What Rights Should We Give Terrorists?

Strangely enough, the terrorists HAVE won, simply because the current administration and their media counterparts are willing to sacrifice over 200 years of freedom just to extend their own power. I suppose that if you really believe the Bushism that “they hate us for our freedom”, then appeasing the terrorists by scrapping that freedom might seem to be a proper course of action, but why are Republicans so willing to give into the terrorists?

Last I checked “Liberal” wasn’t a political affiliation in the United States. Liberal and Conservative are used to show what direction someone’s views go. Republicans can be liberals! In fact, the Republicans currently inhabiting the White House are INCREDIBLY liberal. But they’re FISCALLY LIBERAL, and SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE. Liberal DOES NOT mean Democrat. Hell, until the 60s and 70s, Republicans had the views of Modern Democrats, and Democrats had the views of Modern Republicans.

Ron Paul is a Republican. He’s socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Most people call him a Libertarian. The polar opposite of the Bush Administration, they’re fiscally liberal and socially conservative. There are socially conservative and fiscally conservative Democrats. Libertarians are socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

So, this page is doing a dis-service to many people who read it and continues to perpetuate the lack of political debate and lumps unrelated groups of political affiliations together.

for the most part i agree with this post, governments do not give us rights, we are born with them. In fact in most societies at most points in history, including the here and now, the actions of States can best be characterized as limiting freedom rather then safeguarding or conferring it.. In other words, the institution of the State is fundamentally opposed to the institution of natural rights because the state gains power as the people lose it and vis versa. As the old anarchist proverb puts it, “the degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free”.

The American experiment, as envisioned by the founders, was based on the proposition that the state could be restrained and limited through a constitutional system whereby its powers were strictly delineated and it was explicitly forbidden from granting itself additional powers. That experiment has manifestly been a failure since the entire history of the American nation can be best understood as a series of parallel territorial and government expansions as the United stated grew from being a small nation built around a federation of 13 semi-autonomous regions tied together with a relatively weak central government into into a massive empire covering almost half a continent based on a strong central government that is active in all aspects of life and the economy.

In short, the nation which is described in the constitution and the nation in which we live are two very, very different places. The constitution has been a dead letter for a very long time, it’s only real value at this point is sentimental, the federal government has not been bound by its strict limitations on the exercise of State power for a very very long time. This should surprise no one, expecting the State to regulate itself and limit its own power was, at best., an exercise in political naivete. At worst it was a cynical ploy on the part of some of our more authoritarian founders to get the fiercely independent American colonists to accept a strong federal government. Men like James Madison for whom the primary role of government was not the preservation of liberty, but “to protect Property from the Majority”, ie the preservation of the wealth and power of the economic and political elites at the expense of all other segments of society. The anti-federalists saw the ruse for what it was and fought the constitution tooth and nail, and we can thank their persistence for the Bill of Rights, without which this particular battle would have been lost a long time ago.

All of which is a rather long-winded way of saying that it is difficult to defend a free society when we do not, in fact, have one to defend. The Republicans, and most Democrats for that matter, would like our society to be even less free. Their efforts should be opposed, no doubt. But those efforts do not make them “radicals” and your use of the term to describe them is disingenuous at best. The word “Radical” refers to one who goes to the root of the issue, not simply one who is an extremist. (Even the term extremist is problematic, one mans wild-eyed extremist is another mans pragmatic thinker, depending mostly on context and popular biases)..

I, sir, am a Radical, and in a society like ours where most discussions of political issues and theory are incredibly shallow i consider it a point of pride that I make a conscious effort to dig a bit deeper and look for the roots of the issues I write on. The Republicans are not Radicals in any sense of the term, they are worshipers of Authority and the State, a position which places them counter to the stated intent of the Declaration of Independence and most American political theory but entirely in line with the actual practice of American political power over the last two centuries. The disconnect between the ideals that we as a nation love to proclaim and the way American politics actually run goes right to the core of your article and of the entire debate over terrorism, rights, and what the response from civil society should be.

You are right to argue that a sane response to terrorism must be careful, nuanced, and respectful of those few rights which we as a people maintain, but when you talk about “limiting” rights you walk a very fine line indeed. So when you write in one of your responses

“We, as citizens, give up many rights – and that is appropriate. We may have the right to pursue our happiness, but not necessarily at the expense of others. The system of rights that we enjoy in America today, and in America’s history, is a system of compromises. Although the Bill of Rights may grant you a right to free speech, this right is not absolute. The Constitution grants me the right to bear arms, but how far does that extend? The freedom of assembly is impinged by numerous regulations about applying for permits and such. If I travel on the subways, I am told that I am granting permission to have my bag searched. Even these explicit Constitutional rights are compromised”

