Why Terrorists Don't Deserve Citizen's Rights

Right now our Congress is working to give the benefits of our Constitution and domestic system of justice to enemy combatants not even covered under the Geneva Conventions.

Look where that gets you ...

AMSTERDAM - A Dutch appeals court said on Friday it was convinced of the terrorist intent of a teenager accused of planning to bomb prominent buildings, but upheld his acquittal as he had not gone far enough with his plot

another relevant item

The chilling words of two Italian-based Muslim extremists were released today as part of a 182 page indictment brought against them by Italian authorities, from The New Duranty Times:

I'm all for giving terrorists every right we expect as citizens, except one ... the right to life.

h/t reader M

Comments

[Northerner]

The problem is that it is hard to define exactly when someone is a terrorist.

Is someone a terrorist because he/she has radical religious ideas?
Is someone a terrorist when they have firearms or explosives in their possession?
Is someone a terrorist when they express sympathy for terrorists?
Is someone a terrorist when they think they have all the ingredients to make a bomb, but they turn out to be the wrong ingredients so it would never have worked (as is the case with one suspect in Holland)

See the problem? When exactly is someone a terrorist? I completely agree (short of torture) that a terrorist should be given the maximum sentence, but how do you define a terrorist?

[Northerner]

Of course it is easy to identify someone as a terrorist AFTER they have committed an attack. However, in these days of suicide terrorists, that is obviously too late. I just want to show that it is very hard (at least in a legal sense) to identify terrorists BEFORE they strike.

[bill]

and what exactly is a "right"?
The Declaration of Independence says that
all men are "endowed by their creator with
certain unalienable rights"--ie, you don't have
rights because you are a citizen, but because
you are a human being...
The Constitution, in Article XIV says
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Note that it doesn't say "citizen",
but "person".

[TheAlamo]

ee the problem? When exactly is someone a terrorist? I completely agree (short of torture) that a terrorist should be given the maximum sentence, but how do you define a terrorist?

Posted by: Northerner | Nov 18, 2005 1:23:24 PM

You nailed the problem. What IS a terrorist? Until we have a solid defintion, then virtually anyone can be deemed a terrorist.

However, trying to give rights to persons who are not even citizens seems a bit dilusional by those who think they can somehow guarantee these people are treated justly. Americans have never had to resort to torture, and therefore before now, prisoners rights were not an issue. We defeated both Japan and Germany at the same time, without resorting to violation of basic human rights.
Studies have shown that torture is negligible in getting positive information from combatants. Those being tortured will not give the correct data, but in most cases will give some data. However it is usually faulty, or an outright lie.

I think it is dangerous ground to have an elastic definition of "terrorism." This gives politicians the power to declare what were heretofore domestic crimes as acts of terrorism, and gives them a wide open door to designate "new crimes" such as "hate speech" as acts of terrorism. Hardly consistent with a free society.

It does seem rather interesting that while we are embarking on previously un-American activities via our treatment of prisoners of war, that we, at the same time are designating new crimes here at home as well...such as "hate speech."

That is consistent with communist or fascist countries, but highly inconsistent with a free republic.

Makes you wonder.

[7thson]

The problem is that it is hard to define exactly when someone is a terrorist.

Is someone a terrorist because he/she has radical religious ideas?
Is someone a terrorist when they have firearms or explosives in their possession?
Is someone a terrorist when they express sympathy for terrorists?
Is someone a terrorist when they think they have all the ingredients to make a bomb, but they turn out to be the wrong ingredients so it would never have worked (as is the case with one suspect in Holland)

See the problem? When exactly is someone a terrorist? I completely agree (short of torture) that a terrorist should be given the maximum sentence, but how do you define a terrorist?

Is someone a terrorist if they don't think the same as Dubya? ("You're either with us or against us.")

[!]

Dutch bomb plot not advanced enough for conviction
(Reuters)

18 November 2005

Now we know why they screwed up the Natalee Holloway case so bad. These folks are a joke.

[Dan]

nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Note that it doesn't say "citizen",
but "person".

Note that it says "jurisdiction." Clearly the American legal system DOES NOT have jurisdiction over a battlefield, otherwise every soldier who killed an enemy would be guilty of murder. The battlefield is the province of the executive branch. If the legislature wishes to withold funds, that is their right - but neither the legislative branch nor the judiciary have any direct control over the battlefield.