare that governments are not doing enough to prosecute criminals, that does not translate into real-world change that gets closer to punishing criminals. There is no reason for nations to submit to a court with no enforcement mechanism while simultaneously exposing themselves to a variety of risks as outlined in other arguments.1 For example, Chad is a party of the ICC but welcomed Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in July 2010. Although Chad was technically obligated to arrest him, there was no arrest made and Chad's president Idriss Deby welcomed Bashir with open arms, clearly demonstrating the ICC's lack of enforcement powers.2  1 Nanda, Ved P. "The Establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court: Challenges Ahead." Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, May 1998, 413-428.  2 Reuters. "Bashir Returns to Sudan After Defying ICC in Chad." 24 July 2010. Accessed 14 August 2011.


The ICC does not infringe upon national sovereignty because it only has jurisdiction if the national justice system is either ineffective or unable to prosecute the criminal.  National courts still have the responsibility and ability to prosecute their own criminals, and the ICC is only meant to be used as a last resort in case these national measures fail; there is no contradiction between the two.1 Sovereignty only exists if the state has internal control, and the ICC will only have jurisdiction in cases where the national justice system has proven that for some reason, it will not prosecute the criminal.  1 Nanda, Ved P. "The Establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court: Challenges Ahead." Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, May 1998, 413-428.


The ICC interferes with national operations (both military and humanitarian) because of how loosely the Rome Statue can be interpreted.  A large issue with the ICC is that it subjects member states to definitions that can be interpreted in a number of ways. For example, University of Chicago law professor Jack Goldsmith explains that the ICC has jurisdiction over “a military strike that causes incidental civilian injury (or damage to civilian objects) ‘clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.’ Such proportionality judgments are almost always contested.” [i]  First, nations have a first and foremost obligation to protect their own citizens, but states’ ability to fulfill this duty would be hindered by the threat of ICC prosecution. Certain nations face asymmetrical warfare – for example, the US routinely fights combatants who use innocent human shields, soldiers disguised as civilians, hostage-takers, etc. When put in context, the US has had to take certain actions that would constitute war crimes in order to fulfill its overarching obligation to its own people; strict compliance with the ICC’s standards would deny countries’ abilities to protect their own people. [ii]  Second, the fear of prosecution by the ICC would discourage humanitarian missions, decreasing the protection of rights globally. A study noted that the United States, a nation that sends hundreds of thousands of troops on peacekeeping missions, could have been held responsible for war crimes or crimes of aggression for its interventions in places like Bosnia and Sudan. [iii]  [i] Goldsmith, Jack. “The Self-Defeating International Criminal Court.” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, Winter 2003, 89-104.  [ii] Schmitt, Michael. “Asymmetrical Warfare and International Humanitarian Law.” The Air Force Law Review, 2008.  [iii] Redman, Lauren Fielder. “United States Implementation of the International Criminal Court: Toward the Federalism of Free Nations.” Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, Fall 2007.


The ICC is an independent court with enough checks that only pursues the most heinous criminals.  The ICC was designed to pursue the "future Pol Pots, Saddam Husseins, and Milosevics who terrorize civilians on a massive scale." The fear of politically motivated prosecutions has yet to come true; the current warrants have been issued for only the gravest violators of rights on a widespread scale. Even if the Security Council has certain extra controls, the court is still ultimately fair in its actual procedure with its prosecutor, judges, etc.1 Additionally, there are numerous checks in the Rome Statute, as outlined in the first proposition counterargument.  1 Kirsch, Philippe. "The International Criminal Court: Current Issues and Perspectives." Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 64 No. 1, Winter 2001, 3-11.


There are numerous checks that limit the power of the prosecutor and regulate the ICC's operations.  There are numerous checks outlined in the Rome Statute that limit the power of the prosecutor, eliminating any concerns of abuse. For example, Article 7 clearly defines what a crime against humanity is, and other types of crimes are extensively defined in the statute. Second, the ICC is allowed to step in only if the national government fails to prosecute criminals, meaning that it will never have to step in and exercise its power as long as countries are doing their jobs domestically, checking its jurisdiction. Third, there are multiple chambers that check each other; for example, the pre-trial chamber makes sure that the prosecutor has enough evidence before proceeding. Fourth, there are 18 judges from differing impartial backgrounds, ultimately making the ICC objective. Other checks can be found upon closer examination of the Rome Statute.1 Moreover, empirically, the prosecutor has not excessively punished any leader, so claims of abuse have yet to show true in the real world. Trials have been dismissed on the grounds of not having sufficient evidence, etc., so the ICC does not have unlimited power.  1 United Nations. "Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court." 2002. Accessed 14 August 2011.


Not only is intelligence often badly flawed, internment simply doesn't work as a strategy to combat terrorism 1. Instead it is counter-productive, because it makes martyrs of the individuals and groups who are being detained. The experience of Northern Ireland was that internment acted as a "recruiting sergeant" for the IRA, radicalising many detainees without previous terrorist contacts, and rallying supporters to their cause in response to the perceived injustice. Similar responses can be seen to Guantanamo Bay today in the Muslim world. Moreover, the confidence of ordinary citizens in their governments is undermined by such harsh measures, reducing their support for the overall "war effort". Indeed, if we compromise aspects of our free and open societies in response to pressure, then the terrorists who hate our values are winning.  1. Nossel, S. (2005, June 12). 10 Reasons to Close Guantanamo. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Democracy Arsenal .


