Clinton says National Security is more important than Human Rights. Obama disagrees.

Note how Obama doesn't back down when Blitzer tries to get him to buy into the concept concept that we have to chose one over the other, whereas Clinton capitulates.



Senator Obama, is human rights more important than American national security?

OBAMA: The concepts are not contradictory, Wolf.

BLITZER: Because occasionally, they could clash.

OBAMA: They are complementary.

The more we see repression, the more there are no outlets for how people can express themselves and their aspirations, the worse off we're going to be, and the more anti-American sentiment there's going to be in the Middle East. We keep on making this mistake.

<snip>

But we've got to understand that, if we simply prop up anti- democratic practices, that that feeds the sense that America is only concerned about us and that our fates are not tied to these other folks.

And that's going to make us less safe.

That's something I intend to change.

<snip>

(other candidates give responses here)

BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights. Senator Clinton, what do you say?

CLINTON: I agree with that completely.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/15/se.02.html

I'd expect the same answer from any of the Republican candidates. The last thing we need is another authoritarian nationalist president...

Obama is just pandering. You can't have civil rights if you don't have security.

You can't have security at the expense of human rights.

Civil rights is the very foundation of security.

Perhaps you're not familiar with: Those who would trade essential liberties for temporary security, deserve neither. (Not an exact quote)
from Ben Franklin.

Give up ANY freedom in the name of security, any you have just lost the war. The opponants of democracy have won.

I think nominating Sen. Clinton would be a big mistake for Democrats, but she was right on this one. Protecting the Constitution and national security are the 2 most important jobs of the American president. I might add that Sen. Biden teaches Constitutional law and has the most foreign policy experience of any of the candidates. Just something to think about when weighing the candidates while considering their primary duties as president.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"

The idea that we can protect the constitution by trampling on human rights is self-contradictory and deranged.

Pakistan, in particular. I may be wrong, but I didn't take the question to mean sacrificing the liberties of the American people for our security. The context suggested the question referred to whether we should, for example, back a dictator (Musharaff), allowing the freedoms of the Pakistani people to suffer, in order to keep our nation safe.

She's wrong either way.

in order to help spread democracy some place else, but our president's oath of office requires different priorities. It's his or her job to protect our nation's security before attending to some other nation's business. You don't have to like that, but it's required of our president.

Supporting human rights abroad will in no way "sacrifice our nation's security." Giving mere lip service to those rights will undermine our national security.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

You're making it way too complicated. If Blitzer meant it the way you're presenting it on this thread, no serious Democratic candidate would be on the side of sacrificing our liberties for security. You stated that the distinction doesn't matter, but the distinction makes all the difference because those candidates who said they would put our nation's security before defending another country's freedoms are being presented by you as fearfully weak, putting them in Bush's corner on this issue, as in willing to sacrifice our liberties in the name of security--something Franklin warned us about, as you pointed out, when what they were really doing is declaring that they'd carry out their oath of office. I believe 2 or 3 of the candidates even stated that in those terms, that they would abide by their oath. So you were either not paying close attention to that question and the responses or you're being disingenuous and trying to mislead people. I prefer to believe the former is the case.

Besides, I wasn't presenting a "false dichotomy." I'm not the one who asked the question, Wolf Blitzer is. I'm merely clarifying the question for you. And though it's an over-simplified scenario, it's a fair question. For example, once upon a time there was a dictator named Saddam. He was very repressive and would even torture his people. Then along came an American president who decided to ignore his oath of office and "help free the people of Iraq" from the evil dictator. Unfortunately, he made things worse, but his argument, at least his latest argument, is that he did it to give the Iraqi people freedom and democracy. The problem is, and here's the rub, it's actually made us less safe, thus, it was a bad idea to put the rights of others before the security of our nation.

Now you may argue that that isn't really what Bush was doing, and I would most certainly agree with you, but that's getting away from the point, and even if that really was what Bush was trying to do, it still would have been a bad idea. There are ways of promoting freedom around the world without sacrificing our security and, if done effectively, would actually contribute to making us more safe.

You've got it backwards.

Actually I would say that security without civil liberties would be meaningless at best, and at worst it would be despotism. Obviously.

is that they are equally important.

It's similar to the economy vs. the environment right-wing propaganda. As if we have to "balance" both.

