43 ms·

One important aspect of "without due process" is that it means that they don't have to prove anyone is a terrorist. They don't even have to believe someone is

One important aspect of "without due process" is that it means that they don't have to prove anyone is a terrorist. They don't even have to believe someone is a terrorist, they only need to pretend that they do. I'm not sure whether this applies much in the kinds of situations where this in particular is used, but in this country people have rights such as silence that can be circumvented because suspected terrorists are treated differently and have fewer rights - those who don't cooperate will continue to be treated as terrorists.

grey-area 13y ago
This is why terrorists, and suspected terrorists, need to be given exactly the same rights under the law as everyone else.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Suspected terrorist talking to a lawyer before facing trial and being found not guilty / guilty is much worse TV[1] than Kiefer Sutherland torturing the terrorist to prevent the bomb killing lots of people. [1] Some people think it's worse.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    The concepts aren't even opposed. If, hypothetically, there actually is a ticking bomb somewhere (this has never happened that we know of), just break the law. You'll sort it out later. If you were right, there will be a pardon, if you were wrong, you'll go to jail. In every other possible scenario, the law should protect rights of the accused.
    - canvia 13y ago
      There was a pretty good movie that made you think about that type of situation, "Unthinkable" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/ It's like the question in Swordfish, would you be willing to sacrifice the life of an innocent to save 10,000 people's lives? How about 2 innocents? What about 500? Once you start to consider making those kinds of trade offs it's a very slippery slope. It seems to me the only correct answer is 0. There is no acceptable trade off to try and counter irrational actions.

grey-area 13y ago

This is why terrorists, and suspected terrorists, need to be given exactly the same rights under the law as everyone else.

DanBC 13y ago
Suspected terrorist talking to a lawyer before facing trial and being found not guilty / guilty is much worse TV[1] than Kiefer Sutherland torturing the terrorist to prevent the bomb killing lots of people. [1] Some people think it's worse.
- jbooth 13y ago
  The concepts aren't even opposed. If, hypothetically, there actually is a ticking bomb somewhere (this has never happened that we know of), just break the law. You'll sort it out later. If you were right, there will be a pardon, if you were wrong, you'll go to jail. In every other possible scenario, the law should protect rights of the accused.
  - canvia 13y ago
    There was a pretty good movie that made you think about that type of situation, "Unthinkable" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/ It's like the question in Swordfish, would you be willing to sacrifice the life of an innocent to save 10,000 people's lives? How about 2 innocents? What about 500? Once you start to consider making those kinds of trade offs it's a very slippery slope. It seems to me the only correct answer is 0. There is no acceptable trade off to try and counter irrational actions.