According to US STATE.GOV, currently there are 50,000+ U.S.

military personnel
including U.S. navy, army, air force and marines in Japan. Okinawa maintains a
little less than 80% of those soldiers. Some of these soldiers on the base are
involved with several sexual assault and rape cases.

Plan: Our plan is for the United States federal government to discontinue the
use of the base and investigate these cases further. However, we will continue
use of other bases in Japan.

Contention 1. Deontology

“Judge we’d like to introduce an alternative framework in which this round is

evaluated. We the affirmative propose the round should and will be won by either
side that can persuade you the judge that the position we take, represents the
side that is the most ethical.”

We the affirmative prefer an advancement of a plan that adheres to a

deontological moral code. Deontology is the belief that morals must be
followed for an action to be ethical.

New World encyclopedia 10

New World Encyclopedia contributors, 7 October 2010, New World Encyclopedia,

Deontological ethics,
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Deontological_ethics?
oldid=685680

Deontological ethics recognizes a number of distinct duties, such as those

proscribing the killing of innocent people (murder) and prohibitions on lying and
promise breaking. Deontology maintains that the wrongness of (some) actions is
intrinsic, or resides in the kind of action that it is, rather than the consequences it
brings about. So, for example, an act of killing an innocent man is wrong because
it is the killing of an innocent man, rather than because it deprives someone of
future happiness and causes grief to a family. In this, deontological ethics is
opposed to consequentialism, which defines the moral rightness of an action in
terms of the consequences it brings about.

“Deontology seeks to condemn all violations of human rights no matter what the
consequence, human rights are to be dealt 1st with consequence of actions later. “

Reasons to Prefer deontology Framework

1.

Deontology is the preferred ethical code for legal policymaking which allows for
the protection of civil rights

Zamir and Medina, 2008

[Eyal and Barak, Zamir-- LL.B and Dr.Jur from Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
visiting researcher at Harvard, Global Research Fellow at New York University
School of Law; Medina—Ph.D. in economics from Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
LL.M in economics, Associate Professor of Law at Hebrew University of Jerusalem;
April, California Law Review: “Law, Morality, and Economics: Integrating Moral
Constraints with Economic Analysis of Law”, Lexis]

Turning to the role of the state as a provider of legal norms, it may be noted that
both the content of many legal norms and the decision making procedures of
legislatures are often deontological. Substantively, violating basic civil rights
cannot be justified on the ground that the violation produces slightly more
overall good. . n100 Procedurally, liberal democracies invariably impose
constraints on primary and secondary legislation, many of which correspond to
moderate deontological constraints. It is possible that both the deontological
form of legal rules and the deontologically constrained legislative procedures rest
on foundational consequentialism. Yet, it is equally plausible - and given the
serious flaws of consequentialism, it’s even more plausible - that the
deontological legal system and the constrained legislative procedures are and
should be grounded in a deontological foundational theory. In any event, even if
one's foundational moral theory is consequentialist, one may have good
(consequentialist) reasons to endorse deontology as a preferable decision
procedure for legal policymaking, as well as for legal scholarship.

2.

“In opposition to deontology is Consequentialism: Which is the belief that

consequences of an action determine if it is more ethical.”

Consequentialism is bad because in the pursuit of societal ‘good’,

consequentialism justifies moral atrocities.

Seto 7

[Theodore P., Professor of Law at Loyola Inter-Disciplinary Press, “Is Book-

Burning Bad?. AT THE INTERFACE/PROBING THE BOUNDARIES; PROCEEDINGS OF
THE SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON EVIL, LAW, AND THE STATE, Forthcoming;
Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2008-17”. P3 (Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1140302)//wfi-hdc]

For the most part, however, existing ethical theories are more limited in scope.
They define an ethical “good” and “bad,” but do not attempt to define or justify
political values using the same metric. There are exceptions, but none fully
satisfactory. Preference-satisfaction utilitarians, for example, can be read to claim
that rule of law, equality, liberty, democracy, and the like should be valued
because (but only to the extent that) a society in fact prefers them. Desires for
rule of law, equality, liberty, democracy, and the like, they seem to assert, are
“tastes,” having the same moral status as vanilla ice cream. Other
consequentialists are more paternalistic, positing that societal happiness or
welfare will be greater if people are secure, equal, free, and sovereign -
regardless of whether the people themselves agree. Even on this account,
however, rule of law, equality, liberty, and democracy are instruments of
convenience, not principles to be respected for their own sake. If torture,
lynching, slavery, genocide, book-burning, and election-rigging will produce the
greatest good for the greatest number, consequentialism implies, such actions
are moral - indeed, they may be morally required. Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin
were both political consequentialists.

