Observation 1 is the frameworkI value morality because ought implies a moral obligation.

Moreover, all statements adhere to deciding wether the action is right or wrong, and in order to have a obligation to value something, morality is necessary making morality a prerequisite to any other value. The state of exception is a paradox that allows the government to be both the decider and the arbiter of justice and gives it free reign to do as it pleases in order to maintain sovereignty. In this case the government claims a national interest as an excuse to human rights abuses. Agamben 1: The paradox of sovereignty consists in the fact the sovereign is, at the same time, outside and inside the juridical order. If the sovereign is truly the one to whom the juridical order grants the power of suspending the order's own validity,then "the sovereign stands outside the juridical order and, nevertheless, belongs to it, since it is up to him to decide if the constitution is to be suspended in total. The specification that the sovereign is at the same time outside and inside the juridical order is not insignificant: the sovereign, having the legal power to suspend the validity of the law, legally places himself outside the law. This means that the paradox can also be formulated this way: "I, the sovereign, who am outside the law, declare that there is nothing outside the law." . This state of exception excludes people from humanitarian norms. Agamben 2: the entire Third Reich can be considered a state of exception that lasted twelve years modern totalitarianism can be defined as the establishment, by means of the state of exception, of a legal civil war that allows for the physical elimination not only of political adversaries but of entire categories of citizens who for some reason cannot be integrated into the political system. Exclusion from humantarian norms of this caliber causes massive amounts of violence and dehumanization onto the excluded. Katz 97:
(Katheryn D. Katz, prof. of law - Albany Law School, 1997, Albany Law Journal )

throughout human history dominant and oppressive groups have committed unspeakable wrongs against those viewed as inferior. Once a people has been characterized as sub-human, there appears to have been no limit to the cruelty that was or will be visited upon him in almost all wars, hatred towards the enemy was inspired to justify the killing and wounding by separating the enemy from the human race, by casting them as unworthy of human status. This same rationalization has supported: genocide, chattel slavery, racial segregation, economic exploitation, caste and class systems, coerced sterilization of social misfits and undesirables, unprincipled medical experimentation, the subjugation of women, and the social Darwinists' theory justifying indifference to the poverty and misery of others. Thus, the standard is preventing the state of exception.

Observation 2 is the burdensThe negative must defend the converse of the resolution, that the government should promote national interest over human rights. This mandates that their advocacy places national interest in a postiion above human rights.. Prefer this interpretation because it represents the most reciprocal division of ground because we both have to do an equal amount of work, and is also the most predictable in that traditionally the negative advocates the opposite of the affirmative. These are both key to fairness because a lack of either reciprocity or predictability places me at a structural disadvantage.

Nearly all human rights abuses are due to the state of exception of outcast groups of people. Petchesky 07:
(Rosalind P. Petchesky. Gender, health and human rights in sites of political exclusion .Hunter College & the Graduate Center, City University of New York Department of Political Science, New York, USA. 2007. http://www.who.int/social_determinants/resources/gender_health_human_rights_wgkn_2007.pdf) A state of exception is the juridical situation in which a declaration of emergency powers, martial law or the suspension of ordinary constitutional norms and

Those who reside in these states of exception find themselves reduced to bare life, stripped of the ordinary rights of citizens or even of human beings. They include detainees in the prisons and sites of extraordinary rendition classified as enemy combatants in the war on terror; refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) from both armed and ethnic conflict zones and natural disasters; as well as the undocumented migrants and trafficked persons detained at borders and checkpoints and in legal limbos in countries everywhere. Under present conditions of militarized global capitalism and a war on terror that knows no limits of time or space, states of exception have increasingly become the everyday reality of life for millions of people across the globe. From a public health perspective, the aggregate of all these sites of exclusion constitutes an enormous concentration of the most vulnerable and at-risk groups, a key transfer point for viruses, violence, and damaged, discarded bodies. Yet major health surveys and much of the literature on social determinants of health still take national health systems as their statistical base; the populations residing in camps, huge and growing, simply are not counted. In addition, it is in these sites of exclusion where the indispensability and insufficiency of a human rights approach to gender and health equity issues are revealed most directly. Residents in states of exception are cast outside the protections of citizenship and state laws. The situation of refugees creates a paradox, since one would imagine people who have become effectively stateless to
civil rights, previously associated with war, threat of armed attack or civil unrest, becomes indefinite if not permanent. be the purest subjects of human rights. Yet such people are also those most lacking in any reliable forms of protection, respect, accountability, and methods of making claims and seeking enforcement.

Thus sites of exclusion both mark the limits of human rights as currently understood and help to illuminate how gender equity in health access and outcomes always and everywhere intersects with a whole series of social, economic and cultural forces.

This raises a second contradiction, epitomized in the war in Iraq, involving the blurring of lines between warmaking and nation-building, and between the peacekeeping and humanitarian functions of UN agencies. Echoing Loescher, Antonio Donini, former director of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance to Afghanistan, says the global war on terror casts a somber shadow on the prospects of principled humanitarianism. Humanitarian work is supposed to be politically neutral, as refugee and IDP camps are supposed to be neutral spaces, zones of mercy. In reality, humanitarian aid workers and efforts frequently get caught up and both compromised and endangered in raging political conflicts. Because Northern donors control the funds for humanitarian assistance (which, unlike peacekeeping funds voted by the Security Council, are voluntary), and most large NGOs that do such work are based in the North, both UN and NGO aid workers are perceived and targeted by communities under occupation as enemies allied with the imperial North. (The bombing of UN headquarters and killing of its mission chief and 21 others in Baghdad in 2003 marked a dramatic and well-publicized example.) For the same reasons, high-profile cases [e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan] suck up the cash while forgotten and often more deadly crises [e.g., Central Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo] languish. And, with the growing danger and politicization of such crises, more and more care providers have become for-profit contractors who have joined the service of empire. In these circumstances the whole enterprise of humanitarianismincluding the provision of health carebecomes corrupted.