I disagree. Stupid people make stupid rules that fail to take into account the harm they cause and in this case sacrifice the many for the few. However rules can be changed - especially when it can be clearly seen by most that in order to protect the rights of the many, the ‘rights’ of the evil few become less relevant. Terrorists are the scum of the earth and effectively not human.

When it comes to Human Rights, I care very much about children who have no access to medicine, or even clean water. I care very much about women with no access to medicine, education or the law. I care about the people bombed out of their homes, living every day in fear of their lives. I care not one jot for murderous terrorists who have proved themselves to be inhuman.

I believe the Human Rights Act will never be taken really seriously until it it used to protect the rights of the vulnerable and not to save the skins of murderers, rapists, terrorists and others who have proved themselves to have no humanity.

British my foot! Do you truly and intelligently believe that nationality should be determined by simple geography and where someone happened to be born. That description is based on simplicity.

A true definition would be based on where one’s heart, loyalty and allegiances lie. Geography is nothing in comparison. It means very little and should carry no legal weight when it comes to such cases.

The clue is in the namee, 'human rights'. There's no wriggle room on it, any country that upholds human rights does so for everyone. Picking and choosing invalidates it AND risks setting a dangerous precedent that could be abused down the line.

Legally, they are British and they are our problem to deal with. You are applying emotion to an issue of rights and law.

And you will be quick to apply emotion when you post RIP to future victims of these terrorists. Personally I find that disturbing when you supported the ‘rights’ of the terrorists over the rights of the victims. You may choose not to see it that way, but that’s what it amounts to. As I said when people gets their priorities right - rights and laws can be reviewed and changed.

Human behaviour should determine humanity and the associated human rights - not an accident of birth. Most will rightly describe them as animals - and that is how they should be treated.

You've completely misunderstood me if you think that's the case and I expect an apology from you for essentially suggesting that I'm a terrorist sympathiser.

I value Human Rights, I value the sacrifices made to uphold them. I don't want to see them warped into something that's easily abusable and retractable just so people like you can engage in a bit of wanton bloodlust from the safety of your armchair.

If your approach came to pass, how long would it be before the denial of basic human rights became commonplace for crimes other than Terrorism? Would it go as far as to the point we'd withold rights from suspects too? Do you not see how slippery the slope is? Attitudes like yours piss all over the sacrifices people have made for our rights and I can't stand it. There's nothing I abhor more than people willingly throwing away their rights for no good reason.

All you are suggesting is that we become more like the countries where IS has taken hold. Do you not see that?

I’m not accusing you of being a terrorist sympathiser - I’m just saying that your opinion that the ‘human rights’ of terrorists should be protected is not a logical one in this instance as doing so will likely lead to the deaths of innocent people. One clearly has a significant impact on the other.

I think logic should come into play here - not a blind ideological view that all human rights are equal when the rights of a minority group of evil people could effectively override the safety and human rights of another more worthy group. Commonsense needs to dictate which human rights are more important in a situation like this and priority given to the safety of the majority.

Wanton blood lust indeed - I want to stop the wanton blood lust of the terrorists for Western blood. It’s madness if our country as a whole can’t take such obvious steps to protect the majority from the minority. Human rights laws that allow such a situation stink in my opinion.

We've only had the Human Rights Act in place for a few years. It's different in other countries, but in this free democracy I can only see it's been used for two things: to make HR lawyers rich (Cherie Blair, for instance) and to help prisoners play the system.

All that said, I can see what Dezzy's getting at.

The human rights of all humans should be protected otherwise everyone's rights become vulnerable to abuse. It's not about protecting terrorists, it's about maintaining standards so that everyone's rights are protected because when you create exceptions, you create a precedent. It's far from blind idealism, it's cynicism and distrust of the system to not be open to abuse. As I've said a few times already, everyone gets the same rights or eventually none of us will have any. We should fight to protect our rights, not willingly throw them away.

There's more to be gained from capturing enemy combatants (obviously it's not always possible to do so in battle) and robbing them of their martyrdom while using them as a source of information for future prevention than there is in just hunting them down and executing them with a hitsquad of Judge Dredds. Intelligence is how you make progress and a large part of that comes from captured enemies. There's nothing to be gained from a corpse. You don't save lives with executions, you save them with knowledge and an understanding of the enemy's movements and plans.

Every single man that passed through guandnamo bay was considered a terrorist. 220 of those prisoners were classed as dangerous terrorists. They were imprisoned for years and put through endless harsh treatments and interrogation techniques. 150 of those 220 dangerous terrorists were eventually found to be completely, utterly and totally innocent. Just men that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. How long did it take to find out they were innocent... days? weeks? years?

So we find someone who we highly suspect is a terrorist, just like they did for what was to become the detainees of Guantanamo Bay and we take them to a monkey court and sentence them to death? We take UK born people who fled to Syria to become foot soldiers for ISIS and we shoot them? Yes they committed an unforgivable crime and yes, they were unpatriotic in every sense but they were likely just low ranking gorillas and not something MI5 would consider dangerous terrorists.

I think any uk citizen returning from Syria, who have known links with ISIS, should be detained indefinitely and by indefinitely, I mean until this mess is truly over and done with and the detainee is considered to be safe.

Edited to say: Some of the comments by a certain person here are alarmingly fascist.

Low ranking gorillas have shown how ‘bravely’ and effectively they can mow down innocent women and children and run amok amongst unarmed people and attack them with knives. That isn’t your idea of dangerous!!

Let’s just let them walk free when some leftie psychiatrist considers them safe - until the next time. Let’s not!

Funny that I was thinking exactly the same about many other posts on SD that never seem to hold certain people to account for their actions - people they seem to see as ever the victims!

The ones who ran over innocent women and children were dangerous terrorists. Not everyone who supports ISIS does this.

Walk free? who on earth suggested that. Oh I get it, in your mind, if they are detained indefinitely that's the same as walking free :shrug:

In that case, we either shoot them or they walk free. What an bizarre world you live in.

Go and have a word with yourself.

You said to detain them until they are considered safe - what does that mean if not letting them walk. Safe, if they support ISIS who are murderers, rapists, child killers and terrorists how can they ever be considered safe!

Not necessary - I am speaking to you.