Contention 2- Human Rights

“Currently in the status quo there is a situation in which multiple breaches of

human rights go largely unnoticed in Okinawa”.

1.

The crimes against women in Okinawa are sweeping. Over 4,700 crimes have
been reported since in the last 40 years.

Foreign Policy In Focus 99 [,

http://www.fpif.org/reports/women_and_the_us_military_in_east_asia]

Research conducted by a group called Okinawa Women Act Against Military

Violence shows that U.S. troops in Okinawa have committed more than 4,700
reported crimes since 1972, when Okinawa reverted to Japanese administration.
Many of these were crimes of violence against women. In Korea, too, the number
of crimes is high. A particularly brutal rape and murder of a barwoman, Yoon Kum
Ee, in 1992 galvanized human rights advocates to establish the National Campaign
for the Eradication of Crime by U.S. Troops in Korea in order to document these
crimes and help victims claim redress. Violence against women is seriously
underreported, due to the victims’ shame and fear or their belief that
perpetrators will not be apprehended. Women who work in the bars, massage
parlors, and brothels near U.S. bases are particularly vulnerable to physical and
sexual violence. The sexual activity of foreign-based U.S. military personnel,
including (but not exclusively) through prostitution, has had very serious effects
on women’s health, precipitating HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases,
unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions, drug and alcohol dependency, and
mental illness.
2.

Rape and prostitution cause dehumanization and make human rights impossible
to achieve

Tanji 6

(Miyume, research fellow at the CASAAP, Curtin University. in Perth, Australia,

“The Unai Method: The Expansion of Women-only Groups in the Community of
Protest Against Violence and Militarism in Okinawa,” Intersections: gender,
History and Culture in the Asian Context, August 26,
http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue13/tanji.html)

In the mid-1960s, Takazato Suzuyo investigated the burgeoning prostitution

industry around the US bases and its effects on local women. In the war-torn
island where everything has been destroyed, prostitution was often the only way
to survive for many girls and women who had lost husbands or parents in the
War. In fact, prostitution and the sex industry catering for US military personnel in
Okinawa was a major industrial sector in the Okinawan economy.[8] Despite the
circumstances that forced women into the industry and despite its economic
importance, Okinwan society treated women who sold sex to the foreign military
for a living with contempt. Many Okinawan men – who could live and go to school
because of the incomes earned by women employed in the sex industry—
associated the memory of local women flocking around American soldiers with
the shame and misery of 'Okinawa' occupied by the US forces. Reversion and
better economic times have reduced the relative size of the sex industry but they
have not changed attitudes.[9] Takazato has eleven years of professional
experience as a women's phone counsellor and has helped countless women
suffering from ill health, economic hardship, mental distress, guilt, shame and low
self-esteem caused by their experiences of rape, domestic violence and
prostitution. Takazato and her like-minded colleagues have addressed the
problems in 'a strange society intolerant to the prostitutes but tolerant to
prostitution',[10] that is, discrimination, harassment and violence against women
in the family, the workplace and the wider community.
3.

Human Rights must be defended at all cost; Military cannot be allowed to

violate human rights because it violates international Law

Michelle Maiese June 2004

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/human_rights_protect/ What are
Human Rights? Human Rights Protection

Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are
considered entitled: the right to life, liberty, freedom of thought and expression,
and equal treatment before the law, among others. These rights represent
entitlements of the individual or groups vis-B-vis the government, as well as
responsibilities of the individual and the government authorities. Such rights are
ascribed "naturally," which means that they are not earned and cannot be denied
on the basis of race, creed, ethnicity or gender.[1] These rights are often
advanced as legal rights and protected by the rule of law. However, they are
distinct from and prior to law, and can be used as standards for formulating or
criticizing both local and international law. It is typically thought that the conduct
of governments and military forces must comply with these standards. Various
"basic" rights that cannot be violated under any circumstances are set forth in
international human rights documents such as the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The rights
established by these documents include economic, social, cultural, political and
civil rights.[2] While human rights are not always interpreted similarly across
societies, these norms nonetheless form a common human rights vocabulary in
which the claims of various cultures can be articulated. The widespread
ratification of international human rights agreements such as those listed above is
taken as evidence that these are widely shared values.[3] Having human rights
norms in place imposes certain requirements on governments and legitimizes the
complaints of individuals in those cases where fundamental rights and freedoms
are not respected.[4] Such norms constitute a standard for the conduct of
government and the administration of force. They can be used as "universal, non-
discriminatory standards" for formulating or criticizing law and act as guidelines
for proper conduct.

