Should captured terrorists be given the rights like that of a U.S. citizen?

Question

I'm trying to understand why and how people would actually WANT to give terrorists the same rights as Americans. Yes I understand we should still value the idea of trialing anyone in a civilized manner, but these are terrorists. They don't desire peace. So why should we give them the chance of walking the streets again?

Answer 1

I do not believe that terrorists should be given equal rights. I do believe that they shold be treated as humans though. If they can't be peaceful, then they should't be allowed to walk the streets. If terrorist can not be reformed, and they continue to even be disrectful, NO government should allow that! Terrorism is costing lives and well as tax dollars. I wouldn't think it was a bad thing if they were executed for their crimes! They might sound harsh, but think of how many lives it would potentially save!

Answer 2

You're making two assumptions, neither of which is valid.

First, your assuming that anyone the administration has labeled an enemy combatant is automatically guilty. You're saying "captured terrorists". But the vast majority have never been tried, let along convicted, of any crime. We don't know they're terrorists. All we know is that the government thinks they might be terrorists. So, you want a system where they are guilty until proven innocent. And you think the US government is going to be 100% correct an infallible about who they call a terrorist, without needing trials or even indictments?

Let's get past that. Let's go into fantasy land and assume that guilty until proven innocent works, and that the US government will never make a mistake.

The Constitution grants certain rights to US citizens. It also grants certain rights to anyone held in US custody, REGARDLESS of whether they are citizens or not. The Writ of Habeas Corpus is not limited to citizens. It applies to anyone held in US custody. And there's no real argument that these people are not in US custody. The Constitution (Article 1 Section 9) further says Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended except in times of rebellion or invasion, when the civilian courts cannot function. Is there an ongoing invasion or civil war that I am missing?

But wait, there's more. The 6th Amendment protections of a fair public trial and right to counsel are guaranteed for anyone "accused". It doesn't say "citizens", it says "accused". So the only way the government gets to ignore those 6th is to punish them without accusing them.

Unfortunately for the Commander-in-Sheik, that runs afoul of the 5th Amendment required that everything the government does conform with Due Process requirements. Not to mention the 5th Amendment requirement for a grand jury in all such proceedings. Those are requirements place on the US government, regardless of what it is doing or who it is doing it to.

The administration can't just ignore the Constitutional requirements placed on the US government. It's not about whether these detainees are being granted the rights of citizens. They're not and there's no reason they should be. But they must be granted the same Constitutional protections that apply to anyone held in custody by the US, and the US government is still subject to Constitutional procedural requirements, regardless of who it is holding.

Answer 3

Your perception of peace isn't theirs. We become terrorists unto them when we try to impose our beliefs on them. Do I believe they (the terrorists) are people who are capable of incredibly evil things? Yes. But what were the Crusades if not religously-sponsored campaigns against others we considered infidels and heretics? I don't know that they deserve the rights conferred upon US citizens. But I do believe we ought to abide by the Geneva Convention. Once we begin to make our own rules agains the general will of the world we become a more powerful Iraq: a country that goes agains international accords to do what we believe is right to serve our own interests.

At the very least, fair trials are the way to go. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a right we have and one we should share with the world if we in fact want to export democracy and human rights.

Answer 4

there is no way that any sane person would think that a terrorist should be given the same rights as everybody else. They shouldn't even be given a trial. All they want is death, so we should give them death, no questions asked!

Answer 5

Several of terrorists turned loose rejoined the Islamist war against the legal govt of Iran.

Answer 6

Because they are (suspected) criminals and have the same rights as all other suspects.

How do you know they are "terrorists?"

Because George Bush said so?

Yeah, right.

Trials are to determine guilt and impose punishment. If they are "terrorists," they will be imprisoned.

Answer 7

I'd say yes if you believe in America and what it is supposed to stand for.
We are supposed to have something called due process. Make sure we get the facts straight and not let our emotion make judgements that can adversely affect other peoples lives.

Answer 8

I agree. Try them under a military tribunal and handle them as prisoners of war, observing the Geneva Convention. But don't put them back in circulation.

Answer 9

It's sickening to even think that terrorists are civil criminals, they are war criminals and should be tried that way. THERE ARE 8 BRAVE MEN OF OUR MILITARY LOCKED UP AT CAMP PENDLETON AND ARE BEING TREATED WORSE THAN THESE SCUM WE CALL TERRORISTS.

Answer 10

Absolutely not. But we need to find an alternative to places like Guantanamo Bay. It is a black eye for the U.S.