The protection of intelligence sources is more important than trying suspects.  At a time when our society is under threat, it is more important to protect our intelligence sources than it is to try and punish individual terrorists. Even when strong proof exists, charging and trying terror suspects in open court would require governments to reveal their intelligence sources. This would risk the identification of their spies in foreign countries and within dangerous organisations. Not only might this lead to the murder of brave agents, it would also shut off crucial intelligence channels that could warn us of future attacks 1. For example, the head of police in Northern Ireland has admitted ‘if people were not confident their identities would be protected they would not come forward’ 2. In a deal with the devil, the intelligence procured is more important and saves more lives than the violation of one’s right to a fair trial. Even if special arrangements were made to present intelligence evidence in court, hostile organisations would be able to work out how much or little western intelligence services know about them, and the manner in which they operate. In these circumstances, detention without public trial is the only safe option.  1 The Washington Times. (2008, November 12). Editorial: Obama and Gitmo. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from The Washington Times:  2 BBC News (2007, September 11). Informants being put off


Governments clearly have powers to protect citizens from harm, but there is a limit to that extension of power. It is a limit that does not include the undermining of the very values the state is built upon, restricted executive power. Captured enemy combatants are not comparable to those captured during World War II, for the former were arrested for the perceived threat they caused, whilst the latter were captured and interned for a tangible, real threat 1. Soldiers are implicitly guilty when captured, enemy combatants who have yet to commit a crime can reasonably claim their innocence and deserve a fair trial. Furthermore, there is little evidence to suggest that internment without trial is a means to protection; the period of internment only stirs up sentiment that can be directed against the captors once eventually released. It may be the case that the safest way of protecting civilians is in fact to offer suspects a fair trial and, if found innocent, rendered back to where they were found. The existence of a strong, impartial legal framework would have infinite benefits for the moral standing of the state in the eyes of potential adversaries.  1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from:


Tribunals are adequate replacements that maintain respect for detainees' rights.  The denial of normal legal processes does not automatically confer the absence of legal processes altogether. Though a normal public trial is not possible for security reasons, detainees' rights are still respected during the internment process. Safeguards are built into the internment process so that each case can be considered fairly, with the suspect represented before a proper tribunal and given a right to appeal to a higher authority. At Guantanamo Bay, President G. W. Bush introduced military tribunals made up of five U.S. armed force officers and presided over by qualified military judges to handle the legal ambiguities of suspects held in the facility 1 . The accused still have the presumption of innocence and proof of guilt has to be beyond that of a reasonable doubt 2. If such a trial is provided (often to standards of evidence and procedure higher than in normal courts in many countries around the world) and a sentence properly passed, then this is not internment as it has been practised in the past.  1. The Telegraph. (2007, March 16). Q&A: US Military Tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from The Telegraph  2.Ibid


Tribunals do not respect detainees’ rights, but in fact require the undermining of those rights. Regardless of the procedures with which internment is dressed up by embarrassed authorities, it is open to abuse because trials are secret with the executive essentially scrutinising itself. Often there is not a free choice of lawyer to represent the suspect (detainees before US Military Commissions can only choose lawyers approved by the executive). Trials are held in secret with crucial evidence frequently withheld from the accused and his defence team, or given anonymously with no opportunity to examine witnesses properly. Appeals are typically to the executive (which chose to prosecute them), rather than to an independent judicial body. In such circumstances prejudice and convenience are likely to prevent justice being done.


Governments must have powers to protect citizens from harm.  Governments must have powers to protect their citizens against threats to the life of the nation. This is not merely to directly protect citizens from political violence, but also because political violence ‘handicaps the process of reconstruction’ 1 in nation-building efforts. Everyone would recognise that rules that are applied in peacetime may not be appropriate during wartime. Captured enemy combatants, for example, should not expect to be tried individually in civilian courts; it is essential however that they be held securely until they no longer pose a threat or an appropriate legal process can be established to assess their case. The war on terror is in this respect a war like earlier, more conventional conflicts whereby captured combatants are held until the conclusion of conflicts. No-one captured on D-Day expected to be granted a trial in a civilian court to establish their guilt. Just because our enemies do not wear uniforms or conform to a normal military structure (some indeed may even hold the citizenship of the state they are fighting against), does not make them any less of a threat to our society.  1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011


The war on terror is not like past, conventional conflicts but that does not prevent its classification as an armed conflict; soldiers are still dying in fire-fights, territory is still being fought over and the threat to homeland security is very real and visceral. According to the Bush administration, the war on terror represents a new ‘paradigm of war’, whereby the civilians directly engaged in hostilities, ‘enemy combatants’, are not permitted to enjoy the privileges of international humanitarian law. Prisoner of war status is ‘reserved (for) members of the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict…who must distinguish themselves from the civilian population in order to be entitled to POW status upon capture’ 1. Regarding the ICCPR, it has a specific derogation clause that states ‘in times of public emergency’, the states may excuse themselves from the strict provisions of the covenant. This would, in the context of threats to the safety of civilians, permit states to intern without trial enemy combatants.  1. International Committee of Red Cross, 2005


