Why Human Rights are More Important than National Security

On Friday, the morning after the Democratic debate, I was stunned to read in the War Room column over in Salon that Governor Bill Richardson had said the wrong thing about national security versus human rights. Tim Grieve wrote, "We're not sure which office Richardson is seeking these days, but he came pretty close to disqualifying himself from either of them last night when he insisted that human rights are more important than America's national security." I'm not sure what planet Tim Grieve is living on, but on our planet, it is human rights that are precious and rare and always to be preserved and "national security" that is ever and anon a cant boondoggle. I was not alone in my dismay. I read War Room almost everyday and have liked Grieve's posts in the past. When I first read what he was saying, I thought he was joking; so did other readers. The entry got 57 responses. Almost all of them were outraged, and several called on Tim to explain himself. He never did.

Human rights are defined, most notably in the U.S. Bill of Rights. They are defined because the Founding Fathers realized that if they were not defined, they would be more likely to be abrogated or lost entirely. The Founding Fathers understood the temptation on the part of governments to give and remove human rights arbitrarily, because they had experienced such things before the Revolutionary War -- in the Stamp Act, in the quartering of British soldiers on American households, and in illegal searches and seizures, in no taxation without representation. They recognized that although British Law customarily acknowledged various human rights, it was essential to name, codify, and write them down to make it less likely that they could be taken away.

Human rights are profoundly local -- they reside in individuals. According to humans rights theory, if someone is human, he or she has the same rights as every other human. The rights of American citizens as described in the Bill of Rights have been expanded and extrapolated around the world so that they apply not only to us but to everyone. While in the U.S. this idea is a bit controversial, in other countries it is standard, accepted, and cherished. The codification of human rights, and the widespread acknowledgment of this, is one of the things that makes the modern world modern. To roll back human rights, even for some individuals, is to return to a more primitive, hierarchical, and un-American theory of human relations. One example, of course, concerns women. Can women routinely be imprisoned, sold, mutilated, or killed by their relatives? U.S. law says they cannot; in practice, many are, but no one openly promotes what many secretly do. If a candidate, even a Republican, ran on a platform of reducing the legal rights of women, he wouldn't get far (ask me again in 10 years, though). Or consider lynching. The U.S. has a long tradition of lynching. It was only after the Second World War that the Federal Government and state governments began enforcing their own anti-lynching laws. This was a victory for human rights. Do you want to go back? The Republicans would like you to, in the name of: "national security."

Guess what? There is no such thing as "national security"; it's a concept that not only hasn't been defined, it can't be defined. It is a psychological state. The very phrase describes an impossibility. All boundaries in the U.S. and in every other country are porous. Planes come and go, as do ships, trains, trucks, autos, information superhighways, human relationships, and human emotions. In addition, the smaller any threat becomes, the less safe we are against it. We no longer live in the world of Mutually Assured Destruction, where our thousands of warheads aimed at the Russians protected us, psychologically, from their thousands of warheads aimed at us. Since the end of the Cold War, threats have gotten smaller and more invisible. Where is that suitcase of nuclear material? Where is that vial of anthrax? But as they have gotten less easily detected, they have also gotten more local. 9/11 is what we always think of when we think of a breach of national security, but in fact, the destruction was not national, or even city-wide, or even district wide -- although the World Trade Center was less than a mile from the New York Stock Exchange, the NYSE was only closed for six days after 9/11.

The phrase "national security" cannot mean anything in a nation of almost 10 million square miles. The Bush administration and the corporatocracy knows this perfectly well. Witness how our chemical plants have not been secured from the possibility of terrorist attack -- there are too many of them, and the likelihood of any one getting attacked is too small to make it worthwhile for either the nation or the chemical industry to fortify them. The Dubai Ports deal of a couple of years ago demonstrated the same understanding on the part of the administration, that "national security" is merely rallying cry for fear.

The Bush administration has spent some trillions of dollars (I shrink from naming a figure, since, as big as it is, it is surely a lie) to attack a nation of a mere 437,000 square miles. In doing so, they have chosen to ignore such items of U.S. national security as public health and infrastructure maintenance. The population of the U.S. is demonstrably poorer, hungrier, less healthy, more homeless, more likely to be injured in an infrastructure failure, and more likely to suffer from a weather related loss than it was before the Bush administration came into office. A huge debt means that the economy is more likely to fail. The prospects of our children for a peaceful and prosperous future are worse. Nothing that the Bush administration or the Republicans or the Military Industrial Complex has done in the last seven years of foolish incompetence and braggadoccio has benefited the nation as a whole, though it has benefited a small class of investors and government cronies. As a result of the Iraq War and the Bush attack on the Constitution, I can be afraid of the obliteration of the entire idea of the U.S. -- I am afraid of that, thanks to the tyrannies of the Bush administration and the professions of the current crop of Republican candidates -- but not of the obliteration of the U.S. itself. Indeed, the war in Iraq shows more than one thing about the idea of national security, because even though the Iraqis have been attacked by the largest military in the world, they have been damaged but not subdued. The same would be true of the U.S., no matter who attacked us.

