Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with the Christmas Day bombing attempt aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253, spent time in Yemen after graduating from a London university in 2008. If not for the quick action by passengers and crew, and a faulty detonator, hundreds of lives would have been lost. According to reports, the terrorist told authorities that, while in Yemen, Al Qaeda operatives crafted the explosive device which was sewn into his underwear. That information was gathered before he was deemed to be an ordinary criminal and advised of his Miranda Rights. Once he was assigned an attorney, all the data that could have been gathered about other possible plots to kill Americans was preempted. Moreover, the info he already rendered will likely be inadmissible since his attorney will surely claim that he was unaware of his rights when he warbled like a caged canary.
     In case you’re wondering what type of defense can be used by someone who was wearing bomb-laded BVDs, let me make a suggestion. Attorney: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client has been the victim of a rightwing conspiracy to make the Obama Administration look feckless on national security. It’s obvious that someone planted that bomb in his shorts while he was waiting at the airport ticket counter. We have photos that show several passengers crowded around him in the terminal, any one of whom had a perfect opportunity to jostle my client long enough to sew those explosives into the lining of his drawers. In fact, those were not even his shorts. A close examination reveals that they were 2 sizes too big for him. Therefore, if the shorts don’t fit, you must acquit.”

    Yes, I know this is a serious issue, but sometimes levity makes the point better than a myriad of sober analyses. The shoe bomber tried to bring down a plane and failed. Now, an underwear bomber has failed. What’s next; bombs fitted into bodily orifices? In the wake of the latest attempt, passengers will now be subjected to pat downs, strip searches and perhaps the inability to move a muscle once they are seated. Can you imagine having a sky marshal walking up and down the aisle yelling, “Let me see your hands!” How far are we from being forced to strip naked before boarding? What happens when the time comes that we discover a bomb inserted into the rectum of a terrorist? Will that mean we have to submit to cavity searches before entering the plane? If you think these are ridiculous possibilities, you’re forgetting about a time when we didn’t have to take off our shoes, walk through metal detectors and have our toothpaste and shaving cream carefully examined before boarding.

     Sadly, none of the above will protect us from homicidal fanatics who are willing to die as long as they take large numbers of Americans with them to the grave. Yet, we’re told that we must not become tyrannical with the methods we use to keep us safe. We’re cautioned against becoming like the terrorists. I submit that such reasoning is going to be the death of us, literally. The notion that we shouldn’t use force to extract information from terrorists about murderous plots may be a noble aspiration during conventional warfare, but it’s suicide when dealing with death-defying barbarians. Collectively, these cunning murderers have the blood of thousands of Americans on their hands, and some of them know where other attacks will occur. Winning a war against these savages is not an exercise in diplomacy, and it’s not for the squeamish. They may be willing to die for their cause, but it’s unlikely that they’re willing to be tortured for it.

    I’m sorry if that sounds too harsh and I’m sure some are saying that I’m advocating sadistic behavior. But, you need to ask yourself what you’d be willing to do to save you and your family from a 911 type disaster. Suppose you knew that your family was in imminent danger of being murdered in a plot masterminded by one of the terrorists? Suppose, further, that you knew a confession from him would save their lives? Would you be willing to use torture to obtain it? If your answer is no, then you evidently think it's more noble to allow your family to suffer and die, than it is to force a confession from the inhuman creature who wants to murder them. It’s easy to use gentle words to exhibit our fragile sensitivity when someone else’s family is in danger. But when it becomes personal we may begin to experience a sudden epiphany. We should demonstrate the same intuitive grasp of reality when any family is threatened.