Internment without trial does not justify the bad behaviour of other states, for it is justifiable under norms of international law. For example, the measures taken by the UK government to detain foreign nationals identified by intelligence as a serious threat to Britain are justified by conflicting priorities. In normal circumstances such people would be deported to their home countries, but asylum rules prevent the forced deportation of people to countries which might persecute them. Those detained in the UK are in fact free to leave if they can find a country to take them 1. Those who cannot are in effect choosing to remain in detention here. Rather than removing completely the government's power to deport foreign nationals who pose a threat, this is the best solution from a human rights point of view.  1 Kelly, D. (2010, February 20). UK Border Agency response on 'migrant detainees'. Retrieved May 12, 2011 from Immigration Matters


Internment without trial exacerbates the antagonism of enemies and subsequent risk to civilians.  To intern without trial, for prolonged periods, the believed enemies of a state is to offer them and their supporters added reason to be antagonistic. In Northern Ireland, “violence soared following the introduction of internment and the British government imposed ‘direct rule’” 1. Moreover, Guantanamo Bay, the central symbol of the growth of executive power in United States’ war on terror, has been described by Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, as ‘a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and harmful to our national security’ 2. Armando Spataro, a senior Italian prosecutor, has remarked ‘Muslims around the world are asking why there is so little international opposition to the U.S. policy of internment without trial. The collateral damage of Guantanamo is incalculable’ 3. It appears difficult to argue that the extension of executive power in the war on terror has had any effect on the security of innocent civilians other than increasing their risk of harm.  1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from:  2 Rhee, F. (2009, January 22). Obama orders Guantanamo Bay closed, bans torture. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Boston:  3 Greening, K. J. (2007, February 12). 8 Reasons to Close Guantanamo Now. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from In These Times:  improve this  To intern without trial, for prolonged periods, the believed enemies of a state is to offer them and their supporters added reason to be antagonistic. In Northern Ireland, “violence soared following the introduction of internment and the British government imposed ‘direct rule’” 1. Moreover, Guantanamo Bay, the central symbol of the growth of executive power in United States’ war on terror, has been described by Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, as ‘a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and harmful to our national security’ 2. Armando Spataro, a senior Italian prosecutor, has remarked ‘Muslims around the world are asking why there is so little international opposition to the U.S. policy of internment without trial. The collateral damage of Guantanamo is incalculable’ 3. It appears difficult to argue that the extension of executive power in the war on terror has had any effect on the security of innocent civilians other than increasing their risk of harm.  1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from:  2 Rhee, F. (2009, January 22). Obama orders Guantanamo Bay closed, bans torture. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Boston:  3 Greening, K. J. (2007, February 12). 8 Reasons to Close Guantanamo Now. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from In These Times:


Internment without trial undermines democratic values.  Rights are needed to protect the few as well as the many, otherwise there would be no need for them in a democracy. Indefinite detention and lack of a normal public trial undermine the key values of habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution enshrines the principle that ‘no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process’1. As such, suspects should be tried if there is evidence, deported if they are foreign nationals, but most importantly released if a proper case cannot be made against them. Internment in Northern Ireland was also said to be aimed only at a tiny minority, but thousands passed through the Long Kesh detention camp in the four years it operated. Similarly, the internment of Japanese-Americans from 1942 onwards led to a belief in the post-war environment that they were ‘radically predisposed to acts of disloyalty’1 undermining the democratic values of inclusion and multi-culturalism that the US particularly likes to attribute to itself.  1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011


Internment without trial fails to make society safer.  Giving the government the power to detain suspects without due process of law will not in fact make society any safer. The proposition's arguments rely upon the accuracy of secret intelligence, which supposedly identifies individuals planning terrorist acts, but which cannot be revealed in open court. Past examples suggest that such intelligence is often deeply flawed. For example, when internment was introduced in Northern Ireland in 1971 over 100 of the 340 original detainees were released within two days when it was realised much of the Special Branch intelligence that had been used to identify them was incorrect 1. Recent intelligence failures in the campaign against Al-Qaeda point to the difficulties western intelligence services have in penetrating and understanding non-white groups, while intelligence on Iraq's weapons programmes was also clearly flawed. So not only will many of the wrong people be unjustly locked up, many dangerous ones will be left at liberty.  1 West, C. (2002, January 2). Internment: methods of interrogation. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News:


The war on terror is not an armed conflict, and therefore internment without trial is illegal.  The war on terror is not like past, conventional conflicts, and the government should not be able to take wartime powers simply on its own declaration. The terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 were horrific, but they did not threaten the entire life of the American nation - the economy has rebounded surprisingly quickly and no one believes that even a successful attack on the White House or Congress would have ended American democracy. Separate from warfare therefore, interment without trial is clearly illegal – as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states, ‘everyone has the right to liberty and security of the person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention’1. If it can be agreed upon that human rights are universal, internment without trial outside of the protocols on warfare is illegal. Furthermore, the war on terror is not winnable - there is no likely endpoint at which we will be able to declare an enemy to have been defeated and so allow detained "enemy combatants" to go home - so these harsh but supposedly temporary wartime measures will become the norm.  1. Davis, 2004. p4


