Should those who seek to take lives forfeit their 'Human Rights?'

[bubble99]

IMO the (alleged) failed suicide bombers should be treated in accordance with the terms set out by the Human Rights Commission (INHCR? UNIHCR?)until such time as they are found guilty or otherwise of their planned atrocities.

I don't want to enter into into an Iraq convo here. For the record though, I am disgusted that when Bush and Blair, killed and maimed innocent Iraqi civilians it was called 'Shock and Awe' or 'Liberation.' It's now happened here and if it transpired that one of the (alleged) failed suicide bombers had had his whole family wiped out in Iraq by an allied bomb (though from what I can tell none of them were Iraqis) I would be halfway to understanding his actions.

Anyway, I digress. If these men are found guilty of attempting to carry out mass murder, and thus denying other people of their right to live, I believe they should forfeit their rights to appeal under Human Rights Legislation. What do you think?

Our government may well have done immoral illegal things (by our standards) but individual British citizens don't go over to their countries blowing up innocent civilians.

They have benefited enormously from our society but felt it was OK to attempt to blow up innocent civilians here and then whinge when arrested for it. FFS (again)

But Jan - do we know WHEN, WHY and HOW they turned against the West? You're assuming that as soon as they arrived (or perhaps when they turned 18) they suddenly developed a hatred for us.

I DO think that the Pakistani's move to expel all 1200 foreign students from it's Madrassa's come actually be quite significant - most of the bombers from July 7th had visited them - we don't yet know about the four suspects - but even intelligent grown men (and women) can have their views changed.

Exactly. I don't have any sympathy for them - they're obviously awful and I hope they're very very old men by the time they leave prison - but they have to be given the same human rights as all the other murderers in the country because we can't pick and choose. Otherwise they're not "human" rights. They're European murderers' rights. Or they're "non-suspected suicide bomber rights". The point about them being human rights, is that they're basic rights of every single human being on the planet, whatever they've done and however vile they are.

(Although tbh I wouldn't worry, I don't think Paddington Green police station has a copy of the United Nations Convention hung up in the staff canteen. Really, do people honestly believe the police have inordinate respect for human rights when the tapes aren't running?)

talk human rights to the Guildford 4 or the Birmingham 6..

I'm not assuming anything, QOQ. I'm saying that they are grown men who were given asylum here, but subsequently decided they hate Western civilisation, so it's OK to try to blow up innocent civilians here, but when that fails and they get arrested they feel entitled to whinge about getting the human rights bestowed by the western civilisation they appeared to loathe so much before.

They are f*cking hypocrites.

As far as they're concerned Jan, British citizens do go over and blow people up - Baghdad, Basra, Afghanistan?

"They are f*cking hypocrites."

And that's the EXACT reason why we SHOULD give them the same Human Rights as everyone else - otherwise we'd be hyprocrites too.

They are civilians?

I don't think they're hypocrites - just pragmatists.

They're using the weapons they've got. And human rights is one of them.

And who is mostly blowing up innocent civilians in Basra, Mosul, Baghdad etc? Is it us?

Jan - the people who were blown up in Baghdad and Afghanistan were most definitely civilians. The numbers run into thousands.

The ones who have not been blown up by armed forces?

Suicide bombers are blowing them up now. But they've got an awful long way to go, before they can match the numbers who were blown up by the American and British armies.

Yes, I know, C. But you can't seriously be comparing what was done by US and other armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan with what is being done by "insurgents" there and what has been done and attempted in London this month?

in what way compare? Physically, morally?

Physically, if you're being blown up, it's not much difference if it's a loon on the tube or a bomber in a plane.

Morally, what's the difference between a loon on the tube and the richest countries on the planet who have supported vicious dictatorships for the last 50 years minimum of their history, who are bombing you illegally, without the benefit of a UN mandate.

I'm not arguing that the suicide bombers are great guys. But if I lived in Basra, I probably wouldn't be too keen on the illegal occupying army either.

If any of these were Iraqis I would say they might have a point.

If these people revile our society and values so much how could they have lived amongst us for so long? Why should we, the people who have offered sanctuary and fed, clothed, educated, housed, medicated these people for so long be expected to make allowances for their actions and provide legal aid (at our expense) to defend them.

OP - agree

( Weary ) Because we're better than them.

And yes, there's a lot in Islamic teaching which says people who find it impossible to live among infidel, should return to a godly (ie Muslim) environment as soon as possible.

But I expect they didn't read that bit.

I agree too, bubble (obv!)

'these people'

and so begins the backlash..

anyone remember this>?
soho bomber?

And the Soho bomber was a homophobic misfit. Not the member of an extremist Islammic organisation which numbers thousands.

well the dead have no human rights

So the living shouldn't have either?