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