Internment without trial does not undermine either democracy or its values. Tough measures are aimed only at very few suspects; only 11 are currently detained in Britain, only a few hundred at Guantanamo Bay. Exceptional circumstances call for special measures, but these are so limited in scope that they do not threaten our democratic values. Similarly, until the cessation of hostilities, the suspension of habeus corpus for ‘enemy combatants’ is not unlike the holding of prisoners of war until an armistice, whereby it is not legally necessary to provide recourse to judicial process. As Dick Cheney notes, ‘in previous wars we’ve always exercised the right to capture the enemy and then hold them until the end of the conflict. The same principle ought to apply here’ 1.  1. Trott, B. (2008, December 15). Don't Close Guantanamo until terror war ends: Cheney. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Reuters:


Internment without trial encourages the bad behaviour of other states.  Compromising our usual high standards of human rights encourages bad behaviour by other countries. Governments with less concern for rights are reassured by the apparent failure of liberal democracy to address a terrorist threat, and feel justified in tightening up their own measures against individuals and groups perceived as a threat. Western governments, meanwhile, lose their moral ability to criticise abuses elsewhere. Overall, the cause of freedom suffers everywhere. This can be seen clearly in the actions of governments around the world since September 11 2001, where existing repressive measures have been justified in new ways as part of the war on terror, or new ones introduced in apparent response to it. India, for example, has been using repressive measures in Kashmir for twenty years, however it still exploited the war on terror as a pretext for international support for its latest crackdowns 1.  1. Shingavi, S. (2010, July 14). India's new crackdown in Kashmir. Retrieved July 14, 2011, from CETRI:


It is essential to reach an appropriate balance of rights and freedoms. Everyone recognises the importance of protecting rights and liberties, but this cannot be done at any cost. There is a wider duty on politicians to protect society from harm, and their voters will rightly hold them to account if they fail in this responsibility. As the UK's Home Secretary, David Blunkett has written: "How best to protect ourselves effectively while maintaining the maximum freedoms is one of the biggest issues facing all democratic governments in the aftermath of September 11… I am willing to take whatever critics may throw at me, as long as history does not judge that our Labour government failed to do its best to protect us against those who would destroy our lives and our democracy.1"  1. Blunkett, D. (2001, November 20). This is not internment. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Guardian:


The period of internment, however long, does not serve to exacerbate antagonisms inherent in adversaries. If anything, the period of reflection acts as a punitive measure designed to force the suspect to weigh up his choices and potentially disavow his beliefs. If innocent, they may develop antagonisms towards their captors, but that does not automatically place them in the throes of their suspected associates. Furthermore, even if this were true, the antagonism held towards their captors would not be permitted to lead to further violence for they would be interned until the conclusion of the war.


When homework does take up time in class it is helpful for learning. And when it does not then it does not harm the classwork. Homework aids classwork by providing a space for those who have not finished the work to catch up and by helping us to remember what we did in class.


Homework takes up class time  Homework does not only take up time doing the homework at home but also takes up time in class. First there is the time that the teacher takes when explaining the task. Then more time is taken going through the homework when it is done and marked. This time could be better spent engaging with the class to find out what they do and don’t understand. The answer to this is to have more time in class rather than boring homework.


Teachers will need to mark and go through work whether it is classwork or homework. It is better that the teacher should spend their time in class teaching so leaving practising the methods taught to homework.


When out of school we should have time to ourselves  Time is valuable. We all need some time to ourselves. School already takes up a lot of time and it is necessary to have time which does not involve concentrating on learning. Education is not the only important activity in everyone’s day; physical activity, play, and time with family are just as important as all teach life skills just in different ways. The internet makes it possible to be learning at home, there are even many computer games that help with learning. Homework clashes with these other activities. It can damage family relationships as it means parents have to try and make their children do their homework.


We should expect to get a certain amount of homework per day and build other activities around the homework. Homework can be a useful part of time with family as it provides a chance for parents and other relatives to take part in schooling.


Whether homework puts us off learning will always depend on what the homework we are given is. Tasks that involve no interaction, or are not engaging will discourage learning. But homework could also mean reading an interesting book, having to find something out, create something, or doing a task with family. Homework can be as varied as classwork and just as interesting.


Homework wastes teachers time  We are not the only ones who take a lot of time on homework, our teachers do as well. The teacher needs to design the homework, explain it, mark each piece individually, and tell everyone what they got right and wrong. If all this is not done then the homework loses its value as we need to be told individually what our mistakes are to be able to learn from homework. Teachers could as easily use the classwork to find out who knows what they are doing and who are making mistakes and it would save them time.


Homework puts students off learning  Especially if we get too much homework it can take the enjoyment out of learning. No matter how engaging the teacher is in class homework will almost certainly be stressful, boring and tiring. It is simply much harder to make homework engaging and interesting as it is often done on our own. We know that there is no direct link between how much homework is set and grades. Studies done on this come to different conclusions so teachers should only set homework when they are sure it is needed. When we only get homework occasionally we will consider that piece more important and a better use of time.


Teachers should not set classwork expecting that the class will have to finish that classwork as homework. Students who are falling behind should receive more attention from the teacher during class to make sure that all the members of the class can move at the same speed.


Most homework is simply fulfilling a task that has already been explained so not truly teaching you to work on your own. Working on your own means setting your own targets, and working out how to overcome obstacles.


