Unfortunately, there is no one legal definition of what 'human
rights' is. Even if we tried to limit this discussion to 'human
rights' that could apply to terrorists, that begs the further
question of what is a terrorist? without a proper legal definition
that is acceptable to most civilised nations (and even then
doubtful, cos most 'terrorists' come frmo the shit pits of the
world) there's the standard of enforcement. WHo will enforce these
standards, even if they existed?
As it is, international law is anchored to the unshakeable pillar
of national sovereignity - and each country is totally free to
define what or who a terrorist is. Even amongst the G8 nations,
their standards for a terrorist differ widely. Even up till now,
the British are struggling to define a terrorist in the Anti-terror
laws that have still yet to be passed.
Homeland security in the US is also facing problems - how does one
draft an anti-terrorist law that protects its citizens without
becoming oppressive?
As it is, the one way that the international authorities can deal
with the terrorist threat is merely to expand their police / army's
powers of search and detention - and then to try the accused (read:
innocent until proven guilty) in open court using the criminal
system. Since most of us, and myself included think of terrorists
as nothing more than cowardly shits using religion as a crutch to
commit their henious, even these criminal courts lack the legal
structure to deal adequately with terrorists. I mean, criminal
courts dish out punishments meant to be approximate and
proportional responses to crimes like rape and murder - not for
mass murder and plotting to end regimes.
For there special Fkers in out midst, what we need is a special
judicial system to run these terrorists through, something like the
Nuremburg courts to try those Nazis after WW2, but even then,
something like that was criticisde as a Victor's Court awarding
Victor's justice.
Until we can separate a terrorist from a freedom fighter, and
define who or what makes a terroist internationally, we shall be
bound by the arbitrary nature of domestic laws and their own
particular inconsistencies. And the fate of the terrorist will
depend on the jurisdiction of his capture. Good for the Fker if he
gets caught in the US - he gets the media, some slimeball lawyer
who will bray for his HR being infringed etc but what about those
terrorists whom Iran arrests as being subersive Iraqi agents? they
just get a bullet to the head. In S'pore and M'sia, they get the
ISA and disappear to some dark cell (but at least got aircon there
hahaha).
so let's separate the anger and rhetoric from out rantings and
think about how we can deal with the ultimate problem: how does one
create a system to deal with the terrorist threat, combat it
pre-emptively and post incident without reducing a democratic
country with deomcratic institutions to a freaking
dictatorship?
Unofrtunately, there is no easy answer that will placate
everyone.
As for me, if i ever, in wartime came across a terrorist (in my
opinion), I'd spare him the agony of the legal knot and just just
put a bullet to his spine. That way, he'd be crawling the rest of
his life and shit in his pants.
