International Norms vs. Fundamental Individual Rights

President Obama's careful response to post-election unrest in Iran shows this President understands the necessity of thinking about problems critically and not just with a gut reaction consistent with an ideology.

Republicans have criticized his slow response as too tepid, claiming the United States should stand up for the protesters. I have to agree with the President that we do not want to get involved unless we are asked or unless we decide, as matter of national security, it is in our best interest to intervene.

What troubled me in the press conference today was his assessment of what rights were being violated by the government of Iran. He said:

"There are sets of international norms and principles about violence, about dealing with the peaceful dissent, that -- that spans cultures, spans borders. And what we've been seeing over the Internet and what we've been seeing in news reports violates those norms and violates those principles."

What are "international norms?" The rights being violated in Iran are not international norms about violence. The rights being violated are the individual rights of Iranian citizens. Individual rights trump all international norms. Even if every country in the world was a Theocracy, the rights of the individual to life, liberty, property, and the right to pursue his own happiness - these fundamental rights - would not be subverted by these Theocratic regimes if they opposed them.