4. Rape is inevitable in Okinawa a with US troops around

Akibayashi and Takazato 9

(Kozue, Suzuyo, “Okinawa: Women’s Struggle for Demilitarization” in The bases of

empire: the global struggle against U.S. military posts, edited by Catherine Lutz,
New York University Press, pg. 260-261)

Military Violence Against Women and Children When OWAAMV women spoke
out against the rape in 1995, one of the questions most commonly posed to them
by the mainland Japanese media regarded the statistics of sexual crimes
committed by U.S. soldiers in Okinawa. Although OWAAMV women often
presented the official statistics released by the local authority, they also
emphasized the difficulty in estimating the actual number. Furthermore, no
official statistics were available about the crimes committed by U.S. soldiers
during the period of U.S. occupation. Few women victimized by U.S. soldiers
revealed their experiences, even after the occupation had ended. This reluctance
resulted in part from the stigma imposed on victims by societies ridden with
different levels and forms of patriarchy. In addition, in the Japanese legal system,
rape victims are required to report the crime in order for the police to start an
investigation. Needless to say, numerous women and girls chose to remain silent.
The official statistics on sexual crimes by U.S. soldiers, therefore, reflect only the
tip of the iceberg. Having worked with many victims and survivors of sexual
violence, OWAAMV women started to compile the cases which were brought to
their attention or those which occurred in their own communities that were never
reported to the police, including in the accounts and memoirs both documented
cases and those recorded as oral histories. The most current, the seventh revision
of the chronology, accounts for around 300 cases of different sorts of assaults
against women and girls, including cases of gang rape, attempted rape, abduction,
and murder. OWAAMV members’ efforts to collect cases from various sources
including oral histories illustrate the realities of military violence against women.
Women in Okinawa have been exposed to gender-based military violence for over
60 years. They have come to analyze their daily and historical experiences and
have theorized that the violence against women committed by U.S. soldiers in
Okinawa is an inevitable result of the state-based military security system. Cases
listed in the chronology reveal the interplay between war preparation and the
intensity of military violence. This chronology demonstrates that gender-based
military violence in Okinawa began when the U.S. military landed on the island in
1945, during the last stage of World War II. Since then, women and children have
been exposed to violence and have lived in fear. In the period between World
War II and the Korean War, during which people in Okinawa lived on land that
had been damaged by fierce battle, struggling for survival, women experienced
rampant and indiscriminate military violence that can be characterized as follows:
1. A group of between two and six soldiers would abduct one woman at gun- or
knifepoint. 2. After being gang-raped, the victim would often be given to other
groups of soldiers for more gang rape. 3. Soldiers did not hesitate to kill or
severely injure those who tried to help victims. 4. Assaults might take place
anywhere, including in fi elds, on streets, around wells, by the water, or in front of
families. 5. Assaults often demonstrated brutality. Women with infants on their
backs were raped and killed, and victims’ ages ranged from 9 months to the mid
60s. 6. Victims gave birth as a result of rapes. In the four years following World
War II, 450 children were identified as having been fathered by U.S. soldiers. 7.
Perpetrators were mostly not apprehended, and were often left unpunished.

5.

Failure to protect and ensure human rights perpetuates a cycle of violence

making future violence inevitable- in form of dehumanization.
Michelle Maiese June 2004
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/human_rights_protect/ What are
Human Rights? Human Rights Protection

[5] Many conflicts are sparked by a failure to protect human rights, and the
trauma that results from severe human rights violations often leads to new
human rights violations. As conflict intensifies, hatred accumulates and makes
restoration of peace more difficult. In order to stop this cycle of violence, states
must institute policies aimed at human rights protection. Many believe that the
protection of human rights "is essential to the sustainable achievement of the
three agreed global priorities of peace, development and democracy."[6] Respect
for human rights has therefore become an integral part of international law and
foreign policy. The specific goal of expanding such rights is to "increase safeguards
for the dignity of the person."[7] Despite what resembles a widespread consensus
on the importance of human rights and the expansion of international treaties on
such matters, the protection of human rights still often leaves much to be desired.
Although international organizations have been created or utilized to embody
these values, there is little to enforce the commitments states have made to
human rights. Military intervention is a rare occurrence. Sanctions have a spotty
track record of effectiveness. Although not to be dismissed as insignificant, often
the only consequence for failing to protect human rights is "naming and
shaming."