Doing our homework means we are taking responsibility for ourselves  We are the ones who gain from learning so we should take responsibility for some of our own learning. We can take responsibility by doing homework. When we don’t do our homework we are the ones who suffer; we don’t get good marks and don’t learn as much. We also lose out in other ways as taking responsibility means learning how to manage our time and how to do the things that are most important first rather than the things we most enjoy like playing. Homework then does not waste time; it is part of managing it.


Homework makes sure we remember what we have learnt  One way we learn is by repetition, another is by doing things, when doing homework we learn in both of these ways. When we are taught a method at school, such as how to do a type of sum, then we need to practice using that method to make sure we know how to so that we can remember it. If we just learn the method and don’t practice it we will soon forget how we do it.


Homework is needed to finish classwork.  We should think of homework as being a continuation of our classwork. Not everyone in the class works at the same rate so it is necessary for teachers to give anyone who is falling behind the chance to catch up. If this was done in class those who are faster would have nothing to do during this time, which would be a real waste of time. Homework then allows those who are behind to take as long as they need to catch up with the rest of the class.


Homework teaches us to learn on our own  The main aim of education is to prepare us for the rest of lives. Homework is teaching us a key skill that we will need in the future. When we do homework we are learning to work on our own, the discipline to get the work done without the teacher’s prompting, and when we come up against difficulties we learn how to overcome them without our teacher’s help. Millions of people work for themselves (self-employed), or work from home, they are using exactly the same skills doing homework teaches us. This is not a waste of time.


We don’t spend all of class time learning new methods so there should be time in class to practice any new method that is taught. Once some repetition has been done in class how much more do we really need at home? If we have not successfully learnt the method in the class then we will be simply repeating the mistake.


The same kind of responsibility is given to us no matter the kind of work. When given classwork we are responsible for completing it rather than playing around. The only difference at home is that it is our parents telling us to work not our teachers.


We recognise that not everyone should do every subject, but for practical reasons we have to ask them to give it a try up to a certain level. Apart from anything else, this is the most reliable way to tell whether or not the subject is right for them – how can you know that if you haven’t ever tried it? There are many different ways to set this level, and we feel that the current standard is the minimum which will give children a realistic idea of what the subject is like.


Some people find maths hard  It is a fundamental principle of education that different people think in different ways. One notable application of this is the theory of different learning styles, and it also makes people have a preference for certain subjects. [1] Many people find maths hard, 37% of teens think it is the most difficult subject, for a variety of reasons – it simply isn’t suited to all minds. [2]  Another fundamental principle is that all children are equal, in the sense that we should support them equally in helping them find the right opportunities. It follows that we should teach them something useful and relevant to their personality and preferences. But whatever that may turn out to be, it will not be maths, and maths would just waste their time.  It makes sense to teach arithmetic to even these people, but there is no need to make them study further.  [1] Cherry, Kendra, ‘VARK Learning Styles’, About.com,  accessed 12 June 2013  [2] Saad, Lydia, ‘Math Problematic for U.S. Teens’, Gallup, 17 May 2005,


It is undeniable that education is a trade-off between different subjects. However, we contend that maths is one which we want to protect. It is a fundamental subject which is of use in many others, as well as teaching children how to think about problems. (Debating lessons are a great idea, but should replace something else, like Art.)  Teaching maths as part of science just wastes time, as all different science subjects need the same maths. All this will do is add to the burden on teachers, as they will have to coordinate with each other to make sure the class has covered the right maths for that point in the course. Moreover, this will never be as effective as having a whole class for maths.


Maths is not engaging for students  Maths is one of the least engaging subjects taught at school. Subjects like chemistry are full of flashes, fires and experiments which help people see what they’re being taught in front of them. History starts with telling stories, and even though that’s not what the subject is really about, it offers a window into it. By contrast, maths has almost nothing similar. Asking children to use trigonometry to find the height of a tree does not fool them – all they see is another triangle. Some people enjoy it, but many do not.  Forcing people through maths classes which they find boring and irrelevant will only put them off maths; a recent study found that motivation was the most important factor for improving maths grades. [1] This in turn makes their children less likely to study maths, and causes a cycle in which a large section of the population have as little to do with maths as they can. [2]  It would be much better to not make these people study maths. True, they would end up not knowing any more than the bare essentials, but this is better than making them hate it.  [1] Ghose, Tia, ‘Like Math? Thank Your Motivation, Not IQ’, Scientific American, 28 December 2012,   [2] Kreutzer, Laura, ‘Our Child Hates Math. Is It Our Fault?’, The Wall Street Journal, 14 April 2013,


There are several problems with using “engagement” as a way to measure whether or not a subject should be taught. Firstly, there is no way to tell whether students are bored because the subject is boring, whether they’re bored because they are lazy, or whether it is simply how it is taught. If we always taught children what they wanted to be doing, every warm, summer afternoon would be PE. That won’t give them the best education.  Secondly, we disagree with the final line. The point of the education system is not to entertain people, it’s to educate them. We do this by exposing them to different subjects enough for them to have a real idea what they’re about. Only this way will they be able to figure out whether or not they like it.  Finally, maths, more than any other subject, requires you to be really good at the boring and tedious bits (like algebra) before you can even begin the more interesting bits (like Number Theory and Multivariable Analysis). Measuring maths (or indeed any other subject) for how much “fun” it is does not give a fair representation of how useful or important it is.


