Freedom cannot be given to security

(https://kutuphane.dogus.edu.tr/mvt/pdf.php?pdf=0016589&lng=0)

The main purpose of this research is:

The primary purpose of this research is to determine whether the governments in the United States, known as the land of freedoms and opportunities, harm human rights and freedoms with the policies they implement with the perception of security threat. The second purpose is; The aim is to reveal whether the negative impact of excessive security perception on democracy and freedoms started after 9/11 or whether there has been a structural problem for a long time.

Methods of this research: Qualitative and quantitative research methods were used in the research. The research area is theoretically the whole United States, qualitatively Illinois, Chicago and especially the Palatine. Interview technique and observation methods were used to collect data. The books on human rights used in the theoretical background were obtained from the Palatine Public Library. The obtained data were analyzed with descriptive data analysis technique.

The universe of this research: The universe of the research is the USA. His time consists mostly of the work done in Chicago in April-October 2011. The official segregation of black people and the human rights violations of the policies applied to the Indians are also discussed.

The findings of this research; The United States has inherent human rights problems. In terms of "human rights and freedoms" in the country, there are basic distinctions such as "people-non-citizens", "those who are not included in the founding will-the strong-weak", "the ones who are white-non-whites". rather "Hobbes' Leviathan" is effective. It can also be stated very clearly that the greatest threat to freedoms in the United States is the “excessive premium accorded to the concept of security”.

Keywords: United States of America, Human Rights, Freedom, Security, Discrimination, Locke, Hobbes.

The original text of this research is given in the link above: “Security Threat Perception on the Limit of Freedoms in the USA-To Limit the Freedoms in the United States; Security Threat Detection”.

Previous work in this research area:

Freedom and security is the most important area of ​​discussion for academics expressing their views on terrorism. Harold Dwight Lasswell (1971) was one of the first authors to examine the relationship between national security and individual liberties. Freeman (2003:3) states in his work Freedom and Security that many researchers state that the government's use of emergency powers offers an effective solution, but somehow abuses it and threatens democracy. Heymann (2003) examines the balance between Freedom and Security in the context of terrorism, while researching a victory without a war. Carrera and Balzacq (2006), who look at the issue from a European perspective, reveal the problems that Europe will face for the future in their book in which they question whether security meets freedom. Eckes and Konstadinides (2011) examine the European public order within the framework of crimes committed in the field of justice, security and freedom, and include other crimes besides terrorism. Addressing the administration of Canada in the Contra-Terrorist era, Bell (2011) emphasizes the freedom of security. Long ago, Mathews (1986) examined the dilemmas caused by apartheid apartheid in the Republic of South Africa in the context of freedom, state security and the rule of law. Seidl (2005:3), which directly examines terrorism and the balance between freedom and security, reflected the German perspective on security. Here, it has been researched how local and international terrorism affects the balance of freedom and civil rights and national and public security.

United Nations Secretary-General Annan (2005) sought greater freedom and greater human rights, security and development for all. Wendel (2007) also covered specific issues such as the responsibility of the state in case of interference with freedom of travel in public international law. Gibbs (2011) drew attention to the connection between freedom, security and justice and the constitution. In the last period, especially the rights arising from religion have been emphasized. For example, Guiora (2013) discussed the balance of rights and national security in the context of freedoms originating from religion. Murphy (2013) deals with the state security regime and freedom of religion and conscience in the post-2001 period. Are freedom-security concepts opposite to each other, or are they complementary approaches? What could be the historical, social, and cultural factors that led to this approach in the United States, whose double basket of security is always full despite its extraordinary emphasis on freedom? This study will attempt to establish an approach to fill this gap.

Farrell and Newman (2019), in the context of 9/11 and Islamic State initiatives in Syria and Iraq 

He discussed the relationship between private life and security, which is an important area of ​​freedom, in his work titled “Privacy and Power”. The authors (Farrell and Newman 2019:1) interpret the relationship between freedom and security in the European and North American universe as a relationship of interdependence, as stated in the introduction. Sanchez and Pascual (2021) showed in their 470-page works that just last year, developments in the fields of freedom, security and justice transformed the European Union and how fundamental rights for EU integration and the development of its principles based on mutual recognition and trust fit right in the middle of all these developments. .