“The idea of this cycle of violence will be important in this round if we don’t
withdraw these troops and allow troops to continue violating the Okinawans; it
will eventually lead the situation producing more major anti American sentiment
amongst Okinawans and create a much worse situation down the road.”

Contention -4 Solvency

1.
The US should respect the wishes of Okinawans and reduce its military
presence.

Vaughan in 2010
(Michael, teaches international relations of East Asia as a tutor in the School of
Political Science and
International Studies at the University of Queensland, Australia, “JAPAN’S NEW
GOVERNMENT – FINDING OR LOSING ITS WAY?”,
http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:200332)
Okinawa is Japan’s poorest Prefecture, its history and culture are distinct from
those of therest of the country and its inhabitants feel like second-class citizens.
They recall that Okinawa bore the brunt of the US invasion of April 1945 and
many believe that at the time the Imperial Japanese Army forced its soldiers to
commit mass suicide rather than surrender to the Americans. In a poll of
Okinawan residents taken in November 2009, more than 52%favoured removing
all the US bases completely. Just under 12% wished to maintain the status quo,
perhaps because of the employment opportunities and rental payments that the
US presence provides them.12For its part, the US military has largely treated
Okinawa as its own fiefdom since 1945. Some12,500 Americans died and 37,000
were wounded in the battle for the island. Until it officially reverted to Japan in
1972, the US military ran the place with a free hand, often defying the wishes of
both the Japanese Government and the US State Department. In one incident, in
1966, the US military secretly transported nuclear weapons from Okinawa to
Honshu, Japan’s main island, in flagrant violation of the 1960 Security Agreement.
The US military also resisted Okinawa’s reversion to Japanese rule and it
continues to have a proprietary attitude about what takes place there. The US
Government should respect Japan’s desire to reduce the US military presence on
its sovereign territory, as it has respected the same desire on the part of
Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. It should be willing to renegotiate the
agreement that governs the presence of US troops in Japan, which to some is
redolent of 19th Century assertions of extraterritoriality. It should be aware that,
at the end of the day, Japanese voters will determine the course of the alliance.

2.
Leaving Okinawa would solve for crime rates and rape in Okinawa

Eldridge 02

[Robert D, Ph.D. Fellow, Research Institute for Peace and Security ,“Okinawa and
U.S.-Japan Relations in the 21st Century: Bilateral and Trilateral Approaches to a
Sounder Okinawa
Policy”,http://www.rips.or.jp/english/publications/special_reports/pdf/eldridge_
okinawa.pdf]

Indeed, a calm look at the situation with regard to the bases—70-75% of U.S.
exclusive use facilities (senyo shisetsu) in Japan being concentrated in Okinawa,
which make up only 0.6% of the land area of Japan; 19% of the main island of
Okinawa comprising military facilities; only 14% of the bases in the prefecture
being reduced in the post-reversion (1972) period (as compared to 60% on the
Japanese mainland)—makes it easy to understand why the Okinawans view the
presence of U.S. (and Japanese) forces and the related problems and frictions as
a“burden (futan),”one to be shared equally with the rest of Japan (if not
altogether removed, as called for by some more extreme anti-base and anti-
central government advocates).On top of the large presence of the bases
(footprint) that intrudes on the daily lives of the local communities (noise
pollution, fear of accidents, environmental concerns, etc.), the Okinawans are
bothered by the frequency of off-duty crimes and incidents, and the way in which
the issues of compensation and judicial proceedings are handled. They thus
trace the incidents to the bases and conclude (simply but not incorrectly) that if
the bases were not located there, no crimes would be committed in the
prefecture by U.S. personnel and their dependents.

3.