Hillary is buying into it enthusiastically. She believes she has to do this to get elected because she lacks the political courage and moral vision of Obama.

We have a choice and the time is NOW.

or something like that...

what this is really about.

without civil rights?

Then you are a fool.

are certainly not the ones to oversee civil rights.

I don't trust Bush one iota: he sat and did nothing while we were attacked on 9/11/01, even though he had intelligence from several different sources telling him something was going to happen. So I really don't want this traitorous imbecile or his sycophants telling me about the need to relinquish my civil rights.

NEVER. NOT ONCE. NOT JUST A LITTLE. NOT IF THEY HAVE A BOMB POINTED AT MY FUCKING HEAD.

nuff said?

I'm not an Edwards supporter by a long shot, but I'll drink to that with you.

:toast:

Here's to ya buddy!

:toast:

and this is just one more example where the old guard just doesn't get that most of today's Americans understand we're in a global society as well as economy. You cannot base your entire foreign policy on your own security and fuck everybody else. That is the problem.

The only threats to national security are ones we bring upon ourselves.

Become a model OF human rights (such as removing corporate ubiquity over the models that govern human services) and the world might just respect you a little more.

these dog and pony shows are worthless.


the very essence of our democracy is that they must be in balance.

her answer is the same that the tyrants in the last century used to justify the slaughter of tens of millions across our planet.

There's real moral courage and experienced leadership for you.

:sarcasm:

On the flip side, she was of course "politically correct."

We have a choice. The time is NOW.

i can not believe she said that...

:eyes:

yeah - right back to ya

and there IS no security. For anyone.

Please keep in mind the proper context.

Given that we still live in a dangerous world (yes, I know, we might be responsible for much of the mess), there will be difficult cases whereby we will have to choose options that might not necessarily promote human rights.

This will be a tragedy (and it should be avoided at all costs). Nevertheless, if national security is in imminent danger, our defense is paramount.

"security."

None.

It's a false dichotomy.

Sorry, Clinton, but you seem to be in the wrong party's primary.

And our little guy DK!

I had him at No 1 for the debate.

Congrats! Your candidate did a great job.

:toast:
Keeping it real in Ca.

Like the NY undocumented worker program issuing various types of drivers licenses when just two weeks ago she supported it, she said a simple "no" against the program at the debate.

It was 16 days where she completely reversed her opinion. So, while she says anything about any issue, it could completely be the opposite in short time.

You have to like her since she eventually takes every position on an issue...and that's just so, so nice.


Free yourself of any credibility! Ah!

Bush has trampeled human rights in Iraq and the result is that we have greatly lowered our national security!

When we support torture, corruption, and dictators who hurt human rights we increase our reputation as being The Great Satans by much of the third world. It is this sort of stuff that helps al queda recruit more terrorists to fight against us.

Yes we must fight terrorism. We must protect national security. But these goals are not contradictory to human rights, they are complimentary to them. Which is exactly what Obama said, and what Hillary pooh-poohed.

Hillary is the great panderer. She feels it is the easy road to sound tough. In the process she futhers lines of thinking promoted by the neo-cons and the Bushies.

The United States must again embrace International Law and the Geneva Conventions. It is what separates us from the animals.

you cannot sacrifice liberty in the name of security.

BLITZER: Hold on. Hold on one second. Senator Dodd, I want you to weigh in. What is more important when they clash: human rights versus national security?

DODD: Well, first of all, I hope maybe others don't find this as ironic as I do that have President Bush urging the Turks not to invade Kurdish areas of Iraq and lecturing Musharraf about restoring the constitution. This is an administration that stepped all over our own constitutional processes.

(APPLAUSE)

And this isn't. Elections are -- there is an expression in Spanish that says elections...

BLITZER: What is more important, human rights or national security?

DODD: Obviously, national security, keeping the country safe. When you take the oath of office on January 20, you promise to do two things, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and protect our country against enemies both foreign and domestic. The security of the country is number one, obviously.

BLITZER: All right. OK.

DODD: Secondly, this doesn't mean -- elections are only one note, as they say, in the tune of democracy. Be careful what you wish for. If there were totally free elections. In many of the countries we're talking about today, the Islamic Jihad or the Islamic Brotherhood would win 85 percent of the vote.

That's not a great outcome for us at this point either.

