Individual Rights Vs. National Security Essay

I negate the resolution, Resolved When the United States is enmeshed in military conflict, national security ought to supercede conflicting claims of soulfulness rights. My honour for the round is Human Dignity, or what can be defined as a respect for the somebody and his or her rights and virtues. John Stuart Mill states that Everyone who see the protection of society owes a return for the benefit but non to the point that it violates constituted rights. Thus those rights which are the fundamentals of human self-regard must be maintained. No fundamental goal should ever debauch this fundamental goal. The criteria which must consistently achieve is the maintenance of a trustworthy government, or a govt. that maximizes the rights of its citizensMy sole contention proves that a governments legitimacy is contingent upon its preservation of individual rights. According to Charles Ogletree, Professor of natural law at Harvard University, The U.S. has not been a fertile breeding gr ound for bratwurstism diversity, religious and ethnic tolerance, a reliance on legal proceedings open to public scrutiny are all values view it hard to nurture in the U.S. the ethnic or religious abhorrence that fuels much terrorism. Unfortunately, sacrificing such virtues for temporary security would undermine these values. The impact is clear, that a removal of individual rights, such as freedom of speech or freedom of press, would uproot key American ideals and neglect the value of the individual within the United States. . The government would no longer protect the mental home upon with it was built, and such actions would illegitimatize the government.As reported by Susan Stanberg, political analyst for issue Public Radio, Muslim communities throughout Florida have a bun in the oven placed complains in the FBIs strategy in placing undercover agents in mosques to find our terrorists. This type of drastic action has also been taken up by new laws that appointment police p owers to search people travelling on public transit without notifying them of their right to refuse the search and without sufficient evidence or misgiving a severe incursion on the right to privacy. Police accept this fact, stating that they have nothing else to go on. This impact is that investigations based upon ethnicity encourage citizens to do the same thing. This arouses xenophobia and hostility to wards foreign groups of American society.Secondly,Prioritizing national security gives the govt. endorse to violate human worth in 3 ways i. Dictating lifespan choices relocating people/Japanese internment camps ii. Dictating moral choices whether to fight in war (draft) iii. Actually fetching liberty and property violating the rights of innocents in war/taking prisoners of war. The impact is that denying worth w/in borders is wrong because it defeats the purpose youre fighting for, and denying worth outside of borders is wrong b/c its hypocritical. The government no longe r serves its role as a shielder of the people, but rather a big brother like prove that dictates to its people their own moral codes.Finally, security loses its worth if not attach to by rights. Benjamin Franklin states that Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither liberty or base hit Without Liberty, Security is purposeless. The entire purpose of national security is to protect the American way of life and what our nation stands for. Thus, if upholding national security come alongs at the approach of sacrificing those rights that it is fighting to protect, it does nothing but erode the very purpose for its organism and become a self-defeating pursuit.OVERVIEWI offer an overview against the affirmative case. In order for the affirmative to affirm, (s)he has to prove three things. Firstly, that security is suit satisfactory to be achieves, secondly, why there is an imperative need to hold individual rights, and thirdly, (s)he must address all instances and types of military conflicts. Failure to do any of these things way that (s)he is upholding her burden as the affirmative. (s)he doesnt prove this because1) (s)he assumes that she will be able to provide for national security, however, there is no guarantee for this safety. We might have implement heavier security measures in airports, but our chemical factories are fairish as vulnerable as they used to be.2) (s)he just discusses the possible benefits that come from prioritizing national security, (s)he doesnt show how it is fundamental. Just becausenational security is important, doesnt mean that it is absolute. The benefits achieved on the affirmative, such as unification, maintenance of sovereignty, still subsist on the negative side. (s)he isnt showing why we have to sacrifice our rights. Moreover, benefits dont determine fundamentality. Just because we might be able to hunt down an extra terrorist or two, doesnt mean that ergodic lock do wns and strip searches will win the war on terror or that an inability to do so will lose us the war on terror.3) All of the affirmative arguments premised on the relative size of the conflict, but a military conflict does not assume a small or large proximity. Most conflicts such as the Persian Gulf are entirely within the United States ability as a superpower to control through alternative methods than violation individual rights. So this argument does not determine the fundamentality of prioritizing national security supra individual rights.