Should Terrorists be entitled to the same legal rights we should?

[DamianTV]

Now before you answer, just one thing for you to think about. Lead by example. If we want rights when going into a court room, such as Habeus Corpus (rip), Trial by a Jury of your Peers (rip), Ex Post Facto (rip), Right to an Attorney (rip), well Im sure everyone has heard the Miranda rights that dont exist.

If we did have one of the real terrorists that attacked and killed any American on american soil (like US Embasies), should we give them the same treatment as we would an American? Not better, not worse, but the same? Innocent until proven guilty...

[Man from La Mancha]

Wow I was the 1st one for a yes. "Our sacred constitutional rights, they must apply to everyone or they mean nothing at all" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b56e0u0EgQ:D

.

[VishIX]

Depends on what you mean by terrorist. If they are like the 9/11 hijackers then no, but if they are insurgents then yes. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[Swmorgan77]

There are two separate issues here:

"legal rights" is a misleading term. Rights do not come by virtue of statuatory law. They come by virtue of natural law. Statuatory law is enacted to protect rights which exist previously, independently and are inherent to the human condition.

Terrorists have rights because they are human. They got them from the same creator that an American citizen got them from. They don't get them BECAUSE they are terrorists, nor do they lose them when they use the tactic of terrorism. An act of terrorist killing is a violation of another's rights and should be punished, but we don't need to strip the offender of their rights in order to do so. The point is to punish the crime, or the violation of right, not to see who gets to have them. The appropriate respoonse to terrorism is to punish the crimes committed, not to try to create a status of individuals who we do not legally acknowledge the rights of.

Now, is a non-citizen entitled to the full judicial process in a country where he is not a citizen in order to assert those rights? No, probably not... but Habeous Corpus (the basic right to have a hearing and know the charges against you) is fundamental and is not something that should only be extended to citizens.

You don't derive any "Right" from your citizenship. You get priveliges from your citizenship, which are entitlements that exist only within the context of the framework of the government which you are a citizen of.. such as voting.

A "Right" is something intrinsic and self-evident and which exists independently of the framework of the state. It is what the state is created in order to protect.

[Dequeant]

I'm not answering this poll for the following reason:

Who decides what a "terrorist" is.

You obviously mean should the government extend the same rights to them as us, so you MUST mean the government's opinion of "terrorist". Since our founding fathers fit their definition of "terrorist" perfectly, i say yes, we should extend to them the same rights we have.

If you stay in the "revolution" after Ron Paul is gone.....you may up being a "terrorist" too, so do you want the same rights you enjoy today?

It's a slippery slope, and you've already shown your willingness to jump off head first.

[PaleoForPaul]

Non-citizens should not be treated as citizens.

Terrorists should be given military trials.