Rights of the Accused

Recently I was asked what rights I thought should be given to accused terrorists as well as whether or not they should be subject to torture and I thought it would make an interesting blog post. I’ll answer the second question first. NO. No accused person should be subjected to torture in order to compel a confession or gain information. This is a new mind set for me so bear with me. During the Inquisition, many persons confessed just to end the suffering caused by torture. A false confession or made up intelligence is of absolutely no use to anyone. Apart from that reason, I have seen how there are alternative ways of acquiring information that can be just as effective. As for those who are convicted terrorists, as in they have been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then treatment such as torture might be warranted only in specific situations in which a threat in immanent and all other means have been exhausted. Now as to what rights are given to the accused is a little more complicated. I believe that they should be treated as persons accused of war crimes. They are not entitled to protection by the Geneva Convention as they are not soldiers and those interrogating them should be bound by the laws that bind American police detectives i.e. they cannot be physically harmed by the interrogator or humiliated in public. As for their trial, I agree that they need to be proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt, but by military tribunal not a civilian court and that their appeals must be directed through specific channels. In short, no Miranda rights and a limit on appeals.

This link is from a news article that describes the Bush doctrine dealing with terrorist legal treatment