If we don’t teach maths we can teach other things instead  Schools are constantly pressed for time, money and staff. It is simply not possible to teach everything to everyone. This means that all of education is a balancing act. We try and isolate the most important parts of a subject and teach children what they need to know, but first, we have to isolate which subjects are important. So, for example, we teach History rather than Philosophy and Physics rather than Astronomy. Everything we teach therefore comes at the expense of not teaching something else and there are already some countries that choose other priorities; France for example prioritises Philosophy. [1]  Taking time away from maths has two advantages. Firstly, means we can teach other subjects instead, which will be more useful, such as dedicated classes on writing (or debating). Secondly, we can spend longer on those subjects which we already teach, making them better. As a bonus, we could even use this time to extend science lessons to include whatever maths is necessary, meaning we don’t lose out at all.  [1] Schofield, Hugh, ‘Why does France insist school pupils master philosophy?’, BBC News, 3 June 2013,


Children should not be given power over their education, but it doesn’t follow that their opinions are of no consequence. We should very much care what they do and don’t enjoy. Firstly, if they don’t enjoy their schooling they won’t put any effort into it and will not actually learn anything. Secondly, if they feel we are making them do things they don’t want to do we will lose the ability to give them sensible suggestions.  We might think they ought to learn maths, but forcing them to do it will cause more harm than good.


Many children find science interesting, 12% consider it their favourite subject, and will choose it when given an option. [1] These children will be happy to take maths lessons even if they’re not compulsory. The only ones who won’t take them will be the ones who have no interest in science in any case, for whom there is no benefit for doing maths.  It’s also worth pointing out that this argument seeks to match the educational system to the desires of companies. We feel this is wrong: it should be designed with the interests of the children in mind. That means giving them the opportunity to choose maths and science, but not necessarily forcing it on them.  [1] Kiefer, Heather Mason, ‘Math = Teens’ Favorite School Subject’, Gallup, 15 June 2004,


Maths teaches a kind of logic which is useful for other things  Most subjects are taught not just for the knowledge itself, but for the skills the subject requires. Schools don’t teach English Literature because they want children to know a few poems. They teach it to encourage children to think about how people’s perceptions have changed over time, how two authors can see the same thing differently, and the way choices of language can reveal the answers. Similarly, maths lessons show you a way of looking at a problem: what am I being asked? What information am I given? Is this similar to other problems I already know? Do those methods apply here? This is a general technique which is valuable for students to learn.  Looking at education this way makes it clear that, in fact, almost no subjects are studied for themselves. We use them as vehicles to teach children certain things. That being the case, whether maths is “practical” or “interesting” makes no difference: we should teach it anyway.


Children should not be the arbiters of the education system  To avoid teaching maths to children just because they don’t like the subject would be to shape the education system around adolescent whims. But children are not best placed to put a value on their education. They don’t know what knowledge is required for life and what skills are required for a career. They are likely to choose arbitrarily, influenced perhaps by which teachers are most strict, which subject they happen to be good at and what mood they’re in. It is for this reason that we don’t recognise children as being fully capable of making decisions about their education. Consequences of this include a government-fixed curriculum.  Adults know the value of maths: one poll in America found that 34% of people named it as the most valuable subject they had studied at school. [1] We think children should be learning maths, and it follows that they will have to do it, like it or not.  [1] Robison, Jennifer, ‘Math Tops List of Most Valuable Subjects’, Gallup, 21 January 2003,


Maths is an important subject  Every single science subject relies on maths. The whole of physics consists of using maths to model the world. At a basic level, this means drawing diagrams of forces, and at an advanced level it means writing down the gauge group which describes electroweak interaction, but it’s all maths. Even subjects like psychology, which are not normally seen as mathematical, would be lost without advanced statistics to decide whether a result is significant or not. Maths is as important to science as reading is to subjects like history and politics.  Making maths optional will mean some students don’t bother doing it. These children will find that science is closed to them. If we want to have a strong science sector – in both industry and research – as governments keep claiming we do [1] it is important to make sure we have people who are qualified. That means giving children the educational background required for them to pursue science should they wish to: maths.  [1] Osborne, George, ‘Achieving strong and sustainable economic growth’, Gov.uk, 24 April 2013,   Xinhua, ‘Premier Wen says science, technology key to China’s economic development’, Xinhuanet, 27 December 2009,


At the very least, for this argument to be true you would have to rewrite the syllabus to focus on problem-solving rather than knowledge. But even then, there is no compelling reason for having this particular way of teaching skills, and little reason why other subjects should not be teaching the same kinds of questions. Given that it is hard, not related to the real world and generally unpopular, we should drop it. Instead, design other classes, with “being engaging” specifically in mind. This will do a better job.


Parents have a right to act on behalf of their children. It is the right of parents to make decisions on behalf of their children. It is not the role of the state to intervene in the raising of a child except in exceptional circumstances and the opposition do not accept that raising a child religiously constitutes exceptional circumstances. It is not the role of the state, therefore, to intervene by banning faith schools simply to ensure that children are not educated too religiously.


