American Government's Struggle to Balance National Security and Human Rights
There is 2 parts of to this assignment, to post an original response post and a reply to a classmate post.
Discussion Forums 4:
Discussion forums provide an opportunity for peer-to-peer interaction, build community, and provide an opportunity to evaluate student comprehension. There are four discussion forums in this course, in each forum, the student will create a thread, answer the question, and then respond to one other post from classmates.
1. An Original response post: a thoughtful and concise short essay that addresses all parts of the discussion prompt. Original post must be made 48 hours prior to forum due date to allow for peers’ comments, a minimum 200 words excluding cited text is required. Please use your word processor to count the number of words and include that at the end of your post.
The U.S. government argues that it is a leader in human rights and that its foreign policy supports this commitment. Critics charge that the United States engages in practices that violate basic human rights, such as the detention of suspects at Guantánamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, and defense of torture. Looking at the history of the United States, what were the tensions and trade-offs between national security arguments and the defense of human and civil rights. Give a specific example to support your argument, do not use an example cited by another student.
2. Response to a classmate where you critique another student’s post (minimum 100 words). This part must be in the form of a specific feedback that goes beyond general or vague comments. Please reply to this classmate.
Discussion Board 4
COLLAPSE
Throughout U.S. history, there has been an ongoing struggle to balance national security and human rights. The government claims to prioritize and defend human rights through its foreign policy, but critics accuse it of violating basic human rights, such as with the detention of suspects at Guantánamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, and defense of torture.
A prominent example of this tension is the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, authorizing the forced relocation and internment of over 120,000 Japanese Americans, primarily U.S. citizens, who were perceived as a security threat following the attack on Pearl Harbor. This action violated the human and civil rights of Japanese Americans and denied them their constitutional rights. Although the government later acknowledged the internment as a mistake and offered reparations and an official apology to survivors, the event demonstrated the government's willingness to sacrifice individual rights in times of national security crises.
While national security is essential, the U.S. must ensure that protecting human and civil rights is always a top priority. The country's history is filled with examples of trade-offs between these concerns, and the public debate on this issue continues. The government must strive to maintain a balance between national security and human rights, as the long-lasting negative effects of violating human rights have been demonstrated in the past.
Lecturer’s Name
Course
Due Date
American Government
Although the United States of America boasts of being the leader in human rights, this position has been the subject of debate, with critics arguing that the involvement of the US in practices that violate fundamental human rights does not reflect this notion. Looking at the history of the US, the tensions and trade-offs between the national security arguments and human/ civil rights defense lie in promoting human rights and protecting national security. Nearly every administration has treated the two as mutually exclusive: protect national security at the expense of human rights or promote human rights while overlooking national security (Burke-White 249). Human and civil rights activists have argued that it is inappropriate to overlook human rights in the name of national security.
In contrast, US presidents have maintained that defending the nation against its enemies is the Federal Government’s priority. Since human rights movement emerged in the mid-twentieth century, policymakers have seen human rights promotion as a burden to national security (Morris 140). This view has always left the US in a dilemma of whether to promote human rights or protect national security. Unfortunately, history depicts that the US always values national security more than human rights, which is why it has engaged in several acts of aggression.
For instance, in 2003, the US invaded Iraq on claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program that threatened the US and its allies (Burke-White 257). This invasion was one of the several acts of aggression by the US because the UN Security Council neither sanctioned it nor was the US in self-defense against armed attack (Boaduo 90). It came after former president Bush’s 2002 US National Security Strategy that made it clear that government’s priority is to defend the nation against its enemies (Burke-White 249). Since then, America has participated in various practices that violate human rights.