Rights issue

How do you mean? In terms of a one-on-one encounter, like somebody attacks you, then go ahead and defend yourself, even if they die. That's easy. But do you mean like terrorists? On the one hand, if they really are out to destroy you, then they have violated the implied social contract and thus have forfeited their civil rights (their human rights still exist). Also, just like an individual has the right to self-defense, a nation by extension has that right on behalf of its citizens, since it exists to protect them. Therefore it can defend itself. And it should defend itself - due process only applies to attackers who are arrested alive, and if they found guilty they lose many of their civil rights. The difficulty is of course making sure they actually are out to destroy you and not innocent people. But I'm sorry, where people's lives are involved it is better to err on the side the side of caution, as long as that too is done with caution. For example, say you are a guard at an airport and you see somebody acting suspicious. You better check them out, inspect their luggage, etc. If they were just fidgeting, then no harm done, aside from some inconvenience, but you have to make sure. As long as you don't shoot them when they reach for their cell phone, then their rights as well as public safety have been served. People don't have right to never be inconvenienced or embarrassed.





I don't know if that's what you had in mind.

In the US we believe that thoe rights extend to life, liberity, and the persute of happyness. If some one kills another then he has violated that persons right to life. He is no longer entitled to thoes rights.