Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus Now my opponent, also, makes the argument that the terrorist survellience [sic] 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? |
The Supreme Court of the United States will. The SCOTUS has consistently ruled that searches without a warrant are unreasonable, unconstitutional, and therefore, unlawful. I challenge anyone to find a single relevant example that suggests otherwise. In this sense, in this very real sense, I interchangeably used the words “unreasonable,” and “unlawful.” I wasn’t quoting the Constitution, I was talking about it, in the context of this debate. According to the SCOTUS unlawful searches are unreasonable. Please note that my debate opponent omits the portion of the Fourth Amendment that speaks of “Probable Cause.” According to the Fourth Amendment, the government must demonstrate probable cause, or actual evidence supporting the conclusion that the target of a search is involved in criminal activity, before a judge may issue a warrant. Without Probable Cause, the search is unlawful. Therefore, the Constitution actually does prohibit unlawful searches and seizures, which is exactly what I said. I was attempting to say something which is true, and I believe that I did. My debate opponent is attempting to mislead through omission.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus 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 vitriol Bush hatred that I do not find it incumbant [sic] 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. |
Please note that there is no argument here. Instead my debate opponent makes a great deal about the origin of the report, the tone of the report, the people that produced the report, etc. Was the report true or false? My debate opponent would rather not say. To try to do so would be devastating to his cause.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus But hay [sic] 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. |
More “misleading through omission.” If my debate opponent were to truly have taken my position for granted he would have addressed all of the charges in my passage, not just the Geneva Conventions. There were US laws in the passage. Much has been written about the Bush Administration’s violations of US Code, Title 18, §2339 (the Anti-Torture Statute) and §2441 (the War Crimes Act). I mentioned these laws. I quoted part of the case against the President written by a member of Congress. But my debate opponent does “not find it incumbant [sic] upon [himself] to respond.” This, again, is telling.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus Furthermore; as to Article 75 of the 1977 addittional [sic] protocol of the Geneva Conventions while the United States has signed it, we have not ratified it meaning we are not bound by it meaning my opponents posting of it is just another attempt to mislead through ommission.[sic] |
From Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S. (2006):
Inextricably intertwined with the question of regular constitution is the evaluation of the procedures governing the tribunal and whether they afford "all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." 6 U. S. T., at 3320 (Art. 3, ¶1(d)). Like the phrase "regularly constituted court," this phrase is not defined in the text of the Geneva Conventions. But it must be understood to incorporate at least the barest of those trial protections that have been recognized by customary international law. Many of these are described in Article 75 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, adopted in 1977 (Protocol I). Although the United States declined to ratify Protocol I, its objections were not to Article 75 thereof. Indeed, it appears that the Government "regard[s] the provisions of Article 75 as an articulation of safeguards to which all persons in the hands of an enemy are entitled." Taft, The Law of Armed Conflict After 9/11: Some Salient Features, 28 Yale J. Int'l L. 319, 322 (2003). Among the rights set forth in Article 75 is the "right to be tried in [one's] presence." Protocol I, Art. 75(4)(e).
(
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S.(2006) - U.S. Supreme Court -)
I look forward to reading my debate opponent's final word on this matter, about how the Executive Branch is above the law, and is therefore, somehow, unimpeachable.