Liberals, progressives, and Democrats recognize, at least intuitively, that "national security" is a code word for tribalism, while "human rights" is a code word for the rule of law. Governor Richardson was straightforward in acknowledging this fact, and deserves praise rather than blame, especially from a writer for Salon.

Comments

[WillfromSF]

First of all, it's not a competition, and liberals are so found of saying that they go hand in hand, although I don't totally buy that -- at times you have to forego some rights to have security (shocking, I know!) If we changed the term to personal security would that sit better on your politically correct buttons? To me the human right of safety and survival are the most important ones and if you don't have those, the others don't matter.

[Ellen2]

As a Nation, we have forgotten that the Founding Fathers felt it was more important that Human Rights be preserved than that absolute security be maintained. There's a quote (somebody tell me where it came from, please) "Better that nine guilty men go free, than one innocent man be imprisoned." Security is all of our responsibility. That's why the Right to bear arms was put in there. We all have the right, the duty, the obligation even, to defend and protect ourselves.
As a Nation, we have abdicated this responsibility to Professional Soldiers, an item that was abhorrent to many of the Founding Fathers. They had extensive experience dealing with Professional Soldiers. Most of it wasn't good. Good for the Soldiers, but not for the citizenry (just ask South Korea, or the Phillipines).
We, as citizens, don't want to get involved, are afraid to testify, find it too inconvenient to be jurists, and generally scream that it's the job of the politicians to protect us from ourselves, let alone anyone Outside the country.
Human Rights goes Hand-in-Hand with Citizen Responsibility.

[Sundialsvc4]

To my way of thinking, "human rights" and "national security" are one and the same thing.

[UltraClassic]

Jane, if I may be so bold as to interject once more, I still have yet to find a poster or commentor on the Huffington Post who can give me an example of where they have had their rights restricted since 9/11 via George Bush. I think it's an urban myth, everyone knows it's true but nobody can give an example of it.

But we can look in Latin American right into the heart of Venezuela for a perfect example of loss of rights for the "national good." Is not that an example of fascism? I just don't understand why the Huffington Post has almost completely ignored what is going on in Caracas. I guess if they had relatives in Caracas like I do, they might feel a little differnt. Loss of rights in the U.S. in the name of security? Show me someone in the U.S. who has lost those rights. Loss of rights in Venezuela in the name of "security?" It is the norm.

[LeeAnnG]

National security can mean so many things, but the current common understanding of it seems to be "protect the United States from Islam." This is such a narrow definition, it boggles the mind.

Doesn't security also mean freedom from hunger, illness, and want? It also means knowing that when you drive onto a bridge, that bridge is safe because it's been maintained well. It means that our hospitals are operating not from a profit motive, but from a desire to give our citizens world class care. Our schools need to be safe, not only from the nebulous possible terrorist attack or angry student, but from outdated textbooks, leaking roofs, inadequate curriculum, and "education profiteering" by the likes of Neal Bush.

Our entire infrastructure is crumbling from highways to schools to public buildings. As the income gap widens year by year, poverty makes it more likely that our own citizens will commit crimes. The bogus war on drugs incarcerates thousands of non-violent offenders each year. All of these are "national security" issues.

The notion that our nation - or the newly named "homeland" - is in more danger from "Islamofascists" than it is from neglect, poverty, the removal of social safety nets and the freedoms outlined in (but specifically not restricted to) the Bill of Rights, poor education, and the takeover of our country by a bunch of rightwing extremists and religious fanatics is absurd.

Jane Smiley, as usual, says it all so well. I've been a fan ever since, over 15 years ago, I first picked up "A Thousand Acres."

Freedom begins at home, and so does security. The fight against fascism has become a struggle to restore the basic rights the neocons and their representatives in both the White House and congress have so systematically stripped from us.

[janmB]

Give the candidates a break---After 10,000 statements a week ---they may not always come out with the right remark that is pleasing because they are human.

