The question of whether to take away civil rights from a terrorist is an interesting one, a paper in 2018 takes a closer look at this issue.
It's noted how often people treat the above issue with a utilitarian perspective. The denial of civil rights is directly proportional to the threat level the individual poses.
So a personal question what rights would you take away?
Sometimes it may be the Miranda rights or as extreme as torture to gain information against a suspected terror attack. But how do people decide on the level of evidence needed to follow through with the denial of rights?
The paper summarised by the APA elucidates the following -
"By contrast, opinions about rights violations were not affected by utilitarian concerns about public safety and dangerousness.
Judgments of how suspected terrorists ought to be treated are thus informed by retributive concerns, over and above utilitarian ones."
Certain details of the conventions for human rights seem to be ignored by individuals who long for retribution even over factors such as utilitarian concerns.
A side note and informative film starring Samuel Jackson explore these themes in the movie: "Unthinkable".
The summary of the paper is here:
https://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/spotlight/issue-117