Ay yay yay yay yay …
First off, I stand corrected on the term of a natural right. By natural right, I meant rights based on reason alone. I read it erroneously somewhere. Ah,
right here under Immanuel Kant !
Secondly, I feel like abstract arguments are being erroneously implemented with bias justification to prove the former wrong by contradiction. But no problem, these are interesting points to discuss.
That's not the question at hand-- the question at hand is whether to take away the rights of accused terrorists, not proven/convicted terrorists.
Indeed in an ideal world they should be put up in a jury and
I whole heartedly agree to this. But in practice this can pose a risk to the secret service revealing their sources, and other reasons, that protect our own people. Then the mine field of legal issues which I still find mind boggling.
Who decides who believes in these rights?
The place where someone was born shouldn't be a factor in determining whether they should have rights or not. That's ludicrous.
Ay yay yay.
A) Where a person is born in the world shouldn't but can determine their thinking
B) Depending on a person's thinking can lead them to be terrorists
C) I think in theory a terrorist should not have the the same Western rights as people who believe in them.
Now, I think it is more determinable and likely that when a person is from an known country terrorists have been known to come from in the past or has the name Mohammed or is some way linked with Islam, to end up being an Islamic extremist terrorists. There are correlations here. I don't tip toe around this, or bend backwards around this. I'm
not saying all Muslims named Mohammed from a nation with a high proportion of Muslims are terrorists, what I'm saying that so long as the majority are of this nature are, they should be
disproportionately targeted. Not completely, but
disproportionately. This is the same just as if blonde Swedish men were causing terrorism or middle aged Japanese women were. I personally didn't like it to have been interrogated at US airports for being a Mohammed, but I understand the situation of our reality.
As for home grown terrorists, they are harder to find and harder to determine what it is they are thinking until the evidence can appear because the correlating links are more difficult to analyse. Hence why I said it was difficult to implement this argument with respect to home-grown terrorists. Hope this makes sense. A->B->C not A->C
As I said and agree to, due to the issue of knowing who believes in the rights and who doesn't and to what degree makes it infeasible in practice. But it is clear, there are people who openly are against certain rights and only abuse them. E.g. Abu Hamza
Should neo-Nazis have their rights taken away?
Those that are found guilty of planning terrorist attacks (even by the secret service here, not just a jury in my opinion as stated above), or have committed acts of terrorism, yes. As to the exact set of rights ... would have to think about it, but what ever the subset it would be the same for all terrorists.
This is an argument that I have found interesting and thought worth sharing. It is not something I believe should be implemented because it would be pretty impossible to implement and would be worse than the ironic system we already have now.
Topic: 'Al-Qaeda ringleader' wins appeal against deportation