May 27, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com)
– The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOH) announced
on Friday that of 16 abortion clinics inspected in the state, 12 of them
have failed to meet the state’s safety regulations. The state's new
regulations for abortion facilities went into effect in July of last
year.
In a letter dated May 24, Joshua Sharfstein, the secretary of the
Maryland DOH, said that among the three most common violations
discovered was the “failure to maintain a sanitary environment at all
times and to consistently use chemical indicator strips in sterilized
equipment packing."
Other common violations included the “failure to obtain information
about the professional credentials of physicians on staff from the
National Practitioner Data Bank,” and “failure to include a discharge
diagnosis in the medical record."
As LifeSiteNews.com reported on Friday,
the emergency suspension of the licenses of four of the clinics, all
owned by Associates in OB/GYN Care, was deemed necessary earlier this
month to protect “public health, safety or welfare.”
Investigators had discovered that non-physicians at the four abortion
clinics were routinely distributing the abortion drug misprostol to
women who had never been seen by a physician and who were up to 11 weeks
pregnant. In addition, at one of the clinics an unqualified staff
member was performing ultrasounds and dispensing misoprostol.
The remaining clinics were permitted to remain open after providing
satisfactory plans of correction, outlining how they would bring their
facilities up to code.
Among the 12 abortion clinics caught violating state regulations were
all three of the state's Planned Parenthood abortion facilities, as well
as that of notorious late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart. While the
violations found at the Planned Parenthood facilities were relatively
minor, at one facility one staff member was not certified in basic life
support or trained in emergency transfer of patients to hospital or the
delivery of sedation medications via IV.
Carhart, whose abortion business was hounded of out Nebraska in 2010
after the state passed legislation banning late-term abortions, was
responsible for performing the abortion that led to the death of
29-year-old kindergarten teacher Jennifer Morbelli earlier this year.
While Carhart was cleared on Friday by the Department of Health of
wrongdoing in Morbelli’s death, the department was less impressed by
what it found when it inspected Carhart’s clinic.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/12-of-16-maryland-abortion-clinics-found-violating-safety-regulations
Investigators discovered some eight pages of violations, including a
nurse whose RN license had expired, nurses who weren’t properly trained
in administering sedation drugs through IV, and failure to train staff
in the emergency transfer of patients to the hospital.
In addition, investigators found that patient records did not included a
discharge diagnosis, as required, and staff were improperly cleaning
surgical instruments.
Click "like" if you want to end abortion!
However, according to pro-life groups, this may only be the tip of the
iceberg of violations at Carhart’s clinic. In July of last year pro-life
groups filed a complaint with
the Department of Health after they said they discovered that Carhart’s
clinic was illegally dumping biohazardous waste, private patient
medical information, and dangerous drugs.
Between August, 2011, and May, 2012, trash generated by Germantown
Reproductive Health Services was inspected and photographed by pro-life
activists. The pro-lifers said they found documents containing private
patient information, including photocopies of patient drivers licenses,
information about birth control prescriptions, and detailed information
about a 15 week abortion for which the patient was charged $2,200.
Also discovered was bloody refuse including bloody sanitary napkins and
blue pads, some of which contained blood clots and possible human fetal
remains, and partially full bottles of IV drugs that are classified as
controlled substances and other drugs.
Leading pro-abortion groups, including NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and
the National Abortion Federation, routinely oppose any and all
regulations on abortion clinics. However, the recent case of Kermit
Gosnell, whose 'House of Horrors' clinic escaped inspection for years
despite numerous complaints, has drawn attention once again to the often
subpar conditions that exist in abortion facilities.
Earlier this year, two former nurses at a Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Delaware described
what they said was a “meat-market” style of performing abortions, in
which the abortionist refused to wear gloves, surgical instruments were
reused without being cleaned, and 'bloody drainage' remained on abortion
tables between procedures, exposing women to blood-borne diseases.
As well, shortly after Gosnell was convicted on three counts of first
degree murder, three former assistants of Texas abortionist Douglas
Karpen stepped forward to describe conditions
so appalling that they were arguably even worse than those found in
Gosnell’s clinic – including the routine practice of murdering newborn
babies born alive after failed abortions.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Report: Holder Went Judge Shopping To Obtain Fox News Subpoena:
The Obama Administration fought to keep a search warrant for James
Rosen’s private e-mail account secret, arguing to a federal judge that
the government might need to monitor the account for a lengthy period of
time.
The new details are revealed in a court filing detailing a back and forth between the Justice Department and the federal judges who oversaw the request to search a Gmail account belonging to Rosen, a reporter for Fox News. A 2009 article Rosen had written about North Korea sparked an investigation; Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department adviser who allegedly leaked classified information to Rosen, insisted that the reporter should not be notified of the search and seizure of his e-mails, even after a lengthy delay.
