Background: its in light of the Maher Arar case where he was innocent, but he was suspected of terrorist activities and was sent to jordan to be prisoned by the US.
they denied him rights to phone call or lawyer, sometimes even to speak.
Now above is the argument I presented. Which is deductively constructed.
I can’t think of an opposing argument, anyone wanna try?
What would my opponent I’m arguing would say to this? To prove that Suspected individuals are not entitled to rights, and why?
Can anyone help, I’m posting here cuz cafeites aren’t so bright as general guppies, i admit
Crescent we are all unhelpful ppl who can argue for the sake of an argument but not for the sake of helping someone with his homework. In future please omit the homework part and see ur thread go to several pages within minutes.
Crescent, ever heard the term, everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others?
Well, everyone is human and all deserve recognition of human rights...Unless the suspect happens to be a Muslim...Then his rights as a human being are revoked, even if he is innocent...
I know this doesn't add much to what you already know, but that's just the way I feel...
I agree with what you are saying the crecent but if I was opposing you I would say something along the lines
i'll use a suspected terrorist as an example
if someone trys to take or takes the right away of someone else to live then justice says he should also have his rights taken away, if this means him/her not having access to a lawyer then so be it
In the interest of national security someone might be denied these rights
sometimes for national security reasons or to interogate the suspect it does not make sense for him/her to have a lawyer since this will hinder the authorities in doing there work
I just thought of these points but dont agree with them, i agree with your point more
This is an example of inductive fallacy. The major premise is misleading and incomplete. You can never prove your case using inductive syllogism.
here is an example.
When it rains, the sidewalk becomes wet
the sidewalk is wet
therefore, it is raining.
The conclusion is wrong, because the major premise is misleading. The sidewalk could be wet for many reasons other than rain. Mr. Wong-- the laundromat owner --could have soaked it with water before opening his store. The conclusion, thereore, is false.
Cres, the objections come when your reasoning is conditional upon a stable and safe society. Some would argue that in a state of emergency the safety of the whole nation takes priority over the rights of an individual.
u have to define the word "RIGHTS"
WHAT kind of rights? DO they have the right to speak to a lawyer if they are a dangerouse terrorist that endanger the lives of thousands with solid underworld backing that might pressure the authorities to let them go?
context context context
i think the most debatable point is that though all human beings are entitled to rights, none are entitled all rights
hence you got to define which rights are attributed to whoever…
then you got the occasion to say whose rights can be upheld (ex, suspected criminals should not be free to communicate with their fellow criminals)
and which rights should not be taken off anyone (example life according to those who oppose death penalty)
just some thoughts:blush:
c’mon 
