Do you agree?

[Kelbie]

I think they should of did this along time ago before the 7/7bombing. I personally agree, fck the terrorist human rights. Why the hell should they have rights? cause an act of terrorism against our country and we sit back n do fck all. This is why i support the conservatives, at least they can get things done and have balls. Implement this ban on human rights, only the terrorist who do it shouldn't be allowedit. Fck em.

BS. I think they should get rid of their human rights if they are terrorists.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12269236

[Alexraptor]

"Actual Terrorists" should have no rights.
But these are only "suspects", there is no proof that they actually are terrorists.

[Carbonizer]

Until 'proof' is shown, these people could just be a bunch of sick cnuts getting a kick out of this.

[TParis]

Even for convicted terrorists, removing rights is scary.


Hear me out.


If there is a category for the government to say "These people have no rights" than how hard is it for the government to place people they don't want to have any rights in that group and fabricate evidence? It's important that everyone be given rights and protection even if some do not deserve them.

[Shroombuck]

This is what we legal professionals call ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof. This is more commonly known as the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which that person has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

This is a fundamental principle of a constitutional or legal state in which the exercise of governmental power is constrained by the law. It applies to all.