State has a responsibility to protect and educate its citizens.  The state should not allow the education of a child to be polluted by what is tantamount to brainwashing. Amartya Sen argues “Under this system, young children are placed in the domain of singular affiliations well before they have the ability to reason about different systems of identification that may compete for their attention.” [1] Instead they have to learn about all religions to encourage tolerance.  It is totally acceptable for children to have religious education outside of school and to brought to places of worship but school is a place of education and they should be given an education that is not tainted by trying to ensure that they grow up with a certain attitude towards their religion. [2]  [1] Jeffries, Stuart, “To abolish only non-Christian faith schools would be taken as an affront. The answer is that they all have to go”, The Guardian, 28 July 2006,   [2] MacMullen, Ian. “Faith in Schools?: Autonomy, Citizenship and Religious Education in the Liberal State.” Princeton University Press. 2007.


Faith schools create a sense of community. This entire argument is based upon the fact that faith schools create a close sense of community within the school themselves. The opposition does not accept that this is harm and firmly believes that anything that creates a close sense of community is a force for good as it creates more accountability for actions within the community and a better support system in the case of anything going wrong. [1]  [1] “The Churches and Collective Worship in Schools.” The Catholic Education Service. 2006.


Creates animosity towards religious groups  Faith schools continuously perform better than normal schools. This creates a feeling amongst parents and children of wanting to be included in these faith schools. They are, however, excluded on the basis of their religion. This will create feelings of unfair exclusion, which will lead to animosity towards the religion running the school and, by extension, people of that religion. [1] As a result of this 64% of people in the UK believe that there should be no state funding for faith schools. [2]  It would be easy to convert faith schools to normal schools.  The majority of faith schools are already tied closely to the state education system making it easy to convert them into normal schools which are not faith based. Much of the curriculum is the same or very similar so the change would not be difficult for teachers. In England for example there 6783 faith schools that are also state schools and 47 that are academies. [1] These schools would simply change to having the same systems as any other school and admission would become open to all.  [1] Department of Education, “Maintained faith schools”, 12 January 2011,   [1] MacMullen, Ian. “Faith in Schools?: Autonomy, Citizenship and Religious Education in the Liberal State.” Princeton University Press. 2007.  [2] ICM, ‘Guardian Opinion Poll Fieldwork August 12th-14th 2005’, ICM/The Guardian, 2005, pp21


Undermines separation of religion and the state.  Since education is something that the state is obligated to provide, any organisation that provides education is a representative of the state, even in private education. If religious groups are allowed to run schools then this means they are acting on behalf of the state, which undermines the separation of religion and the state, which the proposition believes is inherently harmful and undermining to the concept of democracy. [1] Even the Archbishop of Canterbury believes having greater separation of church and state would be beneficial arguing "I think that the notion of the monarch as supreme governor has outlived its usefulness.” [2] This separation has to include the education of children.  [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.  [2] Butt, Riazat, ‘Church and state could separate in UK, says Archbishop of Canterbury’, The Guardian, 17 December 2008,


Running a school is not equivalent to running the country. The opposition does not accept that faith schools undermine the separation of religion and state. The religious groups running the school do not, as a result of running the school, have an opportunity to decide on the national curriculum or, for that matter, any other aspect of running the country. The idea that faith schools undermine democracy is ridiculous and unfounded.


To be encouraged not banned. The idea of closing down schools because they are performing better than other schools seems ridiculous. Rather than banning faith schools so all schools are on an even, but lower, playing field, a logical course of action would be to try and determine exactly what it was about faith schools that made them perform so well and attempt to emulate that in ordinary schools to improve their performance.  It may be possible to convert the schools but they would loose their ethos. Without these schools religious ethos their standards would slip and the students would be worse off.


Insulting to religion. This legislation is not simply a message to organised religion telling them that they are not a higher authority than the state; it is a message saying that the state does not believe they are capable of running schools. This serves only to worsen the state’s already fractured relationship with organised religion and cause severe problems in dealing with large religious groups, who undeniably have a lot of power and influence.


Faith schools are inherently divisive.  At the age at which children are sent to faith schools, they are too young to have decided their religion for themselves, and so, their parents must have decided it for them. The proposition accepts that parents have a right to decide a child’s religion on its behalf but this means that faith schools end up segregating children based on the faith that they inherit. School should be about bringing children together not segregating them. In the UK the government allows faith schools to ask for confirmation of attendance at a relevant place of worship [1] which is inherently discriminatory and divisive. Proposition believes that separating children based on what families they are born into creates communities which find it difficult to associate with people from outside their community and therefore cause massive divisions in society based on what religion people were born into. [2]  [1] Directgov, “Applying for a school place: admissions criteria”, direct.gov.uk,   [2] “The Churches and Collective Worship in Schools.” The Catholic Education Service. 2006.


Shows that religion is not a higher authority than the state.  When the government allows religion to act on its behalf, it confuses the role of the state and the role of religious groups. As it stands, religious groups do not appear to be truly answerable to the state and, therefore, it is unclear whether they or the government are the higher authority. [1] For example in the UK faith schools set their own admission standards and increasingly have control over their curriculum, which in other state funded schools is set by the government, as well as they are being converted to academies. [2] This legislation would make it completely clear that the state is the ultimate authority.  [1] Dawkins, Richard. “Faith School Menace.” Channel 4. 2010.  [2] Paton, Graeme, ‘Faith schools 'get more freedom over curriculum and admissions'’, The Telegraph, 7 May 2011,


Shows submission to religion. As explained above, the proposition believes that allowing organised religion to act on behalf of the state indicates that organised religions have as much authority as the state. It is important that religious people recognise that they are answerable to the state before they are answerable to religion. Showing that religion is below the state, therefore, is actually a positive step.