E-mails, Machen wrote, “are commonly used by subjects or targets of the criminal investigation at issue, and the e-mail evidence derived from those compelled disclosures frequently forms the core of the Government’s evidence supporting criminal charges.”
He argued that disclosure of the search warrant would preclude the government from monitoring the account, should such a step become necessary in the investigation. Machen added that “some investigations are continued for many years because, while the evidence is not yet sufficient to bring charges, it is sufficient to have identified criminal subjects and/or criminal activity serious enough to justify continuation of the investigation.”
Machen insisted the investigation would be compromised if Rosen was informed of the warrant, and also asked the court to order Google not to notify Rosen that the company had handed over Rosen’s e-mails to the government. Rosen, according to recent reports, did not learn that the government seized his e-mail records until it was reported in the Washington Post last week.
The new details indicate that the government wanted the option to search Rosen’s e-mails repeatedly if the F.B.I. found further evidence implicating the reporter in what prosecutors argued was a conspiracy to commit espionage.
According to recently unsealed documents in the case, the Obama Justice Department sought an extensive amount of information from Rosen’s e-mail account. In addition to Rosen’s correspondence with Kim, the government wanted to know about Rosen’s contacts with other government officials, including “records or information relating to the Author’s communication with any other source or potential source of the information disclosed in the Article.”
The government, which accused Rosen of being an “aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator” in the Kim case, cast a wide net in its search of Rosen’s e-mail. Among other things, the search warrant requested access to:
The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.
Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.
Rosen was not indicted in the case. Kim was indicted for making unauthorized disclosures of national defense information and for making false statements to F.B.I. agents about his contacts with Rosen.
Yesterday, hours after President Obama said, in a speech at National Defense University, that he had asked Attorney General Eric Holder to review the Justice Department’s policies concerning investigations of the media, NBC News reported that the warrant to search Rosen’s e-mail account was personally approved by Holder.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/how-justice-fought-to-keep-rosens-warrant-secret.html
The new details are revealed in a court filing detailing a back and forth between the Justice Department and the federal judges who oversaw the request to search a Gmail account belonging to Rosen, a reporter for Fox News. A 2009 article Rosen had written about North Korea sparked an investigation; Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department adviser who allegedly leaked classified information to Rosen, insisted that the reporter should not be notified of the search and seizure of his e-mails, even after a lengthy delay.
E-mails, Machen wrote, “are commonly used by subjects or targets of the criminal investigation at issue, and the e-mail evidence derived from those compelled disclosures frequently forms the core of the Government’s evidence supporting criminal charges.”
He argued that disclosure of the search warrant would preclude the government from monitoring the account, should such a step become necessary in the investigation. Machen added that “some investigations are continued for many years because, while the evidence is not yet sufficient to bring charges, it is sufficient to have identified criminal subjects and/or criminal activity serious enough to justify continuation of the investigation.”
Machen insisted the investigation would be compromised if Rosen was informed of the warrant, and also asked the court to order Google not to notify Rosen that the company had handed over Rosen’s e-mails to the government. Rosen, according to recent reports, did not learn that the government seized his e-mail records until it was reported in the Washington Post last week.
The new details indicate that the government wanted the option to search Rosen’s e-mails repeatedly if the F.B.I. found further evidence implicating the reporter in what prosecutors argued was a conspiracy to commit espionage.
According to recently unsealed documents in the case, the Obama Justice Department sought an extensive amount of information from Rosen’s e-mail account. In addition to Rosen’s correspondence with Kim, the government wanted to know about Rosen’s contacts with other government officials, including “records or information relating to the Author’s communication with any other source or potential source of the information disclosed in the Article.”
The government, which accused Rosen of being an “aider, abettor, and/or co-conspirator” in the Kim case, cast a wide net in its search of Rosen’s e-mail. Among other things, the search warrant requested access to:
—“Records or information related to Stephen Kim’s or the Author’s knowledge of laws, regulations, rules and/or procedures prohibiting the unauthorized disclosure of national defense or classified information.”
—“Any classified document, image, record, or information, and any communications concerning such documents, images, records, or information.”
—“Any document, image, record, or information concerning the national defense, including but not limited to documents, maps, plans, diagrams, guides, manuals, and other Department of Defense, U.S. military, and/or weapons material, as well as sources and methods of intelligence gathering, and any communications concerning such documents, images, records, or information.”
—“Records or information related to the state of mind of any individuals seeking the disclosure or receipt of classified, intelligence and/or national defense information.”In addition, the Justice Department searched the account for any Internet services Rosen may have accessed and records of “data transfer volume,” suggesting the government was looking for evidence that Rosen downloaded large quantities of potentially classified information.
