The use of the term “God-given-rights” and its application to the contemporary socio-political scene are problematic for me. My first read of the term includes both universal and irrevocable qualities. If these rights are in fact “self-evident” and “unalienable” as so stated by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, these rights must precede their embodiment in the documents, which form the basis for any organized society and government. In addition, they must apply to all members of the human race irrespective of where folks reside either on this planet or on the international space station. Any national government that proposes to curtail such rights based on residency and/or membership in a specific national state, i.e. citizenship, would appear to be guilty of overreach. If one’s faith tradition posits a Creator Deity, who has so “endowed” creation, how is that we creatures can deny that gift to fellow human beings based upon either their national identity and/or physical location? Do accidents of birth modify an individual’s rights as a human person?

The recent release of the Department of Justice memo outlining a supporting rationale for targeted killings, i.e. drone strikes, is the motivation behind this posting. I have been stewing over the matter for some time. Many of the actions discharged under the umbrella of the so-called war on terror seem to be defended with this same inconsistent logic and internally contradictory speech.We need to be intellectually honest and rationally consistent, even when our short term interests will not be served and a convenient course of action will be called into question—serious question.

 Despite claims of “self-evident” and “unalienable” rights, our practice and the practice of nation states down through the ages speak to a much more mundane origin of and utilitarian application of civil liberties. At any given time and in any given place, these liberties are what a given group has sanctioned at that time and in that place. In cruder terms, civil liberties are what the powers-that-be have decided what will be in their best interests at the time. Claims of historical precedence, divine sanction, and self-evidence are often nothing more than poorly founded claims of legitimacy.