Favorite son Barack Obama has so muddled his administration policy on terror detainees that we are left with an approach that nearly everyone eight years ago agreed was to be avoided.  That is, incarcerating terrorists on American soil.

An issue like this is always bound to elicit histrionics from both sides of the partisan divide—and no one has disappointed.  This new policy won’t lead to mass escapes of terrorists who will roam the heartland bombing at will.  Jihadist camps won’t spring up along the Mississippi River and Al Qaida is not likely to launch an assault on a rural Illinois prison.  But neither is this a simple economic development project that will create jobs and boom times for rural Illinois.  It is not an inconsequential relocation away from the politically charged Gitmo to a morally superior prison that  will win favorable international opinion.

What this is, however, is a poorly thought out proposal, that panders to the far left, and markedly improves the footing of the radical terrorist network dedicated to destroying America.

At its core, this proposal is a poor security decision.  The simple fact is that the American public is safer with hundreds of known terrorists imprisoned on a foreign island surrounded by five thousand Marines and the Caribbean Sea, than it is with those same prisoners housed within our shores.  No matter how unlikely an escape, insurrection or attack on such a prison may be it can never happen to our injury at Guantanamo Bay.

It is also a certainty that the moment these terrorists set foot on the mainland, their ACLU and other leftist legal shills will be assaulting the courts with litigation intended to win them rights, privileges and, eventually, freedom, based on sacred rights guaranteed to American citizens who are accused of a crime.  Just as placing terrorists on trial in New York will undermine the (apparently abandoned) war on terror, the litigation that will result from domestic incarceration of terror suspects will force the disclosure of intelligence and could win prisoners privileges that further undermine our safety.

It is also laughable that Democrats like Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois seem to morally equate this proposal with building a new General Motors plant in a small Illinois town.  His position ignores the pathetic state of his state’s finances (created by his own party’s criminal mismanagement) that makes renting rooms to mass murderers a sound revenue enhancement strategy.  Durbin is also playing the pliant locals for fools in implying that they will benefit from great new jobs as a result.

If the Department of Defense, which is slated to run this mainland terrorist prison, does anything other than bringing in a crack unit of highly trained troops to run and guard this facility, they will be guilty of dereliction of duty.  The local folks, fine as they are, will not be staffing this prison.  The troops will spend some money in the local economy.  But this won’t be Fort Bragg or Newport News.  They won’t buy houses and cars.  It will be a temporary billet and (something the locals ought to remember) it will eventually go away.

There are sound legal reasons why we don’t want terror suspects brought to our soil.  It provides them with the ability to lay claim to rights they currently cannot.  Those rights may be granted by the right judge (read: Clinton or Obama appointee).  More liberty for terror suspects, even while behind bars, razor wire, electric fences and a moat with sea monsters, is less security for everyone else.  Add to this even the very remote chance of escape or attack and that is enough to recommend against this idea.

In this case, the incompetence of the administration in not developing a cogent and safe policy for bringing these terrorists to justice, coupled with the fiscal morass Democrats have created in Illinois that makes this financially attractive, should steel the resolve of residents of the Land of Lincoln to defend their sovereign state against this unwarranted and unwise encroachment by the federal government.

Chicagoans admit that we are ethically challenged when it comes to our politics.  It is important to point out that in our business and other dealings we try to espouse Midwestern values and deal fairly with others.  We are not proud of the reputation that the Cook County Democratic machine has won for us.  And many are still trying to do something about it.   But by and large, our distaste for local political habits in no way diminishes our love for our city, our state and our communities.

To my fellow conservatives who are deconstructing the implications of Chicago’s embarrassment at the hands of the International Olympic Committee and the indisputable damage it has done to the president’s reputation and image, I simply ask that you remember that there are millions of people in the Chicago area who are ordinary working people who take great pride in their community.  All of us, conservative, liberal and independent, bid supporters and even bid detractors, are hurting a little today.  We got embarrassed on the world stage as well.

 Most people will never see their community host something as huge as the Olympic Games.  For all the warts growing on the IOC and the games as they become more politicized and commercial, it is a spectacle I would have liked my children to have experienced in their home town.  I would have loved for millions of visitors from around the world to have the chance to see first-hand what makes us love this city.

 It is very valid and, indeed, important, to analyze what the IOC decision says about our nation and the president’s role in Chicago’s pitch.  It appears to epitomize the simple-mindedness of Obama’s entire foreign policy.  The administration seems to think that a combination of personal charm and endless talk can break down any barriers to cooperation and win everyone over to our side.

Never mind all the work that thousands of very smart and devoted people did to promote Chicago’s bid, Barack Obama will come riding in at the eleventh hour and crystallize everything in a way that no recalcitrant IOC member could fail to appreciate.  His sheer magnetism will win the day.

Did no one in the West Wing raise his or her hand and point out that this is what they tried with health care?  While Pelosi and Reid were fumbling about, with muddled messages and tired liberal tropes the prospects for far-reaching left wing changes diminished.  The president had to take the reins and explain to these members of Congress and American people who just weren’t getting it, that they needed this reform whether they understood it or not.  And the public reacted the same way anyone does when they are scolded by a patronizing know-it-all.

But I digress.  The point I just want to make is that there are still a whole lot of good and decent fellow Americans here in Chicago who are bummed out this afternoon and will be for a while.  Just as we must regularly remind Barack Obama that it is not about him, we on the other side of the spectrum must remember that as well.  In this instance, in the rush to critique the president’s actions and their results, many people give short shrift to the millions who are disappointed by today’s IOC decision.