You have already lost me. The bill of Rights doesn’t “grant” anything, it recognizes pre-exzisting rights and prohibits the government from interfering with their exercise. Strangely, it seems you wrote something similar in your original article, but in your response here you clearly contradict yourself and take the Republican line. As for the rest of your paragraph, the only possible abuse of Free Speech is not speaking. Period. The freedom of Assembly according to the constitution should be unlimited, the first amendment is a clear blanket prohibition against limitations of its exercise by the State, and all the permitting processes and limitations that the State places on its exercise are therefore unconstitutional and illegal under what is supposed to be the highest law of the land. And riding on the subway most definitely should not imply ‘consent’ to be searched. By conceding limitations on our rights you have already conceded to the Authoritarians in both parties who would like nothing better then to see America become the newest incarnation of Roman Republicanism instead of the Athenian Democracy it should have been. Freedom has to be absolute or else it isn’t freedom, it’s a less egregious form of slavery.

As for me, your rallying call of “Bigger Cages, Longer Chains!” fails to move me. Better luck next time.

As a society of laws that believes in rights, the question you SHOULD have posed was: What rights should we give to people we suspect are terrorists? If you’ll note, a fair amount of the Bill of Rights is devoted to ensuring the right to a fair trial. The fact that some people have been released from Guantanamo after a long incarceration apparently guilty of no crime at all adds weight to this perspective. It is a simple fact that we believe in “innocent before proven guilty”, and not the other way around. As such, everyone, terrorists or not, must have the same rights.

The question itself indicates what is wrong with the entire debate. “What rights should we give terrorists?” implies guilt before trial. So, even the author of this question has agreed that the assumption of guilt is sufficient for conviction. We have decided they are guilty before trial. Once they are convicted legally this becomes a somewhat legitimate question, although then the question should rightly be :should convicted terrorists be subject to unique punishment, or are they subject to the same set of laws all citizens of this country? Having gotten this far in my response, I have read some of the other responses and realize I am just reiterating the same point. Still, the point is valid.

A person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. Pointing the finger at someone and calling him or her a terrorist does not make this person a terrorist. Believing without any doubt whatsoever, being absolutely convinced that a person is a terrorist, does not make this person a terrorist.

That’s basic stuff, right?

Consider the case of Mr Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen renditioned by the United States to Syria for torture. He was treated like a criminal based on unfounded suspicions and lousy intelligence analysis from Canada, condemned de facto by an arbitrary extra-judicial process in the United-States in the course of an evening, deported to Syria where he remained for over a year, being interrogated and tortured at the implicit request of the Canadian and American governments for their war on terror. Mr Arar, while being detained in New York in September 2002, was a terrorist to the the immigration officers, to the FBI and to the CIA. At the hands of his torturers in Syria, Mr Arar was a terrorist. To CSIS, the RCMP and the Canadian government officials visiting him in Syria for the better part of 2003, Mr Arar was a terrorist. He was getting what he deserved. Of course, it was not very nice having to do this. After all, rendition and torture were not the investigative tools of choice. But these were other times. America was under attack, the gloves were coming off, and some dirty business had to be done. A necessary evil.

Mr Arar has survived his ordeal. He is now a free man. After a lengthy investigation and a full inquiry, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on 26 January 2007 has issued a formal apology to Mr Arar and paid him $12.5 million in compensation for the irreparable damages done to him and his family. All evidence in the Arar case were scrutinized ad nauseam, no stones were left unturned during the inquiry and internal investigations, and Mr Arar was cleared of any links with Al Qaeda, terrorist activities, or association or sympathy with terrorist organizations. All admit now that there was just nothing there. Just lousy, fragmentary, and erroneous intelligence. The kind of intelligence that gets innocent people killed. In September 2002, Maher Arar was simply returning home from a vacation in Tunisia. No less, no nore. That’s it. A guy on a stop in New York, on is way home to Canada, after a vacation in Tunisia.

Someone at the airport in New York in September 2002 should have taken the time to think this through. Someone should have been very patient. There was no crisis. Nothing had to be rushed. There was no life-or-death situation. But Mr Arar was muslim, and he was on a list. So on that day in September 2002, Canada and the United States abandoned Mr Arar. Had he not been muslim, he would not have been abandoned by his country.

What rights should be given to terrorists? I guess we should give terrorists those same rights I hope I’ll have on that dreadful evening, during a stop in a foreign airport, when someone pulls out a piece of paper from a file, looks into my eyes, and makes the call that I am a terrorist: “Should we disappear him? Should we interrogate him? He’s on the watch list…. What did the last memo say on rights? What rights do terrorists have?”

