Do Terrorists Have Any Rights?

[WinePusher]

1) Is the waterboarding of terrorists ethical and justifible if the safety of innocent people is at risk. For example, if the CIA confirmed that a suspect they had in custody knew the time and place of a upcoming bombing, but refused to talk, would it be ok to implement methods of torture to get the information that could save lives?

2) The United States is often said to be of a "higher moral standard" than other nations. The United States does not torture people if it is not neccesary. However, regardless of the circumstances, does torture under any circumstance undermine this key American principle?

3) In the United States, a failed bomb was seized on May 02. 2010. The suspect has now been captured and some conservatives (Glenn Beck, Andrew Napolitano) say that he deserves his miranda rights and cannot be tortured because he is a citizen. Since the terrorist is a citizen of the United States, he is granted the rights under our constitution, he has the right to an attorney and so on..... Beck says that if a foreign terrorist were to attack, he would have no problem torturing him because the terrorist is not a citizen. This is the dilemna the libertarian faces. Are the constitutional rights of the United States only for American Citizens, or are they extended to people of any nation, race and ethinicty?

[Goat]

1) Is the waterboarding of terrorists ethical and justifible if the safety of innocent people is at risk. For example, if the CIA confirmed that a suspect they had in custody knew the time and place of a upcoming bombing, but refused to talk, would it be ok to implement methods of torture to get the information that could save lives?

When that was tried, it was found people who had been cooperating and giving good information started giving bad information. It also is justification of horrible treatment of our military who have been captured. As such, it has not been shown to save lives at all.

2) The United States is often said to be of a "higher moral standard" than other nations. The United States does not torture people if it is not neccesary. However, regardless of the circumstances, does torture under any circumstance undermine this key American principle?

Torture is never necessary. To say so shows ignorance of the information received by torture and the information received by other techniques. It is counter productive for one... and destroys the concept that the U.S. ha a 'higher moral standard'.

3) In the United States, a failed bomb was seized on May 02. 2010. The suspect has now been captured and some conservatives (Glenn Beck, Andrew Napolitano) say that he deserves his miranda rights and cannot be tortured because he is a citizen. Since the terrorist is a citizen of the United States, he is granted the rights under our constitution, he has the right to an attorney and so on..... Beck says that if a foreign terrorist were to attack, he would have no problem torturing him because the terrorist is not a citizen. This is the dilemna the libertarian faces. Are the constitutional rights of the United States only for American Citizens, or are they extended to people of any nation, race and ethinicty?

Certain rights are extended to all nationalities, This is known as 'The rule of law'.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

1) Is the waterboarding of terrorists ethical and justifible if the safety of innocent people is at risk...

Torture is a very unreliable tool that ultimately endangers our own troops. Realizing the extreme pressures we place on those tasked with our safety and security, as a juror I'd find it difficult to convict someone for waterboarding.

2) The United States is often said to be of a "higher moral standard" than other nations. The United States does not torture people if it is not neccesary. However, regardless of the circumstances, does torture under any circumstance undermine this key American principle?

Kinda hard to declare oneself of "higher moral standard" when one goes about using methods of a "lower moral standard". The US, as a signee of the Geneva Conventions, is not supposed to be torturing anyone, for any reason.

3) In the United States, a failed bomb was seized on May 02. 2010...Are the constitutional rights of the United States only for American Citizens, or are they extended to people of any nation, race and ethinicty?

If a foreign person attempts to attack US citizens or property of US citizens, I personally consider that an act of war, if only on the individual's part.
---------------------------------
From Post 2:

I consider myself in general agreement with the gist of goat's position, but in disagreement over the details.

When that was tried, it was found people who had been cooperating and giving good information started giving bad information. It also is justification of horrible treatment of our military who have been captured. As such, it has not been shown to save lives at all.

A not unreasonable take. I would add that there are at least anecdotal stories of torture providing valuable, actionable information. I would tend to agree though that the unreliability of information gained, and the potential of retaliatory action against captured US troops should prevent its use.

Torture is never necessary. To say so shows ignorance of the information received by torture and the information received by other techniques. It is counter productive for one... and destroys the concept that the U.S. ha a 'higher moral standard'.

I'm not sure if I'd go with never necessary, while agreeing the unreliability, among other factors, should severly curtail or stop its use. I remind again about the US being a signee of the Geneva Conventions, which precludes torture at any time.

Certain rights are extended to all nationalities, This is known as 'The rule of law'.

