Part One – The Controversy:
The Belgian government
believes that we can win the war on terror without infringing on “human
rights.” In fact, they have stated that they are convinced, “that the fight
against terrorism can only be waged if human rights and international humanitarian
law are fully respected.” They argue that, “Terrorism cannot be battled
effectively by flouting the very rights and freedoms that terrorists are intent
on destroying;” if we compromise our rights, the Belgians argue, the terrorists
win.[i]
In practice, the United
States’ Patriot Act was touted as minimally compromising rights. It
allows roving wiretaps, but only with a warrant.[ii] But, the recent spate of
revelations concerning our National Security Administration, have shown that
such spying has compromised our rights more than we initially thought.[iii]
And so while the United States gives lip service to the Belgian model of
not violating rights, its actions indicate that it has found this route
impractical.
Part Two – The Importance:
We must test this assumption
because every criminal investigation involves potential compromising of
rights. Recently, the United States has increased its drone attacks, in
an effort to decapitate terrorist organizations. As supposedly uninvolved
civilians have died as a result, Amnesty International has suggested they
may constitute “war crimes.”[iv] Such a policy clearly violates the
Belgian standards. Thus policies will vary greatly depending on our
assumptions about the importance of protecting human rights in the pursuit of
terrorists.
Part Three – The Evidence:
My analysis will assume a
“Clash of Civilizations” view as envisioned by Harvard University’s Samuel
Huntington, wherein Islam and the West are at war.[v] Multiculturalists
dismiss this view as they never conceive of cultures in conflict. But,
Islam’s 1400-year expansion, taking of Spain, and worldwide Islamic terrorism
today, provide evidence that this view should not be dismissed so
lightly. In fact, since the 9/11 attacks in America, Islamic terrorists
have carried out over 21,000 attacks.[vi] Islam and terror are
associated.
Multiculturalists may
dismiss the source documenting Islamic attacks, as “right – wing “and” fringe;
but, these are ad hominem attacks. If one wishes to deny the
overwhelmingly Islamic nature of terrorism, you must disprove the 21,800
documented cases on this website or provide a similar number of non-Muslim
terrorist acts. Easier yet, name a recent non-Muslim terrorist act like
last month’s Kenyan shopping mall attack.[vii] If you cannot, calling my
argument “right-wing” or dismissive it as assuming the “clash of
civilization” only evades the evidence.
In terms of the violation
of human rights in fighting terrorism, we must engage in culturist
profiling. The evidence points to young Muslim men being most likely to
carry out terrorist attacks. When we assiduously avoid targeting such
men, in airports for example, for the fear of being ‘racist,’ and violating
'rights,' we endanger lives and give the Muslims a moral
victory. We must profile Muslims in matters related to security.
This is not irrational racist profiling, it is rational culturist profiling.
We, however, must not
throw out our sense of rights in fighting terrorism. While we should not
allow Muslims to work in security sensitive areas like airports and nuclear
power plants, there is no reason Muslims cannot work in banks, run businesses,
or engage in any non-security related industry. Honest, non-terrorist
Muslims, will understand the evidence-based need for discrimination in security
related areas.
Eliminating Islamic
immigration would prevent future Islamic attacks. This could be said to
violate “human rights.” But, I have a problem with “human rights” so
conceived. I have no “human right” to be in Saudi Arabia or China.
Both nations discriminate for their people on a culturist basis. The West
too has a right to discriminate on a culturist basis. “Human rights,” so
conceived, violate our sovereignty, culturists rights, provide an evidentiary
basis upon which to protect our society.
Part Four – The Conclusion:
The assumption that
we need to violate “human rights" when fighting terrorism is
partially true. Ending Islamic immigration and culturist profiling at airports
will reduce terrorism. But, we cannot be arbitrary; we must only spy
on Muslims who have connections to terrorist organizations, to safeguard
rights. This will lead to alienation and help recruit terrorists.
While
avoiding gratuitous violations of rights, we cannot foreswear ever
violating of any rights, as such an approach blinds us to obvious dangers.
Overall, we must replace our idealistic “human rights” model, which
ignores all cultural diversity and the clash of civilizations, with a realistic
culturist model for combating terror and safeguarding rights in the
West.
[ii] Nathan Sales, A Vital
Weapon, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/07/do-we-still-need-the-patriot-act/the-patriot-act-is-...
[iii]Joshua Keating, Why
the Snowden Leaks will have a bigger impact than wikileaks, the slate, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/10/24/reports_of_nsa_spying_on_france_and_germany_why_the...
[iv] Andrea Crossan, US
Drone Strikes are Controversial, But Are They War Crimes? http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-10-22/us-drone-strikes-are-controversial-are-they-war-crimes
[v] Clash of
Civilizations, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations
[vii] Guy Alexander,
Dozens die as Islamic Militants Attack Kenyan Shopping Mall, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/21/kenyan-shopping-mall-attack-dead
No comments:
Post a Comment