This is not the government’s responsibility. The government does not have a responsibility to educate a child within the exact parameters that their parents dictate. If this were true, then each individual set of parents would be allowed to pick and choose what parts of the national curriculum they wished their child to learn.


Relationship with organised religion.  Passing this legislation with be sending a signal to the religious groups that are running faith schools that we do not think they are capable of running schools. The state’s relationship with organised religion is already a fractured one. This legislation would cause a lot of tension between the government and religious communities within the country, as well as between the state and states which hold religion more highly. [1]  [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.


Faith schools can be necessary for a religious upbringing.  Sometimes faith schools are necessary for children to get a full picture of the religion that they have been born into, particularly religions, like Islam, that are based mainly in societies unlike our own and far away from our countries. In these cases, banning faith schools is tantamount to preventing parents from bringing their children up in the faith they want them brought up in. The opposition believes that this legislation is, therefore, equivalent to depriving people of religion. [1]  [1] Glenn, Charles L. “The Ambiguous Embrace: Government and Faith-based Schools and Social Agencies.” Princeton University Press. 2002.


Faith schools perform better than ordinary schools.  Faith schools consistently perform better than ordinary schools. According to Ofsted, the UK schools inspectors, 73% of Catholic secondary Faith schools are good or outstanding, compared with 60% of English schools nationally. At primary level, 74% of Catholic schools are rated outstanding or good, compared with 66% nationally. [1] This shows that the religious aspect of their education must have some positive impact on the children who are educated there. Banning faith schools, therefore, would be condemning many children to a poorer standard of education than necessary. The opposition believes that it is the government’s role to provide the best it can for its citizens and banning faith schools would, therefore, be the opposite of this. [2]  [1] Butt, Riazat, “Gove defends faith schools”, The Guardian, 17 February 2011,   [2] Glenn, Charles L. “The Ambiguous Embrace: Government and Faith-based Schools and Social Agencies.” Princeton University Press. 2002.


Relationship with religious people.  This legislation would send a message of no confidence in religion and would be tantamount to the government condemning religion. It is wrong for government to suggest that faith schools are divisive as “the average grade awarded by Ofsted to secondary-level faith schools for promoting community cohesion was "substantially and significantly" better than the average grade awarded to community schools.” [1] This will lead to religious people feeling undermined and insulted by their government who would be attacking their faith with no justification based upon the performance of the schools.  [1] Pritchard, John, “Church of England schools must serve the whole community”, guardian.co.uk, 5th May 2011,


This is not the government’s responsibility. The government has a responsibility to educate and to allow its people to practise whatever religion they wish to. The government does not have a responsibility to facilitate the practise of a religion where it would cause harms to its people in other ways. Since it is outlined in the main proposition case that it would cause harms in other ways, this is over and above the responsibility of the government.


Parents have a right to ensure their child is brought up with the values they consider important.  Parents send their children to school so that they can be properly educated. For many parents, this education includes proper moral codes and values. Sending their child to a faith school that they know will adhere to the moral codes and values of that particular faith is one of the only ways that they can guarantee their child will be brought up with the values they consider important. [1] It is this that in part makes the schools popular as Ed Balls, then UK education secretary recognises "One thing we've learnt as a government is that having a distinct ethos, strong leadership, a commitment to promoting opportunity for all, those are the kind of schools where parents want to send their children.” [2]  [1] Mott-Thornton, Kevin. “Common Faith: Education, Spirituality and the State.” Ashgate Pub. Ltd. 1998.  [2] BBC News, “Faith schools set for expansion”, 10 September 2007,


Creates animosity towards religious groups. The fact that faith schools perform better than ordinary schools is an advantage only for the children who are lucky enough to attend. This causes feelings of resentment on the part of parents and children who were not of the correct faith and were, therefore, forced to go to a more poorly performing school. This resentment grows into a general feeling of animosity towards the religious group running the school and to religion in general. The proposition believes this is far more harmful in the long run than a minor reduction in quality of education for a small number of children.


Shows submission to organised religion. The proposition believes that by maintaining faith schools the government is allowing organised religion to act on its behalf. This not only undermines the separation of religion and the state but also indicates that organised religion has as much authority as the state. The proposition believes this is inherently harmful and that indicating that organised religion has less authority than the state would be a positive move.


Students are going to forget information whether they are out of school for three weeks or ten. Therefore, teachers will be performing four beginning of the year reviews instead of just one. In addition, students often switch off mentally at the end of term in anticipation of the vacations, which will mean more teaching time wasted. Even if students end up learning more during summer months, they are likely to end up no better educated at the end of the year.


Reduce “summer learning loss”.  During long summer holidays, students completely put aside learning and forget all about their studies for up to three months. In this time, they inevitably forget quite a lot of what they have learned. Teachers then have to spend the first weeks of the new academic year bringing them back up to speed. By eliminating the long summer break and replacing it with year-round learning punctuated by shorter vacation times, this problem would be much reduced. [1]  [1] Davey, Martin, “The Case For Year-Round Schooling”, Toronto Star, July 14th 2008.