And if you remember, post 9/11, they actually used the class "unlawful enemy combatant" in order to justify the techniques being used.

In the case of McVeigh, it was quite obvious he was the primary responsible party, there was a capital punishment case pending, and no one wanted to risk the loss of that case due to a technicality. Everything - including his interrogation - was textbook.

I guess that's not what I'm asking. I'm going back to the 'ticking bomb' scenario, here on US soil. Why not torture an American citizen if it can save 1 million lives?

So you don't think there is any difference
 

between home grown terrorists like McVeigh and Nichols and the Jihadist terrorists?

The acts may be both terrorist acts but the scope and consequences are far different, in my opinion.

It is like being threatened militarily by France or China. Same threat, but consequences from threat are significantly different.

For our citizens I am a textbook libertarian, and I guess for lawful aliens, I feel the same as well.

We can never allow our government to use unnecessary or extraordinary measures against our citizens, otherwise we might fall into an authoritarian state.

However, in terms of fighting external enemy combattants, I don't see they have paid any dues to receive the same protections.

This is essentially what I am saying:

So, yes. It's different. In fact, it's a GARGANTUAN difference.

No, I do see a difference - this is just an academic question for the ticking time bomb scenario.

I don't see a difference. I don't see any gray areas when it comes to something like that. One is either a terrorist or not a terrorist. It's like being pregnant. You either are or aren't.

He said he's not certain. Not that there IS a gargantuan difference.

Our argument as to why we deserve rights is not because we are Americans, but because we are Humans: "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I'm not sure I understand your contention here. Are you arguing there are no additional rights that Americans enjoy that non-Americans do not?

I simply disagree with human rights by virtue of one's existence.

A person who exhibits hostile tendencies from outside this boundaries of this country must be able to defend himself or be aligned with a country which will defend him. I'm not certain I agree with inalienable rights concept, but rather only those rights which you and your friends can defend. Without the ability to defend and to enforce a right, it is really meaningless.