BLITZER: All right.

DODD: So we need to have a sense of balance about this here. I disagree with those who suggest here that we ought to condition Musharraf's actions regarding some of these issues on aid and assistance here.

There's only one way into Afghanistan. It's through Pakistan. The generals in the military control the nuclear weaponry here. We need to move and remind Musharraf that there are obligations he needs to fulfill.

Be careful here about insisting upon...

BLITZER: All right, you answered the question, Senator.

DODD: No, no, let me finish. Because, literally, then you have to do what you say you're going to do. And if he doesn't do what he's suggesting, then you have to terminate that relationship, and that puts this country in a very, very dangerous position right now.

BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights. Senator Clinton, what do you say?

CLINTON: I agree with that completely. The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America. That doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests.

And there's absolutely a connection between a democratic regime and heightened security for the United States. That's what's so tragic about this situation. After 9/11, President Bush had a chance to chart a different course, both in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, and could have been very clear about what our expectations were.

We are now in a bind. And it is partly -- not completely, but partly -- a result of the failed policies of the Bush administration.

So where we are today means that we have to say to President Musharraf, "Look, this is not in your interest either; this is not in the interest of the United States. It is not in your interest to either stay in power or stay alive." We have to figure out how we're going to navigate this.

When I was meeting with him earlier this year, I asked him if he would accept a high-level presidential envoy to begin to negotiate some of these issues.

He said yes. I got back, I called the White House, I asked them to send such a high-level envoy -- they did not do it. They're going to send one now.

So, I mean, you've got to stay on top of this and you have to manage it all the time. That requires presidential attention; we haven't had that, and part of the reason is obvious now.

I do not agree that national security is more important than human rights. It's a false choice.

I left off the rest of her answer because it is irrelevant to the fact she believes "national security is more important than human rights."

She capitulated to Blitzer's insistence on choosing one or the other; Obama stood his ground.

It seems generic foreign policy pretty much, in the pre-W era - I haven't really seen much rage (or praise) for Dodd's answer.

If Hillary said that it might get more attention.
Pro and con, most likely heated.



PLaying political pundit/game commentator:
Hillary, in agreeing with the spirit of Dodd's premises about the oath of office, and seeing the trick question, chose to say Security as a smarter political move in the general and in the post game punditry.

Obama, as you said, stood his ground against Wolf, and not fall into a false choice question.
It was both savvy and principled, and I think one of his best moments.


There were many tricks going on that night. Yes/no, Malveaux doctoring questions on the fly, a rowdy crowd encouraged by CNN. No wonder it got high ratings, it was a boffo circus. With clowns.
I wanted someone to say, "Wolf. what kind of stupid question is that?"
Maybe Biden could pull that off. :)

But, grading on a curve, the format was no worse than many previous debates.
And that is a little tragedy in itself.

I think Dodd is a good guy, but he allowed himself to be snookered. He didn't think it through, just gave the pat, standard answer.

We need a new direction for the 21st Century in thinking, leadership, and moral and political courage.

This is not the first time Obama has demonstrated his superior insight and political courage.

:thumbsup:

He tried to boil things down into a yes or no basis, a security or human rights basis. So when a candidate gave an answer that elaborated on this or explained some nuances, etc he tried to boil it down to you were for national security.

Well, for one...as Obama pointed out....natioal security and protecting human rights are not opposites, it is a false choice to begin with.

This also speaks to Wolf's thinking, which should not be the focus of the debate.

A debate is supposed to provide discussion. Wolf was trying to turn the debate into a short answer quiz.

I think Wolf was really poor as a moderator. Yes, a moderator at times needs to prod a cadidate to stay on topic. But to go beyond this and do what he did here is not good for a debate.

The two aren't mutually exclusive...

That being said , anybody familiar with the social contract theory , and that includes Ben Franklim would opt for security over human rights if it was a mutually exclusive choice... We give up certain rights to the state to receive social order...

One is not more important than the other. But we cannot have one without the other. They are complimentary.

You can not have liberty without order...

It was to force free elections and use whatever pressure is necessary.

If the Democratic party wants to hold the white house we can't give sound bites crying human rights in a National Security context. It just doesn't win a national election. It was another opportunity to step into a trap. Hillary answered it correctly in the context of a Democratic primary debate.

human rights versus national security.