jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (17 posts)

Should terrorists be entitled to human rights?

  1. Seeker7 profile image97
    Seeker7posted 7 years ago

    Should terrorists be entitled to human rights?

    For example, If a person has been involved in acts of terrorism should these deliberate acts automatically forfeit any human rights they may have been entitled to? Example -    a terrorist getting out of prison early because of terminal illness so he can be with his family? I use this because one of the Lockerbie bombers was released in my own country due to supposedly prostate cancer. The feelings of the Scottish people was anger at another terrorist being pampered (maybe because of money) when victims and their families are yet again slighted and forgotten.

  2. MickS profile image70
    MickSposted 7 years ago

    When society incarcerates a criminal, it suspends some of that person's human rights, it also suspends the human rights of those members of the family who are innocent of any criminal activity.  It is not just the compassion to the inmate who is dying, but also the compassion afforded those family members to spend last times with the patient.
    One of the things that sets society above the terrorist is compassion, if we abandon compassion we are no better than the murderer.

  3. nightwork4 profile image59
    nightwork4posted 7 years ago

    this is a tricky question. i don't think everyone that is deemed a terrorist is actually one first off. secondly when your a small group trying to fight a massively powerful military, terrorism may be the only way to do it. now if you are someone who sets up people to go into markets and just kill people randomly , you shouldn't go to prison, you should be shot.

  4. ptosis profile image71
    ptosisposted 7 years ago


    The definition of "unalienable rights," is those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred

    When the Tuscon Shooting happened recently - my friend said that he should be treated as a terrorist - I asked what different punishment would be given - He didn't know.   Each state has different laws in punishment.

    There is already a law on the books for extra punishment if kill a Federal Judge while in the course of duty.   When Obama said the Judge just came by "to visit his friend " - some critics argued that Obama had hurt the Fed's chances to give extra punishment to that crazy nut.

    Personally think the guy is crazy and not a terrorist - but that doesn't preclude a crazy terrorist.  Define insanity versus terrorist.   

    BTW: The real reason for letting go lifers when they get old & sick is NOT compassion but because of $$$$$$$ - the state does not want to pay for the medical bills - if released to family - no more medical coverage....

    Even Charlie Manson will be released - only to die from old age

  5. Wayne Brown profile image84
    Wayne Brownposted 7 years ago

    In terms of "human rights", I think you forfeit those when you consider such acts against humanity.  As for "humane treatment" which is what you may be implying, I think as Americans we are all for that in most instances.  I will not stand for human treatment as a shield to protect information that would save the lives of other Americans but otherwise I certainly can see a reasonable level of human treatment especially in the interim prior to conviction. WB

  6. wingedcentaur profile image83
    wingedcentaurposted 7 years ago

    If we fail to give human rights to human beings, no matter what they've done, can we fairly call ourselves human, then?

  7. peterxdunn profile image60
    peterxdunnposted 7 years ago

    There were originally two suspects that supposedly conspired together to plant the bomb on the 747 that exploded over Lockerbie. The case against one of them was dismissed out of court. The case against the remaining suspect hinged upon where the bomb was actually placed aboard the aircraft - the prosecution argued that the bomb was planted in Germany. However there was evidence - never presented in court - that a security cage: where the baggage was stored overnight, at Heathrow Airport was broken into on the night in question.

    Also, Scottish policemen - who were first on the scene on the night of the tragedy - also complained that entries in their notebooks were changed after the books were confiscated by the FBI.

    Something else that you need to consider is the difference between a 'freedom fighter' and a "terrorist'. A 'freedom fighter' is a 'terrorist' fighting on our side. A 'terrorist' is a 'freedom fighter' fighting on theirs.

    It 's a murky old world out there.

  8. Seeker7 profile image97
    Seeker7posted 7 years ago

    Thanks to all who have written so far.

    I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the decison to release terrorist offenders early on compassionate grounds, I use it as an example. I would agree that if we do loose all compassion then we are no better than those who slaughter defenceless people. I don't think the real issue is, if they are terrorists or freedom fighters.
    But it does seem that in many cases there is a lot of talk and shouting about human rights for people who have deliberately taken human lives - whether they be terrorists or freedom fighters. But I do feel that the victims and their loved ones that are left behind are forgotten time and time again. They too are serving a sentence, but there is no release for them.

  9. shynsly profile image57
    shynslyposted 7 years ago

    One key issue might be the terrorist's own mentality... in the case of the Lockerbie bomber, that's a situation where the people affected by his actions should have had the final say, but he probably wasn't much of a risk anymore.

    In terms of terrorists such as Al Qaeda, keep in mind that these people are fanatics, should they be released in a situation like that, you can pretty well guarantee the first thing they're going to do is attempt another terrorist attack.

    I think the best answer I can personally offer is, A) it depends on your definition of "human rights" and, B) it depends on the individual situation... case by case.

    They should be given the basics they need to survive but are unable to provide for themselves in prison ... food, water, shelter, and medical treatment. Anything else beyond that is up for debate, to say the least.

  10. profile image0
    Butch Newsposted 7 years ago

    When we deny human rights for any reason we are no longer humans but animals.  Letting someone out of prison upon compassionate grounds is not a basic human right.  Human rights are about personal dignity, not torturing people, and a chance to live a life with some meaning.  If that means educating prisoners, and providing them with a future, what is wrong with that?

    Retribution is not going to solve an injustice nor make up for it.

    There are some who should never be set free but they should be given a chance of life with dignity.

  11. justom profile image69
    justomposted 7 years ago

    It would depend on your definition of a terrorist. You know what they say..one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. I think the world banking system and wall streets greedy cronies are terrorists, just in disguise. Think about it!

  12. davidseeger profile image61
    davidseegerposted 7 years ago

    Before or after they are convicted by a court of law?

  13. Stump Parrish profile image61
    Stump Parrishposted 7 years ago

    The constitution and bill of rights applies equally to all in this country. Do any here feel that the punishment depends upon the terrorist act that was committed? In my opinion it matters not if it is the twin towers coming down or an abortion doctor being killed. The only thing that changes is the god ordering the murder. Of course a lot in America feel their god trumps all others and therefore, anything they do is for the glory of their god. Come to think of it it's the same with those who attack America due to the hundreds of thousands of innocent children we have murdered simply to keep the war machine churning out profits.

  14. wilbury4 profile image72
    wilbury4posted 7 years ago

    My simple answer is NO! But I think that many criminals, especially murderers and rapists should be denied most human rights. What rights did these people grant to their victims? Removing human rights is the punishment for the crimes that have been committed.

  15. smelloftruth profile image59
    smelloftruthposted 7 years ago

    That Lockerbie bomber was a mistake. If he was indeed dying, then to me he should at least given the last right. But the fact that he isn't, that thing turned the world upside down.

  16. legallchew profile image55
    legallchewposted 7 years ago

    Even if proven guilty, Human rights are "inherent and unalienable." thus, these cannot be take away from them despite their unthinkable acts, sadly.

  17. BiGVoNN profile image58
    BiGVoNNposted 7 years ago

    for me it's a BIG NO....... Because i my self is a victim of terrorism in saudi that change my life and my looks....... Visit my profile for my life story....