Should terrorists maintain the same civil liberties as regular citizens?

---

Request for Question Clarification by scriptor-ga on 07 Apr 2003 14:06 PDT

Dear newcomer,

Do you want a Researcher's personal opinion, or do you have something else in mind?

Best regards,
Scriptor

---

Request for Question Clarification by justaskscott-ga on 07 Apr 2003 14:20 PDT

Do you mean terrorists in the United States, terrorists somewhere else
in particular, or terrorists in general?

---

Clarification of Question by newcomer-ga on 07 Apr 2003 15:32 PDT

I need to find a way to go on a political science paper 5 to 7 pages
long. Do we treat terrorists as something else than regular citizens
or are they entitled to any civil liberties at all? I'm thinking of
the Bill of Rights and all men are created equal or was that the
Emancipaton Proclamation. Either way, do terrorists get treated like
regular citizens? Papers due by this Thursday.

---

Clarification of Question by newcomer-ga on 07 Apr 2003 15:34 PDT

I suppose it would be terrorists in the U.S.

---

Request for Question Clarification by justaskscott-ga on 07 Apr 2003 18:41 PDT

To echo scriptor-ga's request, would you be satisfied with a
Researcher's personal opinion?  (Presumably, the opinion would concern
arguments for and against permitting terrorists to have the same civil
liberties as regular citizens.)  Or would you prefer citations to web
pages that are pertinent to this issue?  Or perhaps a combination of
both? -- though you should keep in mind the pricing guidelines, at
http://answers.google.com/answers/pricing.html .

---

Clarification of Question by newcomer-ga on 07 Apr 2003 20:44 PDT

Both short personal opinions on why we should allow terrorists to have
the same civil liberties as regular citizens and web citations
pertinent to my topic. I decided to go with the justice for all theme.

Hello newcomer-ga,

From your last clarification, it appears that you need an opinion and
citations in favor of allowing terrorists to have the same civil
liberties as regular citizens.

My opinion in favor of this proposition is based on the fact that we
cannot be certain, until the conclusion of criminal proceedings
against a "terrorist", that the person who the government calls a
"terrorist" is in fact a terrorist, rather than a regular citizen (or
regular non-citizen who is resident in the United States).   The
government may claim that it has overwhelming evidence that a person
committed a terrorist act, or has taken steps towards committing a
terrorist act.  However, until a judge or jury determines that he is
guilty, the person should have all of the rights assured to a regular
person charged with a felony -- because until that point, we presume
that he is a regular person.  And if the supposed terrorist has not
been arrested or charged, he should be permitted to live as freely as
anyone else, or at least as freely as anyone else under investigation
for a possible felony. One could perhaps come up with a hypothetical
situation where the civil liberties of a supposed "terrorist" (but
presumably regular person) should be temporary restricted, such as if
there is some information that this person has immediate plans to
detonate a weapon of mass destruction.  But this would be an unusual
case, and otherwise, as the saying goes, innocent until proven guilty.

Because this is a topic that many people have discussed recently,
there are plenty of web sources to choose from.  I decided to look at
two resources that I have found useful in the past: FindLaw and the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  Here are two useful documents
from those sites:

"Mr. Aschroft, Meet Mr. Palmer: Some Lessons For The Attorney General
(and All Of Us) From The 1919-20 Terrorist Attacks", by Ian Mylchreest
(Nov. 15, 2001)
FindLaw
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011115_mylchreest.html

"Civil Liberties After 9/11: The ACLU Defends Freedom" (Sept. 20,
2002)
ACLU
http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=10897

I hope that this information is helpful.

- justaskscott-ga


Search strategy:

Browsed FindLaw and ACLU web sites

Would you be referring to the kind of terrorists who are poor, have
had their land illegally taken from them, and have no political power,
or the kind of terrorists who receive funding and weapons from large
superpowers and then use them to commit illegal acts?

Your phrase of "all men are created equal" may be useful to your
argument, however you have your documents mixed up. The phrase appears
in the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. --"

My opinion: The USA Constitution guarantees citizens free speech,
right to assembly, right to a speedy jury trial. If we start making
exceptions we are on a slippery slope that can make us no freer than
typical Arab countries. IMO, we do not have to give these rights to
foreign visitors, nor illegal immigrants. We should profile persons
who look like terrorists, or are otherwise under suspicion even if
they are citizens. It is stupid to tell police they have to give
great-grandma as much scrutiny as a guy wearing a turbin.   Neil