Do terrorists have legal or human rights?

Question

The law of land warfare clearing makes killing unarmed civilians a war crime. It further makes the conduct of combat without a uniform an illegal combatant that can be executed as a spy. In no way, does the law of land warfare indicate a POW is entitled to a trial.

Instead, we put terroristic criminals in a tropical jail cell, feed them 3 square halal meals a day and give them all the items they need to perform their religion. We treat them as well as any POW ever has been treated, though they could be rightfully executed under the law.

NOW, lets look at how they treat hostages they call POWs:
BAGHDAD - Insurgents linked to al-Qaida issued a video Monday claiming they killed all three U.S. soldiers captured in an ambush last month. "They were alive and then dead," a voice said during a sequence of images that included the military IDs of two Americans still missing.

Life in a Guantanamo jail cell is probably better than they've ever had. How do they deserve more?

Many of those (if not all) DID kill civilians and/or soldiers. What punishment would you impose on them /or/ on those terrorists in the most recent crime, if you were to capture them?

Jim, while terrorists are criminal, the people you cited were not POWs when tried. Some (Nazi's) were war criminals and tried AFTER the war to prevent their release. NOT during the war.

Answer 1

I believe that every person deserves human rights, as described by Locke, but human ("natural") rights are forfiet when you become unnatural (say, killing an unnarmed person). Terrorists held and detained by the US gov't are to be treated as POWs and nothing more, and should be under the same jurisdiction as most POW laws, except the Geneva convention, since these terrorists are not affiliated with any nation that signed the treaty/agreement.

In other words: They have thier rights to live (as a prisoner) and should not have all these others rights that others rally for them: access to public (and some private) documents, we should not coddle them (unless we think that will make them more agreeable to interrogation... and that's a whole new matter in itself).

Answer 2

Yes. Under our system of laws everyone has rights. Nazi and Japanese war criminals were put on trial, as well as Timothy McVeigh, Charles Manson, child murderers, serial killers, even Saddam Hussein!

Add to that the fact that many of the prisoners are not terrorists at all, and we should support their rights to a trial.

I notice that "U.S. Army's Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare" actually says "73. Persons Committing Hostile Acts Not Entitled To Be Treated as Prisoners of War...he is not entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war. He is, however, a "protected person" within the meaning of Article 4, GC"

Answer 3

the theory is this, if we treat POWs well our captured soldiers will receive the same treatment. This may work for a civilized people but under islamic law, it is better to murder the captives than to act like human beings, and at the same time DEMAND respect for their behaviour.
During the Second World War , POW's were treated better than they were in friendly Germany under the Geneva Convention, The mid- east countries do not live by this system as they do not comprehend how to treat prisoners other than to murder un armed people.
Maybe if we lowered ourselves to their level and started to behead their captured agents, they would not be in a hurry to do what do, but than there is the (ya right) virgins they get in heaven

Answer 4

This is the basic flaw in the democrats approach to terrorism. They don't see it as a war. They see it as a law enforcement issue. That is the main reason Clinton would not accept Bin Ladin from the Sudanese. He and Janet Reno did not think they had enough evidence to convict him.

They don't seem to understand that law enforcement is pretty much an after the fact sort of approach. It comes into effect after a crime has already been committed and relies on standard rules of evidence that simply cannot work in such massively destructive attacks as 9/11. These are not crimes in the legal sense they are act of war and need to be dealt with head on.

.

Answer 5

It's all politics, though the terrorist treats our servicemen less than how we would treat their POW's, and most of the times that our servicemen come back home in a casket. They are still humans but they to me they don't have legal rights but to be treated like a human. However, if we treated them like animals, wouldn't we as a civilized nation stooped to the same stature as they are? They don't deserve more, but we still have to make an example that we are better than them by not executing them the way our sons have been executed by them, no matter what we want to be a better person.
On the other hand, I prefer that we take out all of our troops, and just drop a couple of MOAB and that'll fix them. Hey, it worked in WWII, I'm quites sure it'll work again, since MOAB is not Nuclear like the one we drop in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we don't have to worry about nuclear winter or fall out.

Answer 6

Disagree. till somebody has actual been shown responsible and convicted of against the regulation British regulation presumes they are harmless, so they are entitled to each and all of the criminal safeguards offered to any uk citizen. removing rights because of the fact somebody is suspected of being a terrorist is the beginning up of an rather dodgy highway - as quickly as the assumption is conceded for suspected terrorists, who could be next? Suspected murderers, economic employer robbers, drug sellers, earnings fraudsters, shoplifters...?

Answer 7

Art. 47 defines Mercenaries and says you have to treat them according to Art 75.
The Geneva Convention does not allow anyone to treat a pig like a pig.
It's tough being the good guy.

Answer 8

If they are human, then they deserve human rights, and bringing ourselves down to the level of the terrorists just make us no better than them.
The prisoners in Guantanamo did not kill those soldiers. Its horrible what happened but lets punish the ones that actually did something, and not the prisoners just because they hate us and we want revenge.





They haven't been tried or convicted in Gitmo.

Answer 9

if the guys in gitmo are terrorists, then they need to be charged, tried and punished.

period.

cons need to do their social experiments in some other nation other than the usa.

here we have the rule of law - for law abiding and criminal alike - we have rule of law.

i really am left to wonder what part of that the cons don't understand...

Answer 10

I agree with bigsea93manny 24.