If you want PERFECT then we'll have to wait for the SECOND COMING.

[Truthortradition]

In politics, being truthful and right doesn't always translate into being elected. Richardson was correct when he said human rights are more important than the myth of National Security--------but unfortunately, most of the American voting public will only use that to accuse all Democrats of being soft on crime and even softer on terrorism. Sad but true. That's why Hillary made a point of saying National Security trumps all else.

[robbor]

"national security" is a code word for tribalism, while "human rights" is a code word for the rule of law.

love that line, tx jane

[rlpete2]

In response to a local controversy over a Ten Commandments monument, I pointed out that the second half of the Decalogue, which was touted as the basis of our system of laws, was simply the core principles necessary to have a civil society. Also that, a few years later, the same God that geve them the Laws led the Israelites to Canaan, where they looked on the land, coveted it, killed every man, woman, child and beast in the first city they came upon, and then took the region by force.

They could do this without violating the Commandments because the God-given Law only applies to relations with your "neighbor:" a member of your tribe. This is the mentality of Osama bin Ladin and his ilk; they demand respect for their faith and culture, but blow up statues of Buddha.

In contrast, the founding document of our nation, the Declaration of Independence, says in no uncertain terms that ALL people are equal and are endowed with inalienable rights. This is such a revolutionary concept that we have not yet fully implemented it ourselves, but it is the reason the United States was admired and feared around the world. It is the aspect of America that bin Ladin fears could destroy his culture, and exactly the thing he wishes to destroy by his terroist attacks. And therefor it is the exact thing we must cling to tightly, or else the terrorists win.

[ronmyers]

Your point is well taken and much needed to be made. I only want to suggest you give a little too much credit to the so-called founding fathers. Those fathers who held the upper hand at the time were protecting the rights of a rather narrow class. Others, of course, were more progressive. It has been the dissenters since that time, following in the ideological footsteps of such as Jefferson, Paine, and Burr who have secured the rights we are trying to hold onto under the Bush-Cheney onslaught. This protester class has included office holders and plain citizens. You can name them for yourself. It's an ongoing struggle, I'm afraid.

[JohnWantsPeace]

You are right that "national security" is a vague undefined thing, but I think that it still does have some limited meaning. I think what it means is a direction along a continuum between safe and unsafe. The choice between national security and human rights is, of course, a false choice. The limited meaning of national security goes with human rights, not against it. For the most part, the label "national security" is a red herring as you are, I think, asserting. I have to say this is an excellent post, and very illuminating.

[Guitarsandmore]

The most telling question from the last Democratic Debate was the one given to Hillary asking her if she preferred Diamonds or Pearls. That type of a soft ball question given to the “woman” is CNN pandering to the gift horse with the most campaign dollars who will now feel obligated to spend those dollars on CNN advertisements for her campaign.

[godwillen]

On this planet, in this country, with an evenly divided electorate, to say "human rights trumps national security" is tantamount to saying "I Am Unelectable! Hear Me Roar!" Miss Smiley, some progressives actually want to win something other than the plaudits of our friends. Hillary said what she needed to say to get elected: that the Oath of Office calls on the executive to protect the Constitution and protect the county against its enemies. That commission is primary - and that is all Hillary said.

[ohnoyoudidnot!]

Ms. Smiley, thank you for your blog contributions! This is the 1st (of many, I hope) of your blogs that I've read and I was so impressed that I had to read your bio...and now I have to read your books.

I have spent the last seven years wondering how Bush/Cheney were allowed to usurp the executive branch without the benefit of winning the election, to get us involved in this illegal and immoral war, to abrogate the rights of our citizens, to commit war crimes (for which they should be prosecuted and punished). How did he get re-elected?!?

[deminmo]

Bush is bankrupting the country. He is asking
for more than all the people in the USA can afford, to pay for an invasion that will last
for over 10 years, if we are lucky. He promised
the Iraqi people they would have better living
conditions than under Saddam. Most still only
have a few hours of electricity. This is not the
fault of the military. They have their hands
full with insurgents. The companies that were
allowed no-bid contracts have since fled, to
avoid investigations. National Security, yea
right. Most of our military is mired in a
hopeless situation, they can't help in a
national disaster. Human rights? Yea, cut out
healthcare for children and adults who are
either disabled or elderly.

We are headed for a number of disasters:
More War
Recession
Gas at higher than $3.00 a gal
People homeless, destitute and willing to do
anything to get what they need

We may have to have private security just to
prevent cities from being looted and burned.
Desperate times make for desperate people.