If we go back to the context of the USA, the efforts of the United States (USA) to create and protect an American nation with English law and English, which wants to contain people of all nationalities in the world ('melting pot' metaphor), ironically, is a bi-communal country in line with its social dynamics. has created. This ambiguous approach has led to the formation of a system that is contrary to the developments in the world, even in the universally accepted human rights, as in the example of "civil rights bestowed upon citizens" and "limited rights for others (human rights)". However, human rights are universal. Due to its nature, it is against discrimination. However, for the United States, they are citizen rights, if any. As a matter of fact, Cimen (2015) dealt with the issues of freedom and security in the context of legislation with great care in the context of US citizens through social events. Citizens' rights are important to an American.

Undoubtedly, the citizen-centered human rights approach is insufficient and incompatible with the concept. This constitutes the weakest link of the country's ideal of establishing a new state on a new continent based on a territorial (civil and regional) organization and freedom discourse on the old tribes. Because the United States has always put security first, under the pretense of protecting liberal liberties. Undoubtedly, the security-concerned policies that culminated with 9/11 and based on the past leave the rhetoric of America as the land of freedoms in the air, at least for some of those living in America.

Bayefsky (2001) mentions a system of conventions aimed at protecting human rights with six basic agreements created at the UN. The USA has not signed half of the UN conventions it pioneered and has put many annotations (reservations) on the ones it has signed. Even when security concerns rose, the USA even withdrew its signatures. Moreover, the term "Enemy combatant" and the "Genova Conventions" did not include such a status, and even the rights granted to prisoners of war were easily denied from this new enemy. The reason for this is the violation of individual rights and freedoms, which he claims to have determined best, due to security concerns. In fact, the concern for security and integrity not only undermines universal human rights and freedoms, but also causes credit deprivation that has deeply undermined America's security, and economic crises with rising costs that have plagued society.

When freedom and security are seen as opposed to each other, the greatest quest is to find the delicate balance where one is at the expense of the other. However, if a person can be kept alive, he will be kept alive in the state. In this case, it is not mutual borders that are spoken about, but a spiral of freedom and security that increase, support and elevate each other. It is considered as one of the cornerstones of the construction of a peace state and a world of peace in this new era. As stated by Benjamin Franklin, “Whoever gives up freedom with the concern of temporary security deserves neither security nor freedom” (Streb and Gerstmann 2006:16) This article focuses on the optimal balance of freedom-security, human and security, instead of the ambiguous benefit of looking at the state and society from the security perspective. It questions creating with a society-centered understanding of freedom. For this reason, the practice in the USA has been discussed from a critical point of view.

The cross-border humanitarian interventions of the USA, which succeeded in preventing the genocide in Kosovo and half in Bosnia, are a complete disaster for Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, the fact that the method determined for Libya is not adopted for Syria causes doubts. The USA will be the pioneer of universal human rights to the extent that it can get rid of distinctions such as civil rights-human rights, white and other, oil and non-oil, which violate human rights. Worldwide power is legitimized by worldwide Accountability. For this, the balance and braking system, which is the protector of the rights provided to an elite, must work for everyone and freedoms must be distributed to everyone.

Limit of freedoms in the United States:

In the USA, the Constitution is seen as the head of the mechanism that protects citizens against government encroachments (Lucas, 1996:5). However, besides the American Constitution, American Colonies and state laws, federal laws and acts of government units, and finally the Supreme Court decision. 

are included in this equation. Supreme court decisions are the most decisive in the final analysis. However, in various periods of history, the Supreme Court is in the position of the greatest violation of freedom and rights for national security and the welfare of the rulers.

Many people act according to their upbringing, social pressure, and their personal cultural and professional side while forming their ideas (Miller, 2011: 12). Today, in America, the rulers fed by its historical structuring and cultural development have taken most of the cards regarding class conflicts and have taken a defensive position (Codevilla, 2010:86). This, in turn, increases the polarization and reveals two classes, the ruler and the ruled.

According to the research conducted by Time magazine, 52 out of every hundred people feel that the Federal Government is strong enough to threaten fundamental rights and freedoms, and 68% believe that the activities of those working against the government are followed (Locayo, 1995:60/Lucas, 1996:8). On the other hand, the paradox between freedom and slavery has left its place to the relationship between a new plane (Peck, 2010:174): inferiority and individuality.

