When the United States is engaged in military conflict, do the demands of national security supercede conflicting claims of individual rights?
" ...Only the greatest dangers can outweigh that of changing the public order, and the sacred power of the laws should never be interfered with except when the safety of the country is at stake". Because I agree with these words given by a great philosopher of the social contract, Jean Jacque Rousseau1, that I affirm the question.
The question gives the circumstance in which we debate whether or not national security ought to supersede conflicting claims of individual rights. That circumstance is when the U.S. is engaged in military conflict and when national security is at stake. We can infer that these infringements on rights would only be temporary until national security was no longer at stake, in which case, these rights would be restored.
Because the question inquires the United States and its values, we must understand and examine what the U.S.
was first founded upon. The Declaration of Independence was what America first established itself upon and states that this country entitles it citizens to, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". We must realize that to receive Liberty and Happiness means first we must have Life, furthermore the protection of.
We cannot protect societies liberties and individual rights, if we cannot first protect the citizens' lives and ensure their security. Once we protect the people, we can then protect their rights.
The government's duty to the country is to do what is best for the country as a whole as seen fit by the government. John Locke2, another philosopher of the social contract affirms this; "To avoid this state of war (between one individual to another) is one great reason of men's putting...