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

[DKLA]

Our Nat'l Security is lost unless we DEMAND impeachment hearing's of both the crook's, Mr's Bush & Cheney. Remember, these 2 sued to have our votes not counted, all the way to The Supreme Court. Then they started spying on us right away, in Feb. 2001, long before 9/11!
This mean's they allowed 9/11 to happen so they coyld rule from our fear. Only they benefitted from 9/11. Bush even allowed ONLY his Saudi Friend's to fly home on 9/12th, while all other flight's were grounded.
CALL NANCY PELOSI TODAY [phone], tell her she has no right to VOID the most critical portion of OUR Constitution! Tell her recent disclosure's require her to reverse that public statement and HEARING's are now required!
A FAILED IMPEACHMENT IS BETTER THAN NONE AT ALL!, just ask Bill Clinton. AND HE KILLED NOBODY!!
HOW MANY MORE MUST DIE FOR THESE 2 CRIMINAL WAR-PROFITEER'S!!
CALL NANCY TODAY [phone], YELL AT HER!!!

[duggie]

I'm so tired of this EITHER - OR mentality. Of course there needs to be national security, and it is depends among other things on vigorous application of human rights.

National security depends on citizens being intelligent, educated, and engaged in politics at every level. So does the protection of human rights.

On that basis, we're DOOMED.

[marksiet]

Yes Human Rights, our rights, your and mine are paramount to the promotion of a free society where self expression is the pinnacle of freedom. Also yes we are witnessing an all out assault on those human rights because in todays world of corporate greed these rights have become inconvenient. They stand smack in the way of making profits.
War is the profit making tool of those who seek power at any cost including the cost of human lives no matter what side these lives may find themselves on in the political landscape of right and wrong. It used to be that all someone had to do was to set up a scapegoat for attack and then fire up the masses to go ahead to make that attack. Now reason has to be reckoned with. In order to circumvent reason human rights most notably the right to hold fast to the truth of life itself has to stand by the wayside. Since human rights are necessarily something that each of us hold in our own right we have to be a force for their protection. We become this force by speaking out and never letting fear override reason.

[BrickSykes]

Absolutely Correct, Jane!

Any sense of "National Security" will flow naturally from a Primary emphasis on Human Rights! Without America's allegiance to Human Rights any and all further considerations will fail. America is unique in this notion. Just look at the experiments when the emphasis is otherwise: Iraq, Germany, Russia, China, etc.

Brick

[RogerBybee225]

Hillary Clinton's response on the human rights or national security question was chilling, given her ardent support for the Iraq War in 2002 (she voted against Sen. Levin's amendment that called for exhausting all peaceful and diplomatic means before war was initiated, her recent vote for the neo-cons' resolution on Iran, and her willingness to keep US troops in Iraq on combat missions as late as 2013.

Here's an excerpt from the NY Times transcript: MR. BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights.Senator Clinton, what do you say?

SEN. CLINTON: "I agree with that completely. I mean the first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America. That doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests."

Clinton tried to soften this with a pro forma, CYA statement: "And there's absolutely a connection between a democratic regime and heightened security for the United States."

But since she supports aggressive (and illegal) military intervention by the US; is surrounded by advisors like Mark Penn (whose PR firm represented Blackwater and the government of Colombia, notorious for letting right-wing death squads operate); backs the US-Peru trade agreement that enshrines corporate power over democratically-derived legislation, her commitment to human rights in US foreign policy is highly suspect.
Roger Bybee, Milwaukee

[jodru]

Of the many lessons slavery taught us, one of the most overlooked is that violating human rights inherently weakens national security (define it how you will).

Southern slaveholders were so petrified of the Haitian slave revolt that for years they blocked our best efforts to trade with that country. Their desire to annex Cuba as a slave state forced the North to prevent it, thereby foregoing what at the time would have been a vital stronghold in controlling naval activity in the Gulf.

And let's not forget that the British strategy in the War of 1812 focused on instigating slave revolts across the South. During the Revolution, the British offered to free any slaves who would fight against the Colonists.

Clinging to an outmoded amoral policy such as slavery was an enormous liability to the US in its formative years. If we had protected the human rights of everyone on these shores in those days, we'd have been a much more secure nation.

[thegulliblecitizen]

Governor Richardson would be an able nominee for the Democratic Party and an effective President!