Give them those same rights you and I think we still have as citizens of democratic countries. Give them those same rights. Give them those rights you and I will want on that evening, when something goes very wrong, when there seems to be no one around with common sense, and when a single breath still separates us from an aircraft leaving for nowhere. For God’s sake, give them those same rights.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

you wrote:

“As to you comment that freedom has 0% chance of enslaving anyone – you are right if you list those rights contained in the Bill of Rights. But if freedom is defined as “the ability to act without constraint”, you can see how the absolute freedom of any person leads to less freedom for others.”

correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t those the very same rights you’re talking about limiting and compromising away? Because I could’ve sworn that you used your “compromise is necessary” argument. in your article you go so far as to list specific abridgments of those rights that you are willing to accept. You then accuse me of being unreasonable for being unwilling to compromise and imply that my uncompromising defense of the bill of rights has the potential to enslave others, and then try to backpedal out of it all by saying that I’m right after all and the rights enshrined in the first ten amendments to the constitution won’t actually enslave anyone after all! So why are you so willing to throw those rights away in the name of compromise? Freedoms once surrendered, after all, are only ever bought back with blood. So unless you’re prepared to do an awful lot of bleeding I would urge you to be a bit less hasty to surrender our rights in the name of “compromise” or security.

btw: a definition of “freedom” as “the ability to act without constraint” is meaningless. I want to be able to sing with perfect pitch but it just ain’t happening. that isn’t an infringement on my freedom, it’s reality. So you can throw that straw man back on the proverbial compost heap where it belongs.

I think Jefferson had the definition of rights down pretty well when he laid down the basic human right to alter, abolish, or overthrow an oppressive government as the starting point of the declaration of independence, and I think the anti-federalist movement that he led had a pretty good understanding of things when they fought for and won the bill of rights – which enshrines all of the “Freedoms” that We The People need TO Alter, Abolish, or Overthrow the government..

As I said in my first post, the degree to which we resist is the degree to which we are free, and the bill of rights is our last garauntee of the rights needed to effectively resist. limiting and compromising those rights is the single surest way to make our nation less free, bot now and for generations to come. And frankly, you just plain don’t have the right to do that.

Nunca quise un trabajo en una compañía grande así que las ferias de la carrera generalmente no me han interesado mucho. Pero, ahora en el otro lado, veo lo útil que realmente son.NegroPollon

Es la mejor manera absoluta de encontrar personas que no sólo quieren trabajar para usted, sino que desea también! La mayoría de los candidatos que obtiene de la publicación de trabajos en lugares como monstruo o workopolis son absolutamente terribles.Venganza

Es la mejor manera absoluta de encontrar personas que no sólo quieren trabajar para usted, sino que desea también! La mayoría de los candidatos que obtiene de la publicación de trabajos en lugares como monstruo o workopolis son absolutamente terribles.Venganza

Creo que las ferias de carrera son una buena cosa. No sólo reducen los costos, sino que dan mucha credibilidad a la conferencia. Por primera vez estuve al otro lado de la feria de la carrera.Disiarte

Es la mejor manera absoluta de encontrar personas que no sólo quieren trabajar para usted, sino que desea también! La mayoría de los candidatos que obtiene de la publicación de trabajos en lugares como monstruo o workopolis son absolutamente terribles.Venganza

Estoy buscando el azul, tres arrinconado profesional viagra, 100mg, que havea ugr estampado en la parte posterior, gracias Disiarte

Y eso fue CUSEC viene pulg Se adapta perfectamente a grandes candidatos que quieren trabajar para una empresa (las otras grandes personas que no están interesados ​​no se molestan en aplicar) con las empresas que buscan contratarlos.Explotadordeinformaticos

Sobre la única manera de contratar es a través de recomendaciones.NegroPollon

Estoy buscando el azul, tres arrinconado profesional viagra, 100mg, que havea ugr estampado en la parte posterior, gracias Disiarte

Nunca quise un trabajo en una compañía grande así que las ferias de la carrera generalmente no me han interesado mucho. Pero, ahora en el otro lado, veo lo útil que realmente son.NegroPollon

Thanks for your posting. I also feel that laptop computers are getting to be more and more popular today, and now are sometimes the only kind of computer used in a household. Simply because at the same time that they’re becoming more and more very affordable, their computing power keeps growing to the point where they can be as powerful as personal computers from just a few years ago.

Estoy buscando el azul, tres arrinconado profesional viagra, 100mg, que havea ugr estampado en la parte posterior, gracias Disiarte

Así que al final es ganar-ganar. Las empresas obtienen los empleados que buscan (y saben que es mucho más probable que el solicitante sea un empleado que buscan si están solicitando en cusec) y los delegados obtienen las oportunidades que han estado buscando.NegroPollon

Y eso fue CUSEC viene pulg Se adapta perfectamente a grandes candidatos que quieren trabajar para una empresa (las otras grandes personas que no están interesados ​​no se molestan en aplicar) con las empresas que buscan contratarlos.Explotadordeinformaticos