The USA is a land of freedom and opportunity for ordinary healthy and capable people. The problem arises when individual and even minority rights begin to harm society or upset the balance (Baylon, 2006/Langwith, 2008:25). The more unlimited the freedoms that do not threaten the system and the established structure, the more inaccessible the freedoms remaining.

Right after 9/11, “terrorism” became the new paradigm, and its best simplifier was “national security.” “Melting Pot” etc. The imposition of "Balkanization" either "will melt" or "Balkanization" (Observer, 2010/Miller, 2011:112) causes the balance of security and freedom in America to completely deteriorate in favor of the former. Fundamentalists who carry the "ideology of hatred and fear" are in conflict with a "civilization" against which they "protest not the politics but the existence", "proud of the innocents they deliberately killed", "totalitarian", "Nazi" and "fascist" because they put on the stink of toleration. is not possible (Peck, 2010:231). Undoubtedly, there are many lessons to be learned from history from the idea of ​​protecting the wishes of the majority with the rights of minorities and balancing individual rights with public safety (Lucas, 1996:97). When there is some movement in favor of freedom, for example, Limbough (2010: 3) can say that Obama put national security at risk in order to improve the image of the USA in the world.

Today, the USA is discussing how a strong government that continues for more than 200 years and free people can be achieved together (Lucas, 1996:5). However, even if the movement it takes against the system in the USA is innocent and harmless like the women's movement, it sees it as an enemy and sees crushing it as a solution. Because the organization of society is from the bottom up, families still have a militaristic mindset due to their continuing habits of ensuring their own security and territorial defenses. On the other hand, militarism is related to the definitions of friend and foe, which is conceptualized as 'my way' or 'high way', in the softest terms on the street in the USA, and the enemy is an element that must be destroyed. The reflection of this understanding, let alone the 9/11 concept, can take a very brutal turn as shown in Iron Jawed Angels (2004). Using the first world war with Germany as an excuse, President Wilson and his team send women suffrage activists, who use freedom of expression, one of the most fundamental freedoms in America, to prison with excuses such as blocking traffic. are subject to. Indeed, with the 'Espionage Act', which Wilson ironically introduced during the First World War in 1917, which he declared to activate democracy in the world, those who spoke out or broadcasted against government decisions could be punished for up to 20 years. it was in ruins (Lucas, 1996:44-5). Individual rights and freedoms were violated due to high interests and security approach. As it is seen, the American human rights movement (rather than the idea of ​​mass movement and resistance in the formation and nourishment of rights) has oriented towards the prism of individual rights (Peck, 2010:5). Despite this, even the area of ​​individual rights and freedoms, where it is strongest, is not fully protected. Because the idea of ​​national security immediately makes it possible to restrict fundamental rights and freedoms. The understanding of state security first preceded social rights and mass movements and reduced the issue of human rights to (individual) fundamental rights and freedoms, and then removed the area here from being protected due to state security. Combined with the conservative writer Michelle Malkin's "putting national security above the top", people like Bush and Malkin have made some decisions to keep America safe. 

They believe that justice and freedom can be sacrificed (Langwith, 2008: 151). Trumph took the same route. However, it is inconsistent to act on the contrary today, where the rights of freedoms are respected and there is a great wave of democracy (Carter, 2005/Langwith, 2008:195).

Undoubtedly, fundamental rights and freedoms can sometimes be restricted for the peace and security of the society, with an exception. The need for political power to do this may necessarily pose a danger (Van Mill, 2002). As a matter of fact, on January 2, 1920, more than 4,000 people could be arrested in 33 cities against the Bolsheviks in one night (Lucas, 1996:41). The checks and balances system described by Locke is said to have been introduced by Powell (1996) to limit government power, but this is also the insurance of the protection of the system. Even if the elected ones are different, they will protect the established order or make change impossible by spreading it over a very long time period.

In American history, the idea of ​​"federal unity and togetherness" can easily hurt the fact that human beings are created equal. For example, the threat of secession in the case of the abolition of slavery by a few southern states could lead to the continuation of slavery as a constitutional institution (Myers, 1991:62/Lucas, 1996:32). According to many people, the word and discussion of human rights in America is only a precursor to national security concerns (Peck, 2010:4). As a matter of fact, although the USA claims to be a country based on individual rights, it is difficult to say that even the most basic human right, the right to life, is guaranteed. When the civil zone defense was reduced to individual property, individual armament and defense gained importance in the USA. For this reason, the state can only fulfill its duty of protection to a certain extent. In other words, public security is provided jointly by the individual, local governments, the state and the Federal structure. Therefore, the seriousness of the violations of rights is in parallel with the pyramid.

