news-record.com

Among the many confident statements delivered by President Barack Obama in his inaugural address last week, this one may be tested most often: "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."

The pronouncement prompted applause and approval but so far not much analysis. Maybe it's not meant to be scrutinized; maybe it was offered as an expression of hope rather than reality.

I'd like to believe it.

As if to underscore the ambiguity of the proposition, the new president quickly asked for suspension of legal proceedings against terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay and ordered the detention facility closed within a year -- without alternatives.

It's clear where Obama's coming from. Many Americans and much of the international community condemned Bush administration measures following the 9/11 attacks. In the name of fighting terrorism, critics say, Bush curtailed civil liberties, authorized torture and otherwise "shredded the Constitution." The charges are subject to debate.

Obama's challenge, at any rate, is not merely doing better. It's doing right. Always.

"Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations," Obama said. "Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake."

References to the founders and "the blood of generations" work well in speeches but don't always hold up to close inspection.

In response to crises, some of Obama's predecessors unfortunately resorted to extreme actions. John Adams pushed for the Alien and Sedition Acts. Abraham Lincoln suspended the constitutionally protected right of habeas corpus. Woodrow Wilson prodded Congress to pass the Sedition Act of 1918. Franklin Roosevelt ordered the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Looking back, we can justify none of those actions. But at the time, they seemed expedient to presidents who otherwise stand in the good graces of history.

No doubt our founders and their successors faced many dangers and threats, but it is they who could scarcely imagine the perils posed today. How could they foresee the devastation of 9/11, let alone the terrible destructive power of a nuclear bomb in the hands of bloodthirsty terrorists?

The fact is, we make compromises between our safety and our ideals every day -- when we submit to sometimes-degrading inspections before boarding airplanes, empty our pockets when entering courthouses, even show identification to enter our own workplaces.

When someone is shot at a movie theater, we wonder whether metal detectors are needed. We're watched by security cameras in public places and probably more private ones than we know.

And if you really want to see our preference for safety trump a bedrock ideal -- the presumption of innocence -- visit the jail. It's full of people charged with crimes but not convicted. For reasons of public safety, they're kept behind bars until they can formally be found guilty.

Guantanamo's most prominent detainee is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, said to be the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. He reportedly confessed and provided valuable intelligence about al-Qaida operations. He also was a victim of water boarding, a sadistic interrogation technique now banned. Our "ideals" should have his confession disallowed. The "rule of law," by U.S. judicial standards, likely would make it difficult or perhaps impossible to present sufficient evidence against him in an open courtroom to gain a conviction. The same might apply to other cutthroats captured by illicit means after tips from shadowy sources. What's to be done with them?

Whatever his answer in those cases and others, Obama's devotion to principle can't blind him to practical considerations. He must know, even if most Americans would rather not, that there will be times when security comes first, when vital information, even if gained improperly, must be acted on to protect the country.

We go through cycles in our national experience. After the shame of the Vietnam War and the scandal of Watergate, Americans elected pious Jimmy Carter to make us a better nation. After the futility of the Iran hostage crisis, Americans elected Ronald Reagan to make us stronger. After George W. Bush, Obama promises to make us better again, but not weaker.

He'll be tested soon.