I agree up to the point a foreigner tries to attack US citizens or property. Of course we should consider whether mugging someone for their purse is sufficient action to warrant a charge of "enemy combatant" or some such similar term. I would still though have no qualms with holding someone in a military prison / trial, under military law, for toting a WMD around.

[cnorman18]

Yes, terrorists have rights, by virtue of being human beings. But there are no rights which are absolute, including the right not to be tortured.

When I was in a Moral Theology class in seminary, the subject came up, and that - the right not to be tortured - was proposed by the professor as the only absolute right he could think of.

I brought up the "Dirty Harry" case, a fictional, but perfectly possible, situation in the first movie of that series: A young woman has been buried alive with a limited quantity of air, and the captured and confessed perpetrator smugly refuses to tell her location. You have no more than half an hour to find her before she dies. What do you do now?

The professor said, "Well, so much for THAT absolute right." I agree. You can put burning splinters under the guy's fingernails, as far as I'm concerned, and I'll apply the Zippo.

If a person, citizen or not, is known to have information that would save lives if revealed, I say do whatever is necessary till he tells you; and if he lies, you kill him, painfully, and you make sure he knows that. I have no problem with it at all. The lives of innocent citizens are more important than the rights of mass murderers. Period.

[perfessor]

Well see, that's the thing about torture. In the movies, it always works the way the script writers want it to work. In real life, it's a lot less reliable.

I always got a laugh out of the "What Would Jack Bauer Do?" school of thought. Dude - Jack Bauer just reads a script!

[Lux]

1) Is the waterboarding of terrorists ethical and justifible if the safety of innocent people is at risk. For example, if the CIA confirmed that a suspect they had in custody knew the time and place of a upcoming bombing, but refused to talk, would it be ok to implement methods of torture to get the information that could save lives?

NO, torture is never justifiable from an ethical point of view, in my opinion. Terrorists are human beings too. Not to mention that method is not only used on known terrorists, but also on people who might hold information on future terrorist attacks.

Torture is not even a proven effective method for gathering information. The consensus seems to be that if you subject someone to torture for long enough, they'll tell you whatever you want to hear, whether it is true, false or not known by them.

2) The United States is often said to be of a "higher moral standard" than other nations. The United States does not torture people if it is not neccesary. However, regardless of the circumstances, does torture under any circumstance undermine this key American principle?

Weird. I know of nations that don't torture their prisoners ever. So for the time being, I'll consider those nations to have a higher moral standard than the USA.

3) In the United States, a failed bomb was seized on May 02. 2010. The suspect has now been captured and some conservatives (Glenn Beck, Andrew Napolitano) say that he deserves his miranda rights and cannot be tortured because he is a citizen. Since the terrorist is a citizen of the United States, he is granted the rights under our constitution, he has the right to an attorney and so on..... Beck says that if a foreign terrorist were to attack, he would have no problem torturing him because the terrorist is not a citizen. This is the dilemna the libertarian faces. Are the constitutional rights of the United States only for American Citizens, or are they extended to people of any nation, race and ethinicty?

And this, I find terrible. Double standard doesn't even begin to cover it.
In the matter of torture, the reach of the US Constitution is irrelevant. "Not being tortured" is a human right. The USA has no authority to dismiss human rights on grounds of citizenship. It is not OK to torture people just because they are of a different nationality.
As for deciding who has human rights and who doesn't, that's way beyond the usual self-righteousness displayed by some nations.

When it comes to some constitutional rights, such as having a lawyer to represent you, I believe they are "extended" to everyone in the US territory, including illegal aliens (please correct me if I'm wrong). Which would explain why terrorism suspects are transported to overseas "facilities" for their interrogation.

[cnorman18]

Well see, that's the thing about torture. In the movies, it always works the way the script writers want it to work. In real life, it's a lot less reliable.

I always got a laugh out of the "What Would Jack Bauer Do?" school of thought. Dude - Jack Bauer just reads a script!

Yeah. ln the movie, they were too late and the girl was already dead.

But, seriously; what would you do in that situation? Torture as a routine matter or as a set policy is counterproductive, I agree; but there are situations where there is no alternative, just as there are times when it's necessary to kill.

You don't let innocents burn to death in order to keep your own ideological skirts clean. When it's life and death, I say pass the bamboo shoots and matches.

[Misty]

Any country who tortures suspected terrorists are every bit as bad as the terrorists themselves.