Trajan Octavian Titus

My opponent likes to speak of "Checks and Balances," well can someone please point me in the direction of where to find those words in the Constitution? Because for the life of me I can't find them, however, what I do find and what is made perfectly clear by the wording of the Constitution is that the original intent therin was for there to be a separation of powers wherby the government would be split into three separate but equal branches. That being the case any legislation passed by Congress which infringes upon the President's inherent authority as Commander in Chief is itself illegal and unconstitutional. So even if we take my opponents position for granted that Bush violated the FISA Act, FISA itself is unconstitutional, because of the vesting clause found in Article II which states and I quote: ""The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Furthermore; the FISA court itself ruled In re sealed case 02-001 in 2002 that: " "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Furthermore; my opponent clearly does not understand the FISA Act, because the FISA act only applies when the original target is within the United States, in the cases of the terrorist surveillance program the original targets are found outside the United States and it is only the secondary targets which are within the United States and then their phone calls may also be monitored and while they may place calls to others within the United States, the fact remains that the original targets were not within the United States and thus FISA is inapplicable.

Now for the sake of argument we say that Bush did infact violate the FISA Act through the terrorist surveillance program, FISA can be overidden through future statute and that statute clearly came in the form of the AUMF of September 2001 in which a joint session of Congress gave the President the authority to (and I quote) "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Now my opponent, also, makes the argument that the terrorist survellience program violates the 4th amendment because the 4th amendment "prohibits unlawful searches and seizures of US citizens," well I would urge my opponent to actually read the Constitution because what the fourth amendment actually says is that it prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures," now who among you can possibly argue that tapping the phones of people within the United States who are in contact with terrorist agents overseas is unreasonable?

As to my opponents accusations of torture he has mislead you good people into thinking that the report he cited was from the non-partisan House Judiciary Committee, that is a complete and dubious lie! That report which he cited was a partisan and highly biased report issued by the Democratic Staff of the Judiciary Committee, the tone of which is so filled with with vitriol Bush hatred that I do not find it incumbant upon myself to respond to such a biased, misleading, and unsubstantiated report that one would expect to find in the editorial section of Al-Jazeera not in a governmental report. But hay let's once again take my opponents position for granted, I'll remind him and everyone else that the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists as is clearly demonstrated by Article 4 of the 4th Geneva Convention which states:


A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.