2007 Democratic Primary Debate in Las Vegas, Nevada, Nov.15, 2007: on Homeland Security

Barack Obama: Human rights and national security are complementary

A: The concepts are not contradictory, but complementary. Pakistan is a great example. We paid $10 billion over the last seven years & we had two goals: deal with terrorism and restore democracy. We’ve gotten neither. Pakistan’s democracy would strengthen our battle against extremists. 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. As president, I will make sure that nuclear weapons don’t fall into the hands of extremists, especially Al Qaida. If we simply prop up anti-democratic practices that feeds the sense that the US is only concerned about us and that our fates are not tied to these other folks. That’s going to make us less safe. That’s something I intend to change.

Bill Richardson: Human rights can be more important than national security

A: Yes, because we need to find ways to say to the world that it’s not just about what Halliburton wants in Iraq. It’s also about our values of freedom, equality. Our strength is not just military and economic. Our strength as a nation is our values: equality, freedom, democracy, and human rights. That’s why we are strong.

Chris Dodd: National security is more important than human rights

A: Obviously, national security, keeping the country safe. When you take the oath of office, you promise to do two things, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution of the US and protect our country against enemies both foreign and domestic. If there were totally free elections in many of the countries today, the Islamic Jihad or Brotherhood would win 85% of the vote. That’s not a great outcome for us at this point either.

Hillary Clinton: National security is more important than human rights

A: The first obligation of the president of the US is to protect and defend the US. That doesn’t mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests. After 9/11, 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. It is not completely, but partly, a result of the failed policies of the Bush administration. Where we are today means that we have to say to Musharraf, “Look, this is not in your interest either; this is not in the interest of the US. It is not in your interest to either stay in power or stay alive.” 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 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.

John Edwards: Lead a long-term effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons