What are the rights of terrorists versus nations?

Question

Do terrorists have the right to attack a nation?
Do nations have a right to pursue terrorists who attack them, even when that involves crossing the borders of another country?
Does anyone have the right to deny another's right to exist?

When responding to this question please be factual and polite. Also please do not confuse the term rights with human rights. Let us agree to concede that all people are entitled to basic human rights.

skysoalive: What I am looking for is opinion, not legal justification. I know what the legalities are concerning international terrorism. The question in based on the fact that I see many people who will condemn a nation for attacking terrorism agressively, while making excuses for the actual terrorists themselves. Maybe excuses isn't the right term, perhaps I should say turning a blind eye to terrorist activity and dogma. I have a very strong opinion on this subject, so I am looking for someone to tell me what to think. I am just curious about other people's opinions.

The statement should read I am not looking for someone to tell me what to think.

Answer 1

I think nations do have the right to pursue terrorists into another country if that country does not show an active and aggressive approach to producing them.

Let's take this scenario: suppose a terrorist entered Canada from the U.S. and blew up a building in Toronto, then fled back across the border. Would we allow the Canadian authorities to come in and have a great deal of input in our investigation? Yes. Of course we would. And if we weren't aggressive enough in our investigation, they would have every right to push us.

Here's the problem as I see it. Certain nations are allowing terrorist groups free reign. Then, when those terrorist groups act, they simply hold their hands up and say, 'It wasn't me.' That is unacceptable. All nations must be held accountable for the actions of their people, regardless of whether they wish to claim that responsibility or not.

If an American citizen committed a terrorist act, we would pay reparations, issue formal apologies, and produce the culprits if they were anywhere within our reach. And we would do that without being asked.

As to whether anyone has the right to deny another's right to exist... it depends. If you mean exist as in 'live' then no. If you mean exist as in 'remain a functional group, element, or political body' then yes. The former is obscene, and cannot be tolerated. The latter happens all the time, and occurs as ideologies are judged impractical, untimely, or unconscionable.

For an example, take organized crime. They are an organized, functional group. Yet we would openly deny their right to exist. If a terrorist group is judged as nothing more than an organized crime syndicate, then there is nothing wrong with denying their right to exist either.

What makes a group worthy of the denial of the right to exist? That is certainly open to debate. I would say when the actions and operations of that group attain a primarily criminal nature, then that group may have ceded their right to continue. While I may strongly dislike a group like the KKK (despise is a better word for it), they are primarily a bunch of hot air, without a strong criminal leaning.

Answer 2

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation to achieve political ends... Whether you are a 'terrorist' or the member of a ruling political party you may certainly be both capable and guilty of violence and intimidation, this has most assuredly be proved.
If I were the elected ruler of a nation and were threatened by terrorism, I would expect the other nations effected by the same foe to find enough common ground to come together and find a solution, regardless of religious differences.
If a nation harbours a terrorist and refuses to give them up despite the international pressure, I can't sanction attack, but I would sanction economic and travel restrictions, much like the ones South Africa faced in their ban from Olympic participation and worldwide condemnation.

Answer 3

Nowadays, I think terrorist have more rights than nations, and this fact helps to the existence of more terrorist groups.

Related to
>Does anyone have the right to deny another's right to exist?
I think anyone who deny somebody the right to exist, must lose this right also... there's no political or religious reason to kill anybody, it can be understand only in case of auto-defense... I mean, I really understand the case of Israel, it's very difficult to separate civils of terrorist when most civils support and justify terrorism. By one hand I think it's wrong to start a war with your neighbor country, but by the other hand most of population are supporting the terrorist which kill people in buses, at markets, and so on (and of course civils...) and this is a situation that cannot be accepted.

Answer 4

I don't believe that terrorists have the right to attack a nation. I also don't believe that nations have the RIGHT to attack other nations. I do believe that nations have the right to pursue terrorists across borders in order to bring them to justice.

I don't believe that, absent due process, anyone can morally deny another the right to exist. However, your question makes me wonder what your stance is on abortion rights. If you would defend the right of a terrorist to his life, how much more so the life of an innocent unborn child?