Second—a Marine presence in Okinawa is unnecessary to secure U.S. interests

in the region—the plan is key to begin a drawdown.
Patrick J. Buchanan, conservative political commentator who worked as a senior
adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan and three
times ran for President, holds a B.A. from Georgetown University and an M.A.
from Columbia University, 2010 (“Bring Our Marines Home,” Antiwar.com,
February 2nd, Available Online at
http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2010/02/01/bring-our-marines-home/)

A month after Germany surrendered in May 1945, America’s eyes turned to the
Far East, where the bloodiest battle of the Pacific war was joined on the island of
Okinawa. Twelve thousand U.S. soldiers and Marines would die – twice as many
dead in 82 days of fighting as have died in all the years of war in Afghanistan and
Iraq. Within weeks of the battle’s end came Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Three weeks
later, Gen. MacArthur took the Japanese surrender on the battleship Missouri.
That was 65 years ago, as far away in time from today as the Marines’ arrival at
Da Nang was from Teddy Roosevelt’s charge up San Juan Hill. Yet the Marines are
still on Okinawa. But, in 2006, the United States negotiated a $26 billion deal to
move 8,000 to Guam and the other Marines from the Futenma air base in the
south to the more isolated town of Nago on the northern tip. Okinawans have
long protested the crime, noise, and pollution at Futenma. The problem arose
last year when the Liberal Democratic Party that negotiated the deal was ousted
and the Democratic Party of Japan elected on a promise to pursue a policy more
balanced between Beijing and Washington. The new prime minister, Yukio
Hatoyama, indicated his unease with the Futenma deal, and promised to review it
and decide by May. Voters in Nago just elected a mayor committed to keeping the
new base out. This weekend, thousands demonstrated in Tokyo against moving
the Marine air station to Nago. Some demanded removal of all U.S. forces from
Japan. After 65 years, they want us out. And Prime Minister Hatoyama has been
feeding the sentiment. In January, he terminated Japan’s eight-year mission
refueling U.S. ships aiding in the Afghan war effort. All of which raises a question.
If Tokyo does not want Marines on Okinawa, why stay? And if Japanese regard
Marines as a public nuisance, rather than a protective force, why not remove
the irritant and bring them home? Indeed, why are we still defending Japan? She
is no longer the ruined nation of 1945, but the second-largest economy on earth
and among the most technologically advanced. The Sino-Soviet bloc against
which we defended her in the Cold War dissolved decades ago. The Soviet Union
no longer exists. China is today a major trading partner of Japan. Russia and India
have long borders with China, but neither needs U.S. troops to defend them.
Should a clash come between China and Japan over the disputed Senkaku Islands
in the East China Sea, why should that involve us? Comes the retort: American
troops are in Japan to defend South Korea and Taiwan. But South Korea has a
population twice that of the North, an economy 40 times as large, access to the
most advanced weapons in the U.S. arsenal, and a U.S. commitment to come to
her defense by air and sea in any second Korean War. And if there is a second
Korean War, why should the 28,000 U.S. troops still in Korea, many on the DMZ,
or Marines from Futenma have to fight and die? Is South Korea lacking for
soldiers? Seoul, too, has been the site of anti-American demonstrations
demanding we get out. Why do we Americans seem more desperate to defend
these countries than their people are to have us defend them? Is letting go of the
world we grew up in so difficult? Consider Taiwan. On his historic trip to Beijing in
1972, Richard Nixon agreed Taiwan was part of China. Jimmy Carter recognized
Beijing as the sole legitimate government. Ronald Reagan committed us to cut
back arms sales to Taiwan. Yet, last week, we announced a $6.4 billion weapons
sale to an island we agree is a province of China. Beijing, whose power is a
product of the trade deficits we have run, is enraged that we are arming the lost
province she is trying to bring back to the motherland. Is it worth a clash with
China to prevent Taiwan from assuming the same relationship to Beijing the
British acceded to with Hong Kong? In tourism, trade, travel, and investment,
Taiwan is herself deepening her relationship with the mainland. Is it not time for
us to cut the cord? With the exception of the Soviet Union, few nations in history
have suffered such a relative decline in power and influence as the United
States in the last decade. We are tied down in two wars, are universally disliked,
and are running back-to-back deficits of 10 percent of gross domestic product, as
our debt is surging to 100 percent of GDP. A strategic retreat from Eurasia to our
own continent and country is inevitable. Let it begin by graciously acceding to
Japan’s request we remove our Marines from Okinawa and politely inquiring if
they wish us to withdraw U.S. forces from the Home Islands, as well.
4.

Empirical Data suggest that investigations will help bring justice to crime in
Okinawa.