While ensuring the public security of the state, there has always been a serious presence of unsolved crimes, especially in political opposition movements. Pontiac, the leader of the Ottawa Indians, who rebelled against the British to protect his homeland, was assassinated in 1769. This political assassination also drags the Indians into civil war (Blashfield, 1993:33). In addition, the increase in massacres carried out in parallel with individual armament continues. For example, the murderer who entered a barbershop in California at the beginning of October 2011 can kill at least 8 people at once.

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44880955/ns/us_newscrime_and_courts/?GT1=43001).

National security is desired to be ensured not only by a series of actions including illegal methods, but also by an ideology that reaches idealism. The "new idealism based on human rights," as Carter puts it, is not only a popular and congressional revolutionary response to the Vietnam war, but also an ideological response to national security needs (Peck, 2010:45).

In John Dower (Peck 2010) he noted how contrasted the practice of human rights is in the United States, noting that the agreed-upon concept of human rights as an honorable and selfless vision is manipulated to aim at national state security and to divert attention from deep economic, political and military ills. wants to show. Human rights organizations are wiped out when it comes to security and idealism expansionism. Because in the USA, human rights organizations largely develop separately from peace movements and efforts for disarmament, prohibition of nuclear armament, and avoid taking sides in war and aggression issues (Peck, 2010:4).

Noam Chomsky (Peck 2010) argues that American secret history once again demonstrates a close link between US security concern and human rights attitude development. As is often claimed, the tendency to violence and the presence of obvious threat require the shift of individual powers towards the sovereign (Machowski, 2009). With the advice of Secretary of State Alexander Haig, since “terrorism is the last point of violation of human rights”, “anti-terrorism” should be at the center of American policies and “democratization” should replace the notion of “undesirable”, “bad”, and “discarded” human rights (Peck, 2010:85). As a result, people in authority in the USA may choose to ignore our rights for other reasons, such as 'national security', and in wartime instability, individual rights may be perceived as secondary by governments (Lucas, 1996:11). According to Carter (2005/Langwith 2008/202), American politicians preferred to violate them under the pretext of fighting terrorism instead of honoring their historical achievements. However, many human rights leaders said that the United States had committed very bad violations, as in Guantanamo, due of course to CIA incitement, "mistakes" and "narrow-minded calculations", but that this should not exhaust Washington's long-term credit. 

states that ashington will find the virtuous path (Peck 2010:2). The real history of human rights cannot be revealed, as not enough attention has been paid to the relationship between "idealism" and "national security" so far (Peck, 2010:3). Smith (2009:64-6) states that one of the most common t-shirts lately is 'Homeland in Security'. An old saying can guide us: “It is urgent to rethink human rights” (Peck, 2010:9). As Senator J. William Fulbright said years ago, “removing the high barriers inherent in human rights” has become the way to get rid of the growing American fear of “arrogant American power” (Peck, 2010:45). Also, if Washington's criminal actions are not reciprocated, human rights (all over the world) will be weakened (Peck, 2010:281).

Today, there are two major problems in the USA, especially arising from the prioritization of security: the economic crisis caused by increasing costs and the lack of credit caused by the lack of freedom, which has a negative impact especially in the field of human rights. This situation cannot be adequately demonstrated due to criticism from countries such as Iran and China, as well as very few academics. The human rights record of both countries is doubtful enough. More democratic country criticism is needed.

Undoubtedly, terrorism is a tremendous propaganda tool that no one can stand behind (Peck, 2010:230). G.W. The Bush administration turned it into a "war on terror" regime, which would ignite the purpose of human rights and democracy and bring the most difficult faith war to resolve since anti-communism (Peck, 2010:230). Bush interpreted this situation (again as in the past) as "a unique opportunity given by history to reconstruct freedom in the world" and drew a picture of "standard national security rhetoric" (Peck, 2010:230). Ultimately, although the tactics are not honorable, the main purpose is seen as honorable (Peck, 2010:231). However, the necessity of a political will to put all the facts on the table for the success of “freedom and justice for all” (Berry 2009:339) stands as a reality on the table.

Data and evaluation from this research:

There are two major problems that governments must deal with in the world today, such as ensuring security and protecting rights and freedoms (theguardian.com, Monday 26 June 2006). In fact, security and freedom are two concepts that should reinforce each other (Harman, 2013). Because there is no sustainability to "keep the state alive without keeping people alive". Farrell and Newman 2019:1) also interpret the relationship between freedom and security as a relationship of interdependence.

The efforts of the USA, which wants to contain people from all nations in the world by melting it ('melting pot' metaphor), to create and protect an American nation with English law and English, ironically created a bi-communal country in line with its social dynamics. This ambiguous approach has led to the development of a system contrary to the trend in the world, in the form of the distinction between "civil rights bestowed on citizens" and "limited rights-human rights for others", even in universally accepted human rights.

The USA, which was established with the Native American (genealogical) genocide, black slavery and discrimination (segregation) and changed its other opponent with 9/11 after the eastern bloc in the cold war, the "discovery doctrine" based on white supremacy with the Medieval Papal fatwa, and the "rule of fate doctrine" that reached its peak with missionary work. It is a country that carries out Western values ​​through superiority with ”. Jefferson, who drafted the Declaration of Independence, which states that all are born equal, is a slave-owning President, and Locke, the philosopher on whom his liberal liberties are based, is the owner of the proposal for property law over slaves. While the rights provided by the Constitution and the Supreme Court were initially limited to the White English Freeman (WASP), they spread to Catholics and Jews over time. It takes years and even centuries for these rights to spread to Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, and Indians in the United States, where the ruling class is revealed with the claim of a Judeo-Christian club.

Security concern is so important for the USA that it has not signed half of the UN conventions it pioneered and has put many annotations (reservations) on the ones it has signed. He was even able to withdraw his signatures when security concerns increased. Even the rights granted to prisoners of war by using the name "Enemy combatant" were easily denied to other people on the grounds that the 1949 Convention (Genova Conventions) did not include such a status. The reason for this is that the individual rights and freedoms that he claims to have identified best are violated with security concerns. Concern for security and integrity not only undermines universal human rights and freedoms, but also causes credit deprivation that deeply undermines US security, and economic crises with rising costs that plague society. For this reason, like many Americans, Harman (2013) stated that actions and transactions made with security concerns should be more transparent and subject to surveillance. 

thinks it should be kept.

The cross-border humanitarian interventions of the USA are a complete disaster for Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, the fact that the method determined for Libya is not adopted for Syria causes doubts. However, the USA has succeeded in preventing a full genocide in Kosovo and half a genocide in Bosnia and has protected the most fundamental right, the right to life, to a certain extent. The USA will be the pioneer of universal human rights to the extent that it can get rid of distinctions such as civil rights-human rights, white and other, oil and non-oil, which violate human rights. Worldwide power is legitimized by worldwide accountability. For this, it is considered that the expansion of the balance and brake system, which is the protector of the rights provided to an elite group, and the distribution of freedoms to everyone will be a very good start.

Countries ruled by leaders who do not have all four components (Sternberg, 2005) such as wisdom, intelligence, creativity, synthesis (synthesized) cannot keep the state alive because they do not know how to keep people alive. It should be noted that giving up freedoms for security is a favorite (bad) argument of major governments (Napolitano, 2013). As stated by Benjamin Franklin of the USA, those who give up basic freedoms for temporary security deserve neither freedom nor security. There is a great opportunity ahead for the Biden era…

If a final word is to be said for freedom and security, give freedom to everyone: to the weak within and to the nations outside of you… Because in our global World, as seen in the example of Covid, punishment is imposed on everyone.

Out-of-link references:

Farrell, Henry and Newman, Abraham (2019), Of Privacy and Power: The Transatlantic Struggle over Freedom and Security, New jersey: Princeton University Press.
Sanchez, S.I. (Sara Iglesias) and Pascual, M.G. (Maribel González) ( 2021), Fundamental Rights in the EU Area of ​​Freedom, Security and Justice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cimen, James (2015) Social Issues in America: An Encyclopedia, London and new York: Routledge.