I'm having trouble finding something...

I'm doing a mini-debate for no grade (well, participation grade) in a government class. I'm on the side of "Accused terrorist should not recieve the same treatment and rights of POWS"

I keep finding things that go against my side, but I can't seem to find anything that is in favor of mine. I know about half of what I'm going to say, just off of previous knowledge of things, and things I've seen and read here on ATS.

So it would be greatly appreciated if some of you could help me find some links that could help fill that last bit of info.

Try and link religous doctrine and terrorism to brain washing and mental instability

I think if you can prove that the terrorists maybe suffering from a mental instability you may be able to fight for your rights....

Now this will seem un related however think about it....

Pedophiles have a chemical imbalance in the brain and are mentally ill....

Now we all think looking at these images is wrong but to them it is right...and because they think it's right and it is against the normallity the science of this world brands them mentally ill...

Now if you can some how take that analogy and transfer it to terrorism maybe by saying that....

Due to upbringing in deprived areas of society my client has sufferd a sort of child abuse that has led them to believe the whole world are against them and i reccomend that they are treated for this physcologically you may find you have a leg to stand on.....

Any way i hope i have helped

You are fighting a losing battle. Accused does not mean Guilty. Accusation is followed by investigation. All rights "should" be retained by the accused until proven guilty.

Remember the onus of proof of "Guilt" falls on the accuser

Then again this is the USA - so anything goes!

Sorry no help for your side buddy.

Contact the White House. I'm sure they can provide some justification for treating the accused as guilty.

Thanks for the quick replies. I almost did venture into saying something about their possible mental instability. But I also thought that they could turn that quite easily into a reason why they SHOULD have rights.

And KMF... I knew from the get-go when I drew from the hat that this topic of mine was nearly impossible. And I even joked when I pulled it that the White House was gonna be the only place I could get even a remotely close answer as to why they shouldn't have rights

But so far I was looking on the sides of saying that the American rights of "quick and speedy trial" and such are meant for AMERICANS, not these accused terrorist. Or even saying somehting like, "You see this guy murder 10 people right in front of you. But you have no evidence whatsoever, except for you're own eyes. Do you detain him and hold him until you get this evidence? Or let him free because of that lack of evidence, which could lead to possibly more criminal tihngs?

For every 100 sites I find against my side, I find one that has about 3 sentences that kinda supports my side.

You might base your arguments on the Geneva Conventions that everyone is so fond of quoting. If you read them carefully, they apply only and solely to uniformed members of recognized military forces. They do *not* apply to "insurgents". That's why spies (who, pretty much by definition, don't wear uniforms or distinguishing badges) can be executed if captured, but prisoners of war cannot (without some other legal basis).

Don't allow "Constitutional Rights" or the "Bill of Rights" to get pulled into the debate, either. Neither the Constitution nor the Bill apply to "insurgents" or to Prisoners of War. They are legal protections extended to U.S. citizens, which may, at the pleasure of the government, be granted to other, non-citizens...but the government is not under any legal or moral obligations to make such an extension.