Making Our Choice

From POTUS Obama both quotes via Time:
"We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. "

And:
"Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders – highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal “supermax” prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: “The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.”

TW: Our POTUS was, as usual, nuanced and constructive in addressing how we as a nation should approach the challenge of terrorism. He rejects the false choice between the blind pursuit of security or surrender. He proposes common sense relative to the interment of prisoners in the U.S. In contrast, the former VPOTUS continued to deny the obvious, that he and his administration initiated state sponsored torture, and framed our efforts against terror in the all or nothing language of you are either with us or against us that is almost always doomed to failure.

Having these two speak on the same morning provides an excellent opportunity for the American people to analyze how they want their country to act and proceed in an inherently risky world. Terrorism is real, open-ended and likely never to be completely eradicated. Shall we alter our basic freedoms and economic structures in a futile effort to attain the unattainable, 100% security. Or shall we adapt, accept nuance and optimize the reality in which we live?