Said Ali al Shihri

It was bound to happen. A Guantanamo prisoner named Said Ali al Shihri was released, and is now apparently actively involved in terrorist activity in Yemen. Al Qaeda websites have gleefully announced this, and with good reason. They know that Guantanamo is one of the strongest propaganda tools they have, and anything they can do to delay the release of those prisoners is to their advantage. Al Qaeda's dysfunctional co-dependents, the Republican Noise Machine, will triumphantly exclaim that this justifies keeping these guys locked up forever.

If Obama were a Clinton, he would say something like "of course, we'll make sure that something like this never happens again." I'm hoping, however, that he will bite the bullet and say something like this.

"A Court of law found this man innocent, and so we released him. Perhaps he really was involved in terrorist activities before, and it was impossible to prove it. Perhaps he was innocent, and was so embittered by five years of torture and imprisonment that he became what we thought he was. Either way, this is an inevitable part of the rule of law, and must be accepted. Freedom doesn't come Free. The cost of Freedom is a willingness to live with uncertainty. If we lock up everyone who might commit a murder or a burglary someday, we might have fewer murders and burglarlies. But we also would lose the freedom that once made this country an inspiration to the rest of the world. If we are to earn that respect again, we must not retreat to a willingness to compromise all of our freedoms in order to acquire security. These sacred principles of justice under law must not be compromised, even if they do make us somewhat less safe.

However, equally importantly, it is likely that when we make such a compromise we are paying for something we are not going to get. It is highly plausible that every innocent prisoner creates a hundred new terrorists. To ignore this risk is to be not only immoral but impractical. Let us hope that if we return to the principles that we hold dear, the terrorists will lose the ability to recruit new members, and will be easier to manage and capture. This strategy does not have the satisfying simplicity of 'kill everybody who might be a bad guy". But it has a much greater chance of success, and promises us both liberty and security."

I just saw two articles that unconsciously conflicted with each other in the New York Times. One was Stanley Fish's review of a book written by one of his former students. It basically said that the humanities degree was finished, that colleges of the future would do nothing but teach "practical" course to prepare people for the business world. One bit of self-contradiction in the article: It was filled with historical references going back to the 19th century that supported his claim that this an inexorable trend which is finally reaching its fulfillment. What the author didn't notice was that the only way he could have discovered that trend was to do the sort of research done in an academic history department. Like the Logical Positivists, he was presenting an argument whose premises contradicted his conclusion.

The second article was about Obama's extensive knowledge of literature and history, and how he used that knowledge to become who he is today. One reason Obama is so persuasive is that he has read great literature, and learned how to write from it. The reason he is so skillful politically is that he has learned things from studying the great politicians of the past.

The difference between so-called Academic studies and so-called Practical studies is not the difference between the useless and the useful. it is between short term usefulness and long term usefulness. People with nothing but business degrees are more likely to follow in the steps of Madof and Enron. Reading the humanities makes us take the long view, asking not only what will help us achieve or goals, but what goals are worth achieving. If a few more people in business and finance had taken that long view, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

When the world is changing as fast as it is now, today's "practical" knowledge is tomorrow's useless relic. What is essential to survival in the modern world is knowing how to think, not what to think. Only a broad academic education can give you that. Skills like being able to do research, construct arguments, write persuasively, and being familiar with the historical trends that shape the modern world will not come from only reading a hastily written paperback on hotel management. But contact with the minds of the greatest thinkers of all time can be an exemplar of how one can behave both skillfully authentically in the world. The transfer process doesn't work as smoothly as it does in typing school. Every Socrates has his Alcibiades, but occasionally he also produces a Plato. Don't understand that reference? Too bad, you might have learned something useful if you had.