Turn on thread page Beta

"Whose rights should we fight for - suspected terrorists or law abiding citizens" watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hello guys,

    I recently had a tutorial this week and my tutorial group and our lovely tutor of course discussed the significance and implications of the Belmarsh prison case. I do not know by heart the exact facts of the case but the case basically dealt with the issue of whether it is going against the human rights of a suspected terrorist who is a non-UK national if he was detained indefinitely without trial by the Home Office.

    Most of the tutorial focused on how it was the suspected terrorists human right not to be detained without trial and that such infringement of this individuals freedom and civil liberties was unjust.

    But at the end of the tutorial, I brought up a point, which I would ask you guys to give your own intelligent views on, that was described by my tutor as " a point that starts the whole debate"....

    "There is a very small and very specific section in society, who detain themselves anyway without being regarded as a threat to society, those who lock themselves up at home out of fear of terrorism and the potential consequence of death or serious injury that it entails. The people who are afraid, paranoid and who do not have the necessary resources to ask people to fight or at least even think of them."

    What about these people, are we supposed to simply neglect them?

    Just like these suspected terroirsts, they have human rights too don't
    they?

    Please give me your intelligent opinions and views on this matter, so I
    could understand the situation a bit more....


    NOTE: THIS DEBATE IS OVER AND I HAVE DELETED MY POSTS
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It seems to be their choice, let them do it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    False dichotomy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Justice (OCD85))
    Hello guys,

    I recently had a tutorial this week and my tutorial group and our lovely tutor of course discussed the significance and implications of the Belmarsh prison case. I do not know by heart the exact facts of the case but the case basically dealt with the issue of whether it is going against the human rights of a suspected terrorist who is a non-UK national if he was detained indefinitely without trial by the Home Office.

    Most of the tutorial focused on how it was the suspected terrorists human right not to be detained without trial and that such infringement of this individuals freedom and civil liberties was unjust.

    But at the end of the tutorial, I brought up a point, which I would ask you guys to give your own intelligent views on, that was described by my tutor as " a point that starts the whole debate"....

    "There is a very small and very specific section in society, who detain themselves anyway without being regarded as a threat to society, those who lock themselves up at home out of fear of terrorism and the potential consequence of death or serious injury that it entails. The people who are afraid, paranoid and who do not have the necessary resources to ask people to fight or at least even think of them."

    What about these people, are we supposed to simply neglect them?

    Just like these suspected terroirsts, they have human rights too don't
    they?

    Please give me your intelligent opinions and views on this matter, so I
    could understand the situation a bit more....
    Here's my opinion.

    If a government suspects somebody so strongly of being a terrorist that they feel they can and should be held indefinately then surely to God there must be enough evidence to bring him to trial. If there is not enough evidence to prosecute then the suspect needs to be released.

    This is a classic slippery slope argument. A government starts by holding non-nationals indefinately but what's to stop them extending the policy to UK citizens? Placing this much power in the hands of the administration practically invites misuse IMO and I personally place a far greater importance on freedom than I do on security; especially if we need to go to such extraordinary extremes to get it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    if you are held you should be charged and then tried. if you cant be tried because of xyz reason you should be released.

    its quite simple really
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's just sad the way that 'Human Rights' lawyers and NGOs these days seem to spend their whole time running around trying to protect the least worthy and most despicable elements of society because of political motivations, whilst ignoring far worse situations.
    Amnesty International - "Screw millions of starving, gulag-held North Koreans, instead lets whine for years about a few hundred Al-Qaeda fighters who have 3 square meals a day and are given Korans so they can follow their religion."
    It's pathetic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The moment a man becomes a terrorist he has given up his right to freedom or other human rights.

    People should not suffer because of the others, we need to take them from the community. If they're so willing to die for their cause then I'm sure they won't mind being detained indefinitely for it either, or if they do mind, that's tough luck.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zakaz)
    The moment a man becomes a terrorist he has given up his right to freedom or other human rights.
    That's true. But the same is surely not true when a man is merely suspected of being a terrorist?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    That's true. But the same is surely not true when a man is merely suspected of being a terrorist?
    I think that depends how strong the evidence is.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Suspected terrorists. Is being a suspect a crime? No. So suspected terrorists have exactly the same rights as "law-abiding" citizens, and indeed may well turn out to BE law-abiding citizens if they actually get a trial. Which they won't, because, er, um...

    Actually I must admit I have no idea why terror suspects present such an exceptional case. If the evidence is there, you can convict them. If you can't find the evidence, could it be because there isn't any?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    And that's the sort of denial-of-the-situation thinking which makes me despise Lib Dems. There are so many factors involved in terrorist cases, insider information, secret service intelligence, national security implications... The dangers and problems of holding a massive public trial are obvious.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zakaz)
    I think that depends how strong the evidence is.
    Oh, great, give the power to declare people guilty to opaque officials behind closed doors based on how strong they reckon the evidence is.

    Somehow I don't think you'd be saying that if someone decided Nick Griffin was a terrorist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    And that's the sort of denial-of-the-situation thinking which makes me despise Lib Dems. There are so many factors involved in terrorist cases, insider information, secret service intelligence, national security implications... The dangers and problems of holding a massive public trial are obvious.
    yeah, who needs essential liberties and the right to innocence before being proved guilty - there are TERRORISTS TERRORISTS TERRORISTS out there!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinm)
    yeah, who needs essential liberties and the right to innocence before being proved guilty - there are TERRORISTS TERRORISTS TERRORISTS out there!
    Valid sarcasm, because it's not as if terrorists have recently struck innocent civilians with deadly attacks in two major European capitals, right?

    I very much take a Lincoln-esque view of the proceedings.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Valid sarcasm, because it's not as if terrorists have recently struck innocent civilians with deadly attacks in two major European capitals, right?

    I very much take a Lincoln-esque view of the proceedings.
    Nice non-sequitur. People have been killed => we don't need basic rights and liberties anymore.

    Fantastic logic. Hang on, wait, that's actually clinically retarded.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Some people are afraid to CROSS THE ROAD because hundreds of people are killed by cars every year! Ban cars today!

    (Incidentally, far more people are killed by cars than terrorists will ever manage)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because a definite loss of liberty is not worth a possible risk of life loss in the future.

    Debate over.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Justice (OCD85))
    Which is more important to you anyway...

    actual Liberty or a vague possibility in the future of LIFE
    Corrected that for you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinm)
    Nice non-sequitur. People have been killed => we don't need basic rights and liberties anymore.
    Yes, that is a non-sequitur. Only problem is that ISN'T what I said.

    (Original post by robinm)
    Fantastic logic. Hang on, wait, that's actually clinically retarded.
    I think we'd have a more productive debate if you actually addressed what I said (which was not what you claimed), rather than inventing your own logical progressions and then calling them retarded.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But that's effectively what you're saying. That people have been killed is grounds for eroding any and all liberties that get in the way of preventing this in the future.

    Let's feed everybody a healthy, additive free grey goo in the future. Otherwise, people might die (!!!!!) of heart disease, or cancer that otherwise might not have.

    Same logic, different application.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.