[Waterguy]

I didn't have a chance to watch the debate live and was tuning into the postgame spin and discussion was about how Richardson had blown it on his response to this question. Blitzer and even Carvill were talking about how no one in their right mind would put "human rights" above "national security" and expect to win the election. They even noted how eager Hillary was to rebut the notion and showed the footage of her response. After I got a chance to see tape and hear the question put forth to Richardson, I was in complete agreement with his response and was left wondering why the media has to negatively spin the best of replies to any good question (usually coming from Kacinich, Richardson, Dodd, Biden)into a perceived weakness. The election has not occurred, we still have a choice, don't believe the polls or be led by the media! Vote your conscience! Kudos to Bill Richardson for answering this question honestly!!

[midaswelby]

This is serious stuff folks. You must tell your friends and relatives about this - incessantly. So much of our population is easily scared into doing the GOP's bidding, that we cannot rest. Or don't you care about your great- and great-great-grandchildren? Do you not care about the sacrifices made by your forbears who died in defense of freedom? Even now, Republicans are beating their drums and trumpeting miniscule progress in Iraq in an effort to disparage each one of us who know that this war in Iraq was not only foolish and unwarranted, but also downright unjust and un-American. The true un-Americans are the ones who do not value Human Rights over "national security". Get off your butt and tell your friends and loved ones BEFORE it is too late.

[lvogt]

Someone should ask Rudy in New Hampshire if he understands their state motto... Live free or die!

[Pete Ross]

National Security would be far better served had the misadministration pursued those who did attack us by going after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the lawless areas of our good buddy Pakistan instead of withdrawing most of our military assets from that area and invading Iraq on a manufactured pretense.

[Pete Ross]

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Benjamin Franklin

One of the most egregiously insidious actions of the Bush administration is that they have, for their own political gain, turned our nation from "The home of the brave" to a nation of cowards terrified of a terrorist under every bush.

[Kirby]

We do a great job to delineate our rights and to demand that we have the right to have these rights, all to the good. However, how hypocritical so many people are when they think about the rights of others in other parts of the world. Americans have simply buried their heads in the sand when it has come to Palestinian rights, i.e., we've gone into downright denial about Israel's abrogation of them for the Palestinians. What makes this worse, to my mind, is the fact that we wouldn't be in denial, and we would call a spade a spade, and demand of Israel that it cease and desist the dehumanization and outright subjugation of Palestinians to horrific living -
all because the AJC's lobby decrees that we as a people cannot decry the plight of the Palestinians in their suffering of state terrorism as practiced by Israel.

So, Madame, the next time you want to write about "rights" for us Americans, and rightly so, think about us Americans having a hand in sponsoring the state terrorism in the West Bank practiced against the Palestinian People.

Americans, wake up to your hypocrisy!

[Bondaroid]

Bravo Jane, spoken like a true socialist. During the Clinton regime I am sure you felt much safer when Clinton cared more for the rights of the terrorists than the rights of the people to feel protected. Did Clinton use Echelon to protect the people or did he use it to spy on his political foes? We aided the Chinese in resolving their guidance issues with their nuclear weapons by 50 years including handing over computers that were not cleaned, Clinton paid lip service to National Security and may have created a stronger enemy in the future, one with ICBM's that are capable of landing on our soil. Bill Richardson, Energy Czar, his security at Los Alamos was so tight that nuclear secrets left the building with frequency, including computer hard drives. Human rights are a fine thing if we are all living to enjoy them. And don't forget that though human rights should be enjoyed by all, the Bill Of Rights and our laws ensure these rights to American Citizens only, with treaties and agreements between nations extending those rights, but not insuring them to all.

[jcmccr]

Yawn. It's pointless to try sorting out this claptrap, beginning with the massive misunderstanding of what the "Bill of Rights" (actually the first ten amendments to the US Constitution) is: a limitation on the powers of government, not the promotion of human rights. The human rights enshrined in the UN Charter, an initiative actively led by the US and France, the only two countries on the planet with anything approaching a universal concept of rights, is designed to promote the rule of law and provide grounds for some kind of enforcement mechanism, without which "rights" are rather meaningless. As for whether "national security" is meaningful or not, who cares and what difference does it make? We know that liberals always want politics to be about truth but the best politics can aim at is justice. Of course, truth and justice must have been the dominant forces of the day during Clinton's presidency, when right was right and the truth was supreme, and Bush, the all-powerful Wizard of Evil-Doing, single-handedly capable of subverting real American values, rubbishing the Constitution, carrying on as a tyrant, will no doubt offer just the excuse liberals need in the next Democratic administration to explain away stupidity, rash behavior, incompetence, and pandering--after all, Bush so wrecked the country what mere mortal could possibly restore it? Perhaps Jane Smiley, a clever novelist, might give us the benefit of her talents of satire rather than this warmed-over college campus breast-beating drivel which demonstrates no greater novelistic insight into these issues than Tom Clancy's writing.