The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

- John F Kennedy Because affirming at least tries to make a difference in the lives of others and avoid serious injustice, I affirm the Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses. Value Justice: Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each person his or her due As a concept it has been subject to philosophical, legal, and theological reflection and debate throughout history. According to most theories of justice, it is overwhelmingly important: John Rawls, for instance, claims that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought." Justice can be thought of as distinct from and more fundamental than benevolence, charity, mercy, generosity or compassion. Research conducted in 2003 at Emory University, Georgia, involving Capuchin Monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that "inequality aversion may not be uniquely human." indicating that ideas of fairness and justice are of an instinctual nature. Standard Societal Progress: the movement of a society in a direction more beneficial than and superior to the previous level. Contention 1: politics HUMAN RIGHTS KEY TO DEMOCRATIZATION
Thomas Carothers, director, Democracy and Rule of Law Project, WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Summer 1994, p. 106.

In most of the countries that have undergone democratic transitions in recent years, during the generative period of the transitions (generally the late 1970s and early to mid-1980s), the emphasis of external actors was on human rights advocacy rather than democracy promotion per se. Therefore, just as human rights advocates should not overlook the fact that democratization has advanced the cause of human rights in many countries, democracy promotion proponents should not ignore the contribution of human rights advocacy to democratization. A: HUMAN RIGHTS LEADERSHIP KEY TO US HEGEMONY
Roth 2000 [Chicago Journal of International Law, "AEI conference trends in global governance: do they threaten American Sovereignty?"]

Washington's cynical attitude toward international human rights law has begun to weaken the US government's voice as an advocate for human rights around the world. Increasingly at UN human rights gatherings, other governments privately criticize Washington's "a la carte" approach to human rights.
They see this approach reflected not only in the US government's narrow formula for ratifying human rights treaties but also in its refusal to join the recent treaty banning anti-personnel landmines and its opposition to the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court unless a mechanism can be found to exempt US citizens. For example, at the March-April 2000 session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, many governments privately cited Washington's inconsistent interest in international human rights standards to explain their lukewarm response to a US-sponsored resolution criticizing China's deteriorating human rights record.

The US government should be concerned with its diminishing stature as a standard-bearer for human rights. US influence is built not solely on its military and economic power. At a time when US administrations seem preoccupied with avoiding any American casualties, the projection of US military power is not easy. US economic power, for its part, can engender as much resentment as influence. Much of why people worldwide admire the United States is because of the moral example it sets. That allure risks being tarnished if the US government is understood to believe that international human rights standards are only for other people, not for US citizens. Contention 2: FAILURE TO INTERVENE TO STOP HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES -- SUCH AS IN RWANADA--

UNDERMINES HUMAN RIGHTS VALUE FOR EVERYONE Amy Gutmann, Political Science Professor and President of University of Pennsylvania , 2001, Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry, ed. A. Gutmann, p. xvi

The most controversial -- and sometimes the only potentially effective -- response to persistent human rights violations by states is intervention. Under what conditions, Ignatieff therefore asks, is intervention justified to reverse human rights abuses within states? Like nationalism, intervention is a double-edged sword. It must be used sparingly lest it become an unintended excuse for human rights violations on the part of intervening states. Yet it must be used when it can be effective to stop (or at least significantly reduce) systematic and pervasive human rights abuses. This standard is far harder to apply than it is to articulate, and it is controversial in both theory and application. "Human rights may be universal, but support for coercive enforcement of their norms will never be universal." If this is realism, it is no recipe for isolationism. The failure to intervene in Rwanda, for example, where many lives could have been saved, was far from inevitable or justifiable. Such failures have "undermined the credibility of human rights values in zones of danger around the world." A: HUMAN RIGHTS KEY TO SOLVE GENOCIDE AND MILLIONS OF DEATHS
Paul Hoffman is the Chair of the International Executive Committee of Amnesty International. He is a civil rights and human rights lawyer with the Venice-based law firm of Schonbrun, DeSimone, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman LLP, Human Rights Quarterly, Nov 2004, p. 932-955

History shows that when societies trade human rights for security, most often they get neither. Instead, minorities and other marginalized groups pay the price through violation of their human rights. Sometimes this trade-off comes in the form of mass murder or genocide, other times in the form of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, or the suppression of speech or religion. Indeed, millions of lives have been destroyed in the last sixty years when human rights norms have not been observed.'' Undermining the strength of international human rights law and institutions will only facilitate such human rights violations in the future and confound efforts to bring violators to justice.' Contention 3: HUMAN RIGHTS SOLVE WAR
William W. Burke-White, Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special Assistant to the Dean, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Spring 2004 17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249

This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--argument that the promotion of human rights should be given a more prominent place in U.S. foreign policy. It does so by suggesting a correlation between the domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive international conduct. Among the chief threats to U.S. national security are acts of aggression by other states. Aggressive acts of war may directly endanger the United States, as did the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S. military action overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence from the post-Cold War period [*250] indicates that states that systematically abuse their own citizens' human rights are also those most likely to engage in aggression. To

the degree that improvements in various states' human rights records decrease the likelihood of aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by human rights can significantly enhance U.S. and global security. Since 1990, a state's domestic human rights policy appears to be a telling indicator of that state's propensity to engage in international aggression. A central element of U.S. foreign policy has long been the preservation of peace and the prevention of such acts of aggression. n2 If the correlation discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S. policymakers with a powerful new tool to enhance national security through the promotion of human rights. A strategic linkage between national security
and human rights would result in a number of important policy modifications. First, it changes the prioritization of

those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as presenting the greatest concern. Second, it alters some of the policy prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of signaling benign international intent through the improvement of their domestic human rights records. Fourth, it provides a way for a current government to prevent future governments from aggressive international behavior through the institutionalization of human rights protections. Fifth, it addresses the particular threat of human rights abusing states obtaining weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N. cooperation on human rights issues.

A:HUMAN RIGHTS PROMOTION IS KEY TO FIGHTING INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

Paula J. Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, HERITAGE FOUNDATION REPORTS, December 21, 2001, p. 1.

The advancement of human rights and democracy is important in its own right. At the same time, these efforts are the bedrock of our war on terrorism. The violation of human rights by repressive regimes provides fertile ground for popular discontent. In turn, this discontent is cynically exploited by terrorist organizations and their supporters. By contrast, a stable government that responds to the legitimate desires of its people and respects their rights, shares power, respects diversity, and seeks to unleash the creative potential of all elements of society is a powerful antidote to extremism. I am pleased to tell you that this Administration's commitment to human rights,
democracy, and religious freedom is unshakeable. The President and other senior officials have emphasized these core principles repeatedly in the aftermath of September 11. The President's National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, at a recent Forum on the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, reiterated our commitment to promoting democracy, noting "democratization and stability are the underpinning for a world free of terrorism."