Ignatieff - Human Rights, the Laws of War, and Terrorism

1. Rights as Precommitments

I agree that human rights and civil liberties are a valuable part of our society and that terrorism is an act that attempts to displace these liberties. However, I think that in a time of crisis we may have to realize that out liberties can be strained in an attempt to protect society as a whole. I'm not talking about the sort of things that Ignatieff is suggesting such as torture, etc. but I think that this country fails to understand that when we are under attack, there are certain rights and procedures that we need to undertake in order to secure the nation as a whole. If that means that we profile Arab males, Caucasian males, or Asian women then we need to take those precautions, it would be foolish not too because life is a human right and these precautions are taken to ensure that. As for the human rights of terrorists, they do have some but severely limited to free individuals because the mere act of terrorism is a disregard for human rights and life in and of itself, so the individual clearly does not value these virtues. Therefore, we do not need to uphold theirs fully.


2. Emergency Suspensions of Rights

I agree with what Ignatieff has said here. A suspension of rights can only take place in times of emergency, however it is hard to tell when a President or government body has overstepped it's bounds as Ignatieff. I guess that when the rights of the American people are restricted so that a typical and reasonable way of life cannot be maintained, then they have overstepped their bounds. When the government oppresses its own people, it becomes a problem. However, it is easy for a select few to claim that they have been oppressed when they really haven't which is easy to do in today's society when the claim of oppression may lead to a law suit or fame in the media.


3. Two Precimmitment Strategies

All I have to say for this section is that terrorists and terrorism in general is a more complex war than any other fought traditionally. We don't know whether these terrorists act as civilians, militants, or soldiers therefore it is hard to hold them as any. I agree that the manner and condition in which some of these men have been held is unjustified and immoral. However, I revert back to my previous statement that some human rights and civil liberties should be taken away from those that clearly disregard them.


4. Human rights as a justification for terror?

Human rights are not a reasonable justification for terrorism. I can understand how others (terrorists) would think that it might be considering Ignatieff's argument, but I don't see how it is a justification. I understand that they come from a different culture and feel that they have been oppressed. However, taking human life and human rights away from others in the name of human rights as a justification does not make sense to me. Clearly it is using human life as a means instead of an end.


5. Human rights and the struggle against oppression

I agree with how Ignatieff distinguishes between a freedom fighter and terrorist. I was wondering myself as his argument progressed how he would classify our own forefathers. They were "revolutionaries" to us, but terrorist to the British. However, the forefathers fought military targets in the colonies instead of trying to instill fear and harm to the civilians in Britain herself. I also agree that when one resorts to violence, they have forgone their claim for human rights as a justification and must follow the rules of war. Terrorist have done just the opposite and can be rightly considered as such because of it.