Ask Me Help Desk - What's more important, human rights or national security?

Take for instance MoveOn.org-inspired human rights position and one of the adherents to its philosophy, Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter abandoned our ally the Shah of Iran because he was insufficiently democratic, and the results: An even less democratic government that wants to destroy us.

Apply that lesson to Pakistan today. There is an outcry from the human rights crowd for Bush to do something about bringing democracy to the people in Pakistan, and abandon Pervez Musharraf.

What is wrong with these people, I think they are blinded by idealism to the extent they close their eyes to what just happened in Palestine with Hamas as a legally democratly elected government.

What are the odds of this happening in Pakistan, pretty good I think. The consequences however are much more threatening in Pakistan…the possibility of an al Qaeda/Taliban democratically elected government with nuclear power.

So again I ask: What's more important, human rights or national security?

As it turns out this was a question in CNN's Democratic presidential debate last Thursday night, and both leaders in the Democratic race failed to answer correctly.

"I mean, the first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America," Sen. Hillary Clinton answered. But she had a big "but":
"There's absolutely a connection between a democratic regime and heightened security for the United States."

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Carter's Ghosts

What do you think; is their a connection between, …”[A] democratic regime and heightened security for the United States."

I don't think so, any more than a national id will add a heightened security for the United States.

Why, because in either case you just don't know what people will do with democracy or a national id.

The purpose for security and all these gimmicks is to desensitize people so they can lead up to the one world government and Big Brother without people getting out of their comfy burka lounger while the terrorists try to put us in burkas. If they just came out and said this is the way its going to be and changed everything the next day people would know something ain't right. This way they can get us to gradually go with the flow and never know what hit us.
Well that is my short 'n sweet reply without the whole ordeal

Hello DC:

You fail to see the bigger picture. When we mouth the words about democracy, freedom and human rights, and then support a dictator who does the opposite, the world can tell. We don't fool anybody except ourselves.

Supporting a dictator who doesn't honor HUMAN RIGHTS is NOT in our national interest. In fact, supporting a dictator like that puts American citizens in MORE danger.

Support for the Shah of Iran is a good example. I'm glad you brought it up. However, I'm still trying to figure out your convoluted logic about how Jimmy Carter is the bad guy.

Unless of course, you think we'd be better off if we STILL supported him against his own people. You DO think that, don't you?? Dictators are good, as long as they're OUR dictators, right??

I really DON'T understand you.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello DC:

You fail to see the bigger picture. When we mouth the words about democracy, freedom and human rights, and then support a dictator who does the opposite, the world can tell. We don’t fool anybody except ourselves.

Supporting a dictator who doesn't honor HUMAN RIGHTS is NOT in our national interest. In fact, supporting a dictator like that puts American citizens in MORE danger.

Support for the Shah of Iran is a good example. I’m glad you brought it up. However, I'm still trying to figure out your convoluted logic about how Jimmy Carter is the bad guy.

Unless of course, you think we'd be better off if we STILL supported him against his own people. You DO think that, don't you?????? Dictators are good, as long as they're OUR dictators, right????

I really DON'T understand you.

excon

By that I take it you prefer the moral high ground even at the risk of an al Qaeda/Taliban democratically elected government with nuclear power.

This question comes back to your last question about pragmatism vs. idealism in government. In many ways, it's the same question... but istead of asking about the running of government, we are now talking about where PEOPLE stand.

My answer is the same, though. Without a pragmatic approach, all the idealism in the world won't matter. Because the ideals will die if the country cannot protect itself. If we fall under sharia law, all the ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of expression will be for naught, because all those freedoms will be suppressed.

Lot's of people like to point to Ben Franklin's statement that "Those who would give up essential liberties for a little security deserve neither liberty nor security." They say that Franklin would have been an "idealist" and would have been against the idea of any sort of "pragmatic" approach that limits our liberties in any way whatsoever.

But they misinterpret Franklin. Again Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberties for a little security deserve neither liberty nor security." The bolded words are important. We are not being asked to give up anything essential, nor are we seeking a little security. We are being asked to give up nothing essential in exchange for a LOT of security. That is a tradeoff that Franklin would have approved of... because Franklin WAS a pragmatist. He was quite willing to take pragmatic action to ensure the continued viability of the fledgling nation he helped create. Including the action of going to war to ensure liberty.

Elliot

Hello again, DC:

Let me see if I can reduce it down for you. We should "walk softly and carry a big stick".

excon

Time for a little context. The "essential liberty" quote attributed to Franklin comes from a Pennsylvania Assembly Reply to the Governor which actually appears to have quite a different meaning than how it's being used:

Quote:

In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he supposes, “if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the Province into such a Posture of Defence, as might have prevented the present Mischiefs,” seems to us uncertain; since late Experience in our neighbouring Colony of Virginia (which had every Advantage for that Purpose that could be desired) shows clearly, that it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by scattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insiduous Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers: But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them.

In other words, the government of Pennsylvania had done all it could to provide for the defense of "the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers," the Freemen of Pennsylvania, who had rejected their efforts, refused to pay taxes (or apply for exemption) to help fund their defense and being pacifists, appeased the marauders. So in essence - as I interpret this - the message was if you want to sell out, appease the enemy and reject provision for your protection you "deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Am I wrong?

Steve