Answer 5

The right to exist is the whole point. Terrorists do not respect anyone Else's right to exist. They will do anything, to anyone, without question.
A terrorist does not go about changing things within the confines of the law, they will attempt to bend nations through death and destruction because in their eyes you do not have the right to exist. I do not agree that all people have basic human rights when they actively deny others of theirs.

Answer 6

No terrorist does not have the right to attack another nation. Yes any nation that is attacked by terrorist should follow them to the end of the earth and kill them like the dogs that they are. If you decide to deny my right to exist then your right to exist should be taken away. If I agree that we should all turn the other cheek and not defend ourselves against people who want to take away our freedom, then we deserve anything we get. Why do we have to fight in the first place why can't we just enjoy the short time we have on the earth? Why can't we just agree to disagree and move on like adults?

Answer 7

Terrorists have no rights, criminals have more rights than terrorists and rightfully so, You have people bred for hate from birth brainwashed you might add, even muslims hate the extremists they just fear them, Isreal is finally doing the right thing by instead of cutting the head off a snake and stopping, they are trying to destroy the snake completely, as they've tried the cease fire thing in the past, they even gave land back to the people, and none of that works with people who are bred to kill all infidels and I mean all, any one who has freedom of thought different than there own....In isreal at least its not just believe in the jewish faith or you cant exist, you have muslim , christian and jewish faiths that make up isreal......the extremists dont allow for anything even there own......I personally believe , live and let live, but when one is out to kill my family then the line has been crossed.....sorry for the rant but I just get so frustrated.......

Answer 8

Terrorists have no right to wage war because they have no national sovereignty. They don't represent anyone but themselves. National governments have the responsibility to fight crime within their borders. Failing to do so with the knowledge that those criminals commit murder in neighboring countries can reasonably be construed as an act of war. Especially when your government openly shares ideology with that organization.

For example, the government of Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and the United States. In Iran, terrorist training camps are commonplace, and those terrorists that are trained in Iran go abroad to cause trouble in Israel and the United States. It seems clear that the Iranian government knows where these training camps are, they know who's running them, and they do nothing because they don't want to "rock the boat."

Iran has national sovereignty, but fails to act. Therefore, they are complicit in every terrorist act that comes out of their country. So, yes, it would be reasonable for a country attacked by Iran's terrorists to invade Iran and stop the terrorists. That's the only remaining solution.

Using a simple analogy, imagine your next door neighbor has a vicious dog. The dog wanders in and out of the yard at will, because the owner doesn't want to tie it up. Then the dog comes over to your house, kills your children, and goes home. You call the police, but they do nothing because your neighbor is making large bribe payments to the chief of police. Would you not go over and shoot the dog yourself?

I'm not suggesting that every such case REQUIRES a military response, but it does WARRANT such a response. It is necessary for a nation to defend its people, and they must take whatever measures necessary to get the job done.

Therefore, if Israel feels it is necessary to invade Lebanon after terrorists attacked from Lebanese soil, then nobody (least of all the lebanese government) has the right to complain. The lebanese government had their chance, but failed to act.

And likewise, U.S. Action in Afghanastan and Iraq are justified. Even discounting Iraq's involvement in 9/11 as unproven, Iraq has long sponsored terrorism. Our occupation of Iraq wasn't based solely on WMD, nor on a single terrorist action, but on a culture of government complicity in terrorism overall.

Answer 9

If we all agree that all people are entitled to basic human rights - then question in a sense is already answered!

Basic human rights - the right to live - therefore terrorism - in taking human life, etc, no they do not have a right.

yes nation states absolutly have the right to find justice for those whos basic human rights were stolen from them. And nation states have the right to defend themselves.

Answer 10

terrorists have not rights. they are terrorists. they are people who don't know the value of human life. terrorist are normally people who are not even concerned or sympathetic towards their own families. they have a line of thinking and they think according to it. they are oblivious to the fact that there is some other way of looking at the same situation.

but, if a nation thinks that they can get the terrorists to come to terms by pressuring them by attacking civilians such a thing is impossible. this is because, terrorists are not bothered about loss of lives even if it is their family.

the only way to deal with a terrorist is to get them and only them and all of them.