CreateDebate


Debate Info

32
13
Yes No
Debate Score:45
Arguments:18
Total Votes:58
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (12)
 
 No (6)

Debate Creator

jubilee(109) pic



Do terror suspects deserve the same rights as American citizens?

Habeus Corpus
hide video
AP: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gitmo Detainees

Yes

Side Score: 32
VS.

No

Side Score: 13
5 points

The main word here is "suspects", and last time I checked you were innocent until proven guilty. Until you are formally charged and found guilty, you deserve all the rights of any other citizen.

Being held indefinately on terror charges, and then to be found innocent is something I can imagine no one being able to get over. You've basically given them a life sentence (just not in a jail). Every single suspect for every single crime should have their rights upheld until they are found guilty.

Side: Yes
4 points

If they are people, yes.

There's usually a reason behind what a person does, especially on this level. If they are terrorizing or planing to terrorize someone, there has to be a lot of thought put into their actions...

If there is a reason for them to attack, they are reasonable people and should be treated as such. In fact, I would say there are people that have more rights than they, but deserve it less than them here in America.

I think all these "terrorists" need is to be heard and considered. If we listen like they want us to, would they have to attack us like that? I doubt it. Wasn't that one of the main factors to the terrorist attack on September 11th? We weren't' listening to them?

Anyway, I think no matter what is done, we should treat them as we do our own incarcerated citizens, and try them the same as well. These people are in our prisons because of war crimes and crimes against humanity, so they should be treated with more respect because they should be under international law, and not just thrown into an American prison camp where we have a chance to treat them unjustly.

Side: Yes
2 points

Human rights are for all humans--including murderers, rapists, thieves, liars, and terrorists.

Side: yes
1 point

Barack Obama's statement:

"Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. I voted against the Military Commissions Act because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the Court, once again, rejecting the Administration's extreme legal position. The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend. Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values."

Side: Yes
1 point

People who are suspected or terrible crimes and are not American citizens are just as human as those in their same position in the states. Honestly, as far as human rights go, to say that Americans deserve them and others do not, is simply prejudice.

Most people seem to think that people from the Middle East aren't really people; They think anyone from that region is a terrorist or thinks like one. I've only recently realized that I have thought this way. It's a wrong, bigoted, and horrible way of thinking. Human beings are human beings. Someone suspected of terrorism who is from another country deserves the same treatment as someone suspected of similar crimes who is from the USA.

Side: yes
1 point

these are terror "SUSPECTS" !!! --- note the emphasis on the word "suspect"

until one is a "proven" terrorist and one is only "suspected" of being a terrorist, then "yes", one does have rights

Side: yes

Of course they do. We cannot run around the world criticizing others countries for not upholding legal or human rights and then hide behind a barbed wire fence as we commit the same travesties ourselves. They deserve everything and anything that any citizen would receive under our military justice and system of humanity. What happened to the Geneva Convention?

Side: yes
3 points

John McCain's statement:

"The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country. Sen. Graham and Sen. Lieberman and I had worked very hard to make sure that we didn't torture any prisoners, that we didn't mistreat them, that we abided by the Geneva Conventions, which applies to all prisoners. But we also made it perfectly clear, and I won't go through all the legislation we passed, and the prohibition against torture, but we made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they do not and never have been given the rights that citizens of this country have. And my friends there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people. So now what are we going to do. We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate, because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases. By the way, 30 of the people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay have already tried to attack America again, one of them just a couple weeks ago, a suicide bomber in Iraq. Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation, and the men and women who defend it. This decision will harm our ability to do that."

Side: No
3 points

I actually support McCain's statements that he made in 2005 completely opposing the one you quoted:

" Now, I know that some of these guys are terrible, terrible killers and the worst kind of scum of humanity. But, one, they deserve to have some adjudication of their cases. And there’s a fear that if you release them that they’ll go back and fight again against us. And that may have already happened. But balance that against what it’s doing to our reputation throughout the world and whether it’s enhancing recruiting for people to join al-Qaeda and other organizations and want to do bad things to the United States of America. I think, on balance, the argument has got to be–the weight of evidence has got to be that we’ve got to adjudicate these people’s cases, and that means that if it means releasing some of them, you’ll have to release them.

Look, even Adolf Eichmann got a trial. I mean, these–we are signatories to numerous agreements on human rights, against torture, universal declaration on human rights, etc. So that means we have to do something with these people. And I hope we can move that process forward very soon."

Side: Yes
2 points

The central tenet of denying terror suspects the same rights as American citizens is that by doing so, the intelligence gathering capabilities of the US government would be compromised.

Side: Intelligence Compromised
2 points

Actually, so far, mistreating terror suspects has hurt our intelligence. One of the reasons we invaded Iraq is because someone who we were "interrogating," told us what we wanted to hear instead of the truth. (I am sorry that I don't have the specifics right now but I will add a link when I find it)

Edit: I couldn't find the link but I did find a story that lists some people who were innocent in Guantanamo: three of whom were tortured into false confessions. Does this sound like reliable "intelligence gathering" to you?

Supporting Evidence: My Evidence (thinkprogress.org)
Side: Intellegence compromised by tourture
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
2 points

of the 450 that were released (found innocent) 50 were killed or captured again on the battlefield.

this only shows that we're releasing people who are guilty, but this time, they've gathered info on our methods... YAY!

Side: No
2 points

if the terror suspects are americans, of course we should give them "rights". but we're talking about people captured on the battlefield who have information that we need NOW. it is irresponsible and really goes against the American way in war to treat them as Americans.

hell, Lincoln and FDR took away American rights from actual Americans, and guess what, it didn't even help them as much as it's helped us to take away American rights from non americans.

Side: No

A person who is willing to blow himself up, along with innocent women and children, is an abomination that should be destroyed. To give them a chance to infect others to their cause and methods, to give them a chance to escape and try again, is foolish. Once you have identified evil, you must destroy it because when good men do nothing, evil has a chance to succeed.

Side: No
Awen27(541) Disputed
2 points

Did you not see the word "suspect"? The question is whether or not someone who is SUSPECTED of terrorism who is not a US citizen deserves the same rights as a terror suspect in the US. For instance, does someone accused of(but not found guilty of) involvement in 9/11 deserve the same treatment as an American citizen accused of blowing up the sears tower?

Side: yes

Oh, well now, that's different. OK, we should give him a trial and then throw him in jail ;)

Side: yes
1 point

If NON- U.S. CITIZENS as in people who are not allowed in this country legally. If they attack this country they do not deserve the same rights. According to the Constitution ONLY U.S. CITIZEN can receive the U.S. Constitutional rights. This IS NOT A UNIVERSAL RIGHTS argument so they do not deserve to get the same rights as U.S citizens. Thusly making it a Constitutional issue not Universal.

Side: No