Obama and the Terrorists
Last week President Obama’s ‘favorable’ rating was an eye-popping 70% and after the last week of canonization it may now be 90% and rising.
But there are shoals in the waters.
Tuesday, during his inaugural, the president proclaimed, “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,” and promptly ordered
But is the choice between our ideal of liberty and security a “false choice” – or is it a real choice where protecting our liberties comes with a risk?
A president – any president – throwing Abdul the Afghanistani, a suspected terrorist, in prison for years without charging him with a crime doesn’t sit too well with our idea of what a president ought and ought not to do – but, on the other hand (as far as security goes) saying Abdul can’t be thrown into prison without being read his Miranda rights and so on may come with a risk.
So, do we want more security or do we want to maintain the ideal of liberty and take the risk Abdul may do us some harm?
Instead of addressing this debate head-on President Obama sidestepped it by telling voters they can both have their cake and eat it too. That it’s a false choice. That they can have both liberty and security (and there’s no price to be paid in the form of greater risk). But what he should have said is are we willing to live with more risk to maintain our principles of liberty – even in Abdul’s case?
Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.
Obama and the Terrorists
Last week President Obama’s ‘favorable’ rating was an eye-popping 70% and after the last week of canonization it may now be 90% and rising.
But there are shoals in the waters.
Tuesday, during his inaugural, the president proclaimed, “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,” and promptly ordered
But is the choice between our ideal of liberty and security a “false choice” – or is it a real choice where protecting our liberties comes with a risk?
A president – any president – throwing Abdul the Afghanistani, a suspected terrorist, in prison for years without charging him with a crime doesn’t sit too well with our idea of what a president ought and ought not to do – but, on the other hand (as far as security goes) saying Abdul can’t be thrown into prison without being read his Miranda rights and so on may come with a risk.
So, do we want more security or do we want to maintain the ideal of liberty and take the risk Abdul may do us some harm?
Instead of addressing this debate head-on President Obama sidestepped it by telling voters they can both have their cake and eat it too. That it’s a false choice. That they can have both liberty and security (and there’s no price to be paid in the form of greater risk). But what he should have said is are we willing to live with more risk to maintain our principles of liberty – even in Abdul’s case?
Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.