Should terrorists and suspected terrorists have the right to due-process?

Answer 1

The answer to this is that it depends on the circumstances of capture. If they are captured by by a law-enforcement agency and do not meet the legal requirements to be declared a 'combatant' (only combatants can become POWs) then they should be tried as criminals.

However if the are captured by the military during combat operations then they fall under a different set of rules. In this case a determination is made of their legal status at the time of capture. If they do not meet the Hague Convention rules for 'combatant' status then they are not allowed to claim POW status.

Technically - under International Law it would be legal for the US to have held a battlefield tribunal at the place of capture, then shot them as unlawful combatants.

Answer 2

Depends what their nationality is, where they were captured and what they were doing.

If they were captured fighting against US troops, then they get military tribunal due-process. That's all they deserve - those types have no right to US courts. Even if the illegal combatants in Gitmo were given full POW rights, that still does not entail US Court due process.

But in a domestic capture, that is a little different. One of the problems is that for national security reasons, the prosecution may not be able to give out all the information, especially how law-enforcement became aware of the suspects, how they were detected, etc.

Answer 3

Yes, what's the harm in it? If they are terrorists, then they should be duly processed and duly punished. Is it that the Bush administration doesn't want due process so it can rush these potential terrorists away to jail / death?

A lot of the Gitmo detainees aren't even terrorists or accessories to terrorism, but they remain there because no one knows how to determine if they are or not. That's not fair, and that kind of criminal activity is going to breed future generations of terrorism as it fans the flames of hatred against the US.

Answer 4

Absolutely. This affords each American due process. Do you recall the Salem witch trials? In that hideous situation, a select group with an agenda was able to have many people executed--and there was no way for those people to defend themselves. Due process being afforded to EVERY defendent protect you, me, and every other person.

Answer 5

convinced. the major note on your question is "suspected". they could not be terrorists in spite of each thing, and to that end due procedure is major so as now to not leap to conclusions and administer injustice extremely of justice. we do not extremely understand no matter if Saddam Hussein were given due procedure or a kangaroo courtroom.

Answer 6

If they were not legal citizens of the U.S., I don't think they have any rights at all. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Bill of Rights applies to illegals. If you can't prove you belong here, you don't have the right to remain silent, you don't have the right to an attorney, and an attorney sure as hell will not be appointed to you!

Criminals and terrorists get more rights than the victims these days. What about those who lost someone? Where are their rights? Stupid ACLU communist liberal nazis.

Answer 7

Of course. Not to provide due process is to mock our own ideals and essentially make our justice system no better than the systems employed in the countries where the terrorism originates.

Answer 8

I would say they should, otherwise I could come and kill you, claim you were a terrorist, and be off the hook. It would be a witch hunt. He looked at me funny, he's a terrorist, she stole my parking spot that terrorist.

Answer 9

Um...what does the term inalienable rights mean to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights

Or are American values truly only meant for Americans?

Answer 10

suspected terrorists should not known terrorists