De-Mystifying Student Organizations
Posted by: hlooby in 1-Ready for Editing, 2-Ready for Final Edit, tags: January DeMystifying Student Orgs
Mock Congressional Debate
Viet Pham
Guest Writer
Valparaiso University has always considered Martin Luther King (MLK) a very important and significant figure in American history. The school continually promotes his values and helps to increase the understanding of the ideologies of Dr. King’s teachings during the week of his birthday. The week comes to a close with the Mock Congressional Debate which was sponsored by the Black Law Student Association (BLSA), Lambda, Veterans Law Society (VLS) and the Multicultural Law Student Association (MLSA).
This year signified the 12th annual iteration of the MLK Mock Congressional Debate. The issues that are chosen for the debate have typically been ones of great controversy and current importance. Following this tradition, the chosen issue for this year’s debate was “Guantanamo Bay 9/11 Detainees – Military Tribunal vs. New York Federal Court – Is Attorney General Eric Holder’s choice to prosecute the alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks in New York Federal Court versus a Military Tribunal the right decision for the United States?”
The debate was chaired by John Bayard and consisted of a five-member team for each side. The team arguing for the New York Federal Court to have jurisdiction consisted of Shantae Landingham, Sakinda Skinner, Amele Booth, Michael Baumert, and Mark Cargualaf, with alternates Monica Jones and Dana Bolden. The team arguing on the side for Military Tribunal jurisdiction consisted of Ndeto Mwose, Yjimizia Jones, Cristal Babrera, Marlena Ragland, and Jaime Borcic, with alternates Quandra Speights and Wendy Meija.
The debate began with the team advocating for New York Federal Court jurisdiction. The group of senators supporting this side, began with a discussion of the shortfalls of the military tribunal and the need for the United States to set an example and to act transparently and try the detainees in federal court. The senators then advocated how the United States should not pick a law that is convenient to the countries’ needs because the US is part of the Geneva Convention and it must abide by all the rules that are setforth by the Convention. Finally, the Senators debated how the founders had beliefs in protecting an individual’s life, liberty and property without the due process of the law and how the country cannot throw aside the US Constitution when it is convenient.
In contrast, the group of senators supporting Military Tribunal jurisdiction began their discussion by reinforcing that the United States is at war, specifically a war on terrorism. The discussion focused on obtaining swift and fair justice on the crimes against humanity which the terrorists have committed. Next, the group examined and purported that the detainees should not be given the same rights as US citizens and that a floodgate of litigation for alien rights could be opened if the detainees were given rights to adjudicate in federal courts. This would lead to a bogging down of the courts and risk of a breach of national security. By allowing detainees to be tried in federal court, it could lead to a heightened risk of further attacks on the US, a leak of classified information for the trial, and that a Military Tribunal is better able to control such problems.
All members put forth an exemplary job on the debate and the arguments which they put forth. When you see the participants, make sure to commend them for a job well done!
Viet is a 2L and can be reached at Viet.Pham@valpo.edu.
Entries (RSS)