[loborojo]

NO! Terrorists forfeit their human rights with their first act of terrorism.

[pissant]

Nope. Firing squad.

[Kenton]

Does Human Rights Law Apply to Terrorists?

Not any more than hunting regulations apply to killing rats in your barn...

[steve in DC]

There area several issues that come to bear here.

One is the fact that the terrorists are not "signatories" to the Geneva Convention. Therefore, it is arguable as to whether they should be accorded considerations that they, themselves, do not accord to others.

Two is that, under Article 4 Section 2 of the Geneva Convention (the only part of the Geneva Convention that, reasonably could be bent to apply to the internees at Gitmo) the fact that these terrorists are neither: "...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance..." nor are they "...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Thus they are not "Prisoners of War" as defined under the terms of the Geneva Convention.

[wbillh]

Wow, that's very well researched. I have a couple of questions. First however I would like to state that I have no sympathy for those who would wage war on our country and support our actions in Iraq 100%. So here I go.

1. I have heard it said that we offered bounties/rewards for information that lead to the arrest/detention of terrorists. People were pointed out (Pakistani and Afghani)
and whisked away to gitmo. I guess my question is what measures are being taken to ensure that these people are in fact terrorists and not innocents caught up in a sweep.
(I am NOT suggesting civilian trials but at least military tribunals where these people can contest their Detention.

2. American Citizens should be given the full protection of the constitution. (Due process etc.) If they are picked up fighting for the enemy (Johnny Taliban) why is there not a process by which they can first be stripped of citizenship and then prosecuted secretly by military tribunal if state secrets are involved.

I guess all I really am concerned about is checks and balances. Surely there must be some mechanism through which judicial oversight can be applied, prisoners protest their innocence etc. that does not compromise National Security.

[funkywbr]

Only if LIBERALLY applied!

[Robert357]

A very scholarly discussion.

The liberals need to focus on certain facts. Are terrorists and those fighting with terrorists part of an army?

Do they were uniforms? Are they subject to a recognizable legitiate code of conduct that requires them to follow certain conventions of war and if they don't is the organization supporting them discipline them for their crimes? Are there reasonable age requirements on their service, i.e. is there minimum age of service?

Maybe we should also look at piracy and how that has been treated by governments?

It is my opinion the "loosely organized terrorists" are definately not comon criminals and should not have the same rights as a "common criminal." In my opinion terrorists are also not soldiers and should not have the rights afforded to true soldiers. In my opinion terrorists are as discussed in the article much like spies and sabatours or possibly even pirates.

Society has developed laws and rights to protect citizens from being unfairly declared criminals. Those rights were developed to balance society's needs agains that of the individual who may be falsely accused when that individual is acting alone. Our laws have had a hard time dealing with "organized crime" in a way that protects society. Similarly our criminal laws are not designed to deal with organized terrorists, esecially not organized internationalist terrorists being funded by Saudi oil wealth and certain governments under the cover of "religion."

[elbucko]

Does Human Rights Law Apply to Terrorists?

Only insofar as is their willingness to quid pro quo in the letter and spirit of the law. Terrorists, by their own writ, have excluded themselves from any human rights recognition.

[KC Burke]

fyi