Are jihadis entitled to "human rights"?

http://tinyurl.com/yzhzznb
Islamofascists As Robotically Lethal As Nazis
By RICHARD COHEN...I attended a panel discussion on robots. One of the experts — everyone's an expert at Davos — predicted that robots would take over the world. Another said this was nonsense. A robot couldn't even scratch its own back....Robots killed more than 160 people in Mumbai, India....call the 10 young men who did the killing (nine of them died) ...robots. They did not know the people they killed. They did not care about the people they killed. They took orders over the phone from a controller in Pakistan. When he told them to kill, they killed. When he told them to die, they died....disturbing HBO documentary called "Terror in Mumbai." ...In recent days, five young men from Northern Virginia have been arrested in Pakistan, ...bent on joining terrorist outfits there....the Mumbai attack was assisted in its planning by a Chicago resident, a native-born American named David Headley who is now in custody....it does not take a clever individual to commit appalling mayhem. All it takes is a frightening plasticity and some training...In three months he and the others were turned into merciless killers....The coldblooded killing of Jews is hardly a new idea. The Mumbai terrorist attacks had elements of Eastern Europe during the Holocaust....Mumbai advances the horror. The banal background of the German killers — not, by any means, hardened Nazis — is somewhat similar to the pedestrian stories of the Mumbai killers. The difference this time was that the Mumbai terrorists were not only willing to kill others but themselves as well....one of the panelists described what he thought would happen when ...one robot was hooked up to the computer in another and then another and another until each robot was supersmart and superfast...and totally without a conscience — cold, soulless, pitiless....not exactly what happened in Mumbai, but it's close enough....done with nothing fancy — some automatic weapons, grenades and young men turned into robots.
...****It has long been interesting to discuss at what point humans are distinguished from, first, other primates and animals, and, latterly, from robots like the replicants in Blade Runner. A book called The Moral Animal makes a case for morality being a difference, perhaps THE difference. If that is the case, then a being that looks human but lacks the free will morality that the West (at least) considers important might well not be human. We are used to eschewing capital punishment for the mentally ill who do not "know" the meaning of their actions ( and the Ft Hood killer is bound to consider this sort of defense, as recommended by various Muslim apologists who refuse to acknowledge that this might be a religious characteristic rather than a mental illness --Islam as "religious illness," if you will )and consider that they might be not guilty by reason of mental incapacity. A more rational viewpoint might hold that they ARE guilty by reason of mental incapacity.
Perhaps a more analogous situation is that of a wild animal ( bear, cougar,...) that kills a person. The animal is not even aberrant; it usually is doing what is natural for it and the person most often has intruded into the animal's realm rather than the other way around. Nevertheless, the animal is hunted and "put down." I have often considered that the proper response for someone who seems to have forfeited, misplaced or been otherwise disabused of his humanity in the commission of some heinous act against an actual human is to put that person down. In the robotic sense, perhaps he should be dismantled and permanently put on the shelf.
At the same time,this might not go far enough. We are constantly reminded by the jihadis that they "love death more than (we) love life." Thus, for them death is necessary but insufficient as a demotivator. Other means must be sought even if they seem to transgress the rules of morality applicable to "ordinary" humans rather than robots. What in their programming would assume high enough priority to be dissuasive? Injury to something outside themselves is clearly needed (although one might well argue that coercive interrogation methods to elicit life-saving information would be moral and appropriate for such robotic types ). These could involve the sources of their programming ( e.g. harm to the religious impulses that motivate them such as precluding them ascending to heaven through use of their own superstitions about pigs and women and defilement or even threats to the symbols of the religion itself such as Mecca and Medina or their ayatollahs ) or things like their families. There has long been an argument against extending to "lower" animals ( and now to robots ) the rights one would ordinarily extend to other humans. We have seen from the Nazi era and the demonstrations of the psychologist Solomon Asch that ordinary humans are capable of robotic cruelty but, until now, the West has thought there is a line that humans do not cross: that of robotic agreement to destroy themselves. One might well submit that this is a clear line of demarcation that separates the human from the non-human. ****