Do you think that terrorists should be allowed human rights?

Question

i think they should be tortured!

not just randomly, but i think torture methods should be used to extract information, to save other peoples lives!! theyre happy to kill people and hold information that could save many innocent lives! if the only way the extract this information from the bastards is by causing pain, i say bring out the blow torch!!

Answer 1

Yes. Even the worst among us deserve basic human rights. Otherwise, we become the terrorists. This does not mean that in a battle a person should not be able to kill his enemy, it means that when a prisoner is in custody, they should not be subject to torture, and that everyone is entitled to a fair trial.

Answer 2

Bush has done a pretty good job of getting human rights. In the fight against terrorism he has done away with haebius corpus, the right to a speedy and trial. Which means that anyone suspected of being a terrorist may be locked away indefinitely leaving the American people safe for Democracy, right?

Wrong, what that means is anyone that the executive branch or the military that it controls (commander and chief) can lock up anyone they want as long as they label them a "terrorist" with no hope for a trial or access to advocates, representation, or any human rights.

This used to be a free country, but throw out the Constitution and all you are left with is an evolving dictatorship.

One last thought: Remember the Minutemen? Those freedom fighters that helped the colonies separate from the crown? King George labeled them "terrorists."
It all depends on whose side you are on.

Answer 3

I think we are all agreed that there is absolutely no excuse for such acts & there never will be. Even evil doesn't seem to be a strong enough word.
However, define 'terrorist'.
Does wearing the uniform of a soldier & belonging to a recognised military mean that such acts don't fall under the category of terrorist where innocent woman & children are being targeted, especially if it is a friendly government that is guilty?
Or does being a politician provide license to order such extremes?
And for that matter do you know of any country where we have allowed known terrorists to become respectable politicians, because it was politically expedient? There is more than one.
When does terrorism become legit? When it does & we accept it, then we have a double standard.
It is easy to jump on the sabre-rattling bandwagon & vent our anger at such atrocities, but unless we apply the same standard to one & all, whether a legit government or misguided individual then the problem will not go away.
All life is sacrosanct.

Answer 4

I think that we need to separate a couple of issues.
Firstly, we cannot just arrest and torture people who may look like terrorists. Anyone suspected must be given due process of the law (but for **** sake don't let them roam free) or we are on the road to anarchy.
However, if we are talking about the slimy gits in the car (or those that we have proven 100% to be terrorists), then for me there is no doubt about what they were up to. They should use every effort to get essential information out of them to save the innocent who will die in the future. For me, if this means that their (sub) human rights are violated then so be it. My human right is to live in peace and they constantly violate my rights.
If this was war as they say; then as they are wearing civilian clothes and living as civilians, then surely under the Geneva convention they can be shot as spies!

Answer 5

If a person is tortured the person being tortured is liable to say anything to relieve the immediate pain and so cannot be relied on as evidence.If you cannot gather enough evidence then as with every person in the UK you are INNOCENT until proved GUILTY.A basic human right.How would you feel if you were accused of a crime you didn't commit would you be prepared to be tortured to gain a confession from you.We could go on and on but what I would say is if you can prove that a person is guilty of any act of terrorism then they should be prepared to die by execution.They have then been proved to have taken away the victims human rights and so should be prepared to sacrifice their human rights

Answer 6

Human beings have human rights - i.e. civil, political, economic and social rights, enshrined in many different international instruments. Defined in this way, terrorists have human rights.

But the question is asking for a normative assessment of whether terrorists should be allowed human rights in a way that isnt making the point. The point is: once terrorists are by definition labelled as such they constitute criminals, and should they be allowed human rights? The answer to this question is simple: terrorists once convicted have many civil and political rights withdrawn from them at once- their liberty is withdrawn for example, they have limited property rights and so on. But until convicted they have not been labelled terrorists in the eyes of the law and should have human rights such as a right to due process because this is part of fundamental notions of natural justice and fairness.

Answer 7

Terrorists, no, but suspected terrorists have the right to a fair trial. Once it has been proven that's what they are, they lose all rights as far as I am concerned. If they kill and maim in their misguided interpretation of whatever religion they hold, then they should be punished similarly. In Christian doctrine they quote "an eye for an eye". I am not sure about Islam, but I guess there is something similar there. Islam, as well as any lasting religion must have a central tenet that life is sacred I feel sure.

Answer 8

Absolutely not. The reasons they are called terrorists are because they took those human rights from other innocent people. As far as I'm concerned, not only should they not have ANY human rights, they should all rot in hell.

And since people want to look deeper into it. What if we could make robots that's looked and acted like humans and had programmed emotions? Should they be granted human rights? Even if there was almost no way to tell the difference? So, basically, I'm asking you, what constitutes being a human? Killing babies and women, beheading their father? Raping the women in front of their entire families? Blowing up hundreds of innocent people? I don't think they are any more human than that robot is.

Answer 9

An extremely important principle is at stake here. Once you condone torture, you render yourself and your entire family liable to torture.
For the most part, only suspects are tortured. A person will admit to anything he/she believes the torturer wants to hear. Any name mentioned under torture will cause the named person to become a suspect and thus liable to the same.
If you don't adhere to due process and the rule of law, you effectively give me and anyone else the right to do whatever we want to you.

Answer 10

If you admit that certain categories of persons should be denied human rights, you admit the possibility that you could be denied the same rights. Someone might accuse you of being a terrorist, and you would then regret that you denied the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture to terrorists.

Answer 11

Human rights should always be applied. Torture will provide the answers they are looking for but not always the correct answer. Persistent questioning and refusal to take "no comment" as an answer, will usually provide the information needed. It takes time, but there is no quick answer .