Starting this topic with ”the human rights of animals” and ending with considerations whether terrorists have human rights, or are indeed human, leaves me at a loss regarding what your train of thought might be — except perhaps to speculate on the meaning of the word ”human”. Regarding rights of both humans and animals, I think it is important to remember that neither are born with any rights whatsoever. Rights are privileges granted by societal groups to their members, allowing certain protections in exchange for relinquishing certain freedoms. In other words, I give up the freedom to hit you as it pleases me in exchange for protection from you hitting me. Becasue these rights are not ours simply by virtue of being born into a certain species (homo sapiens), but are granted by societies, and vary one from the other, any argument about whether animals or terrorists have ”human rights” is meaningless — because none of us do. The rights that I are because I am an American citizen, not a human. Otherwise one might argue that a lion that attacked and kileld a tourist on safari had violated that person’s ”human rights” by depriving him of life. One could also argue that American prisoners in jails have been deprived of their innate right to liberty as put forth in our Declaration of Independence by the fact of their incarceration. So, terrorists are certainly human by fact of their species — humans acting badly to be sure — but their rights are no more and no less what various societies grant them.

Every human and animal have the right to live in peace and i dont think we need a human right or animal right constitutions to tell us how to live. Because any law wriiten by humans will just be merely biased.