The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.
Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.
Rosen was not indicted in the case. Kim was indicted for making unauthorized disclosures of national defense information and for making false statements to F.B.I. agents about his contacts with Rosen.
Yesterday, hours after President Obama said, in a speech at National Defense University, that he had asked Attorney General Eric Holder to review the Justice Department’s policies concerning investigations of the media, NBC News reported that the warrant to search Rosen’s e-mail account was personally approved by Holder.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/how-justice-fought-to-keep-rosens-warrant-secret.html
Nightmare: U.S. Woman – Mother of 7 – in Mexican Jail on Drug Smuggling Charges; Family Claims Injustice and Fights for Release
A mother of seven is in a Mexican jail after soldiers arrested her on marijuana smuggling charges, reports KPHO-TV.
(Credit: KPHO-TV)
Gary and Yanira Maldonado, who live
near Phoenix, Ariz., traveled to Mexico last week to attend a family
funeral. On their way back to the U.S. their bus was stopped at a
military checkpoint where soldiers ordered all passengers off the bus.
Later soldiers told the couple that
marijuana was found under her seat and the seat next to hers…and Yanira
was arrested, KPHO-TV said.
Yanira’s brother, Brandon Klippel, said
the couple were the only U.S. citizens on the bus – and if drugs were
truly found on board, they were already there when the couple sat down,
KPHO-TV reported.
“You hear all of these horror stories
about Mexico and you think it’s just something in the movies, right?”
said Klippel. ”You don’t believe it’s something that could happen to
someone you know. But, when it happens to your brother and your sister –
it’s hard, it’s tough to take.”
More from KPHO-TV:
“His attorney had talked to the prosecuting attorney there and came back to him and said, ‘You know how it works in Mexico, right?’” Klippel told CBS5 News. “He said, ‘no I don’t.’ He [attorney] said, ‘well, if we bribe the judge – then he’ll let you go.’”
Klippel said after Gary Maldonado frantically scraped together $5,000 to free his wife Thursday, he was told it was too late.
Yanira Maldonado had been transferred to a holding facility in Nogales.“When he [Gary] got there they said, ‘we don’t have any record of her at all,’” said Klippel. “He panicked. He told me terror struck him. And he thought, for that period of time, that he’d never see his wife again.”
That was Friday morning.By Friday night, officials confirmed Yanira Maldonado was, in fact, in Nogales – and her husband was able to visit her Saturday morning on the one year anniversary of their wedding.“She had a rough night,” said Klippel. “Their interrogation included putting her in a non-air-conditioned room and waking her up several times in the middle of night – trying to get her to sign documents that she said she couldn’t read.”
He said Yanira Maldonado maintains her innocence and believes those documents were probably admission of guilt statements.
(Credit: KPHO-TV)
If he or she decides against it, Yanira Maldonado will be taken to a federal prison in southern Mexico.Klippel said the Mexican Consulate is working this case and that Senator Jeff Flake is in contact with the family, in an effort to bring Yanira Maldonado home.
(Credit: KPHO-TV)
Check out the couple’s new Facebook page in response to this crisis.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/26/nightmare-u-s-woman-mother-of-7-in-mexican-jail-on-drug-smuggling-charges-family-claims-injustice-and-fights-for-release/
Wishful thinking Obama Must Not Surrender War On Terror; Must Order IRS and Eric Holder to “Stand Down”!: Robert Spencer: Why the sword of Islam cuts apart families
The realization that Benghazi is not going away anytime soon has finally
made it to the conscious mind of Barack Obama. As a result, the
president returned to his 2012 campaign rhetoric in a feeble attempt to soothe anxious Americans with a “Counter-Terrorism” speech last week.
The gist of Obama’s speech was that Al-Qaeda has been decimated and the war on terror has been won … thanks to the stellar leadership of Barack Obama.
As reported in the media, Obama’s speech was both farcical and fanciful in an area of government that requires sober reflection and honest talk:
Yet, even as the new fronts in the war on terrorism sprang up, the Administration continued to argue that it was winning. After Islam terrorists
murdered Americans and burned a U.S. consulate to the ground in Benghazi, the President claimed he was winning. As homegrown terrorists kill in Boston and London, he claims he is winning. As the Taliban mocks the U.S. standing down in Afghanistan, he claims he is winning.
Rather than admit failure and change course, faced with criticism here at home, the President has decided to declare victory, hoping this will re-energize support from the left. In his speech, he promised to do even less and make the less more transparent. This will no doubt please progressives who were unhappy that Obama carried over any vestige of the Bush policies.
While this