I was watching the O'Reilly show tonight who kept stating that he cannot understand president Barack Obama's motives in moving terrorists to the United States for trial, or his treatment of the Christmas Detroit plane bomber as an everyday criminal with Miranda rights and everything else that entails, such as the inability to question this individual about his connections, or other, perhaps, impending attacks. This discussion was really frustrating, as all of his guests had problems pinning down the rationale as well.

The answer is not terribly difficult. The motives which O'Reilly was seeking are to be found in the appointment of an Attorney General, Eric Holder, who is more or less, a civil rights absolutist, who thinks that we are not being true Americans if we do not provide the utmost in civil rights protections to all people in all circumstances. The civil rights protections afforded by the Constitution, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, being advised of your rights, being provided with an attorney in facing the criminal justice system, are all important, but again, the questions becomes, as stated in my previous blog post, to what extent?

Under the Bush administration, a line was drawn in the interests of national security. The term "enemy combatant" was devised to deal with individuals who could neither be classified as common prisoners of war-because they do not meet the criteria under the Geneva Conventions, or cannot be classified as common criminals-because they have committed and act of war against this country. So is it reasonable, in the interests of national security, to curtail some fundamental rights in order to obtain information that may prove valuable in protecting the United States against terrorist attacks? We do not want to curtail all protections. Congress, during the Bush administration provided for military tribunals, a system which allowed those apprehended to present evidence in their favor, while at the same time allowing us to interrogate these individuals and obtain important information. Under the Obama-Holder scheme of civil rights absolutism, we get the comfort of knowing all civil liberties are protected in all contexts, at the cost of a certain degree of national security. Again, where should we strike the proper balance?