The problem I have with the Obama administration’s approach to terrorism is simple: they are looking for nicer ways to treat terrorists. You know who the terrorists are: the guys who killed thousands of Americans, blow themselves up, and decapitate journalists. These guys:

Apparently, Obama is considering restarting the Bush administration’s military commissions, which is a good thing. The only thing is that the suspected terrorists will be given more legal rights, which might not be so good. If they were waterboarded, will they be able to sue the US? Can their defense call on American citizens as witnesses? What if they are acquitted and then rejoin Al Qaeda as a hero once released? What exactly does “more rights” mean?

The problem is that Obama is not asking the right question when it comes to terrorism: how does America uphold its values and defend its values? Those are two different things. The former requires that we not abuse these suspected terrorists despite their beheadings of civilians, despite their vows to destroy any American, despite their dedication to a homicidal and suicidal ideology. The latter requires that we keep these suspected terrorists off the battlefield, outside of the US mainland, and that justice is served… but the administration is not asking this question.

Obama is asking: what is the nicest policy we can adopt without too much resistance from the American people? So he will restart the military commissions, but give them more rights. The Democrats will try to sweep Nancy Pelosi’s foreknowledge and complicity under the rug so that they can investigate only the Republicans who knew. Obama will consider sending some suspected terrorists to Saudi Arabia for “terrorist rehab.” Obama seems to be more interested in the well-being of terrorists than his own people… it is worth discussing that Obama’s interest in the lives of terrorists is high while he has absolutely no interest in the lives of the innocent unborn. It is worth discussing that he will spend hundreds of millions on Gaza when its rulers, Hamas, launches rocket attacks on Israel on a daily basis.

The accusations of knowing and being friendly with Bill Ayers, a domestic terrorist, are being vindicated by Obama’s actions now. His moral compass is broken. His sympathy for terrorists and tyrants is guiding his foreign policy in a way that has not been seen since Carter, the one-term president who presided over Iran’s taking of American hostages and “economic catastrophe.”

Now, I am not one who ignores excesses in Republican behavior. I gladly point out that when Bush and co. took off the gloves, we did go overboard. I understand why, I voted for it, and so did millions of Americans who supported our tough stance against terrorism. We were faced with an enemy that would commit suicide in order to kill innocents. They would kill children for no reason. So did Bush overstep when he slammed two countries that were supporting terrorism (their support of terrorism is a FACT, whether affiliated to Al Qaeda or not)? Possibly some of our methods went too far. For example, a Powell aide recently said that the Bush administration was pushing interrogators to find the “smoking gun” between Iraq and Al Qaeda. While it seems that they pushed too hard… we must consider the alternative? Would we be willing to allow Iraq, which historically has had nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs, to collaborate with Al Qaeda? The UN had imposed crushing sanctions on that country, Hussein had used chemical weapons before, and Hussein was funding different terrorist groups already, did we want to wait until he decided to work with Osama bin Laden? America did not want to risk it, especially after 911. America made the best decision and re-elected Bush despite an unpopular war… because we had to do what was necessary to ensure that America was safe.

In retrospect, it is easy to criticize the Bush administration, but the truth is that the American people were there, Congress was there, and both parties voted their conscience. We now know the full details of the enhanced interrogation techniques and we reject them on the basis of our Constitution, which is a document that is not merely a contract between government and the people, but between the American people and the world. When we wrote that we would reject “cruel and unusual” punishment, we decided that we would hold ourselves to a higher standard than the monarchies and dictators of the world. In a sense, we failed to uphold that, all for understandable reasons, but now we can return to our principles. We should never have abandoned them. Also, EITs do not work so well. I do not suggest that we treat enemy combatants or suspected terrorists nicely, just that we do not stoop to their level. Waterboarding is nothing like public decapitations, nothing like pouring acid on prisoners, nothing like public lashings which are practices of the Taliban and Al Qaeda… but it is beneath the moral code of America. Let’s be rough with our enemies, but within the limits that we set for ourselves more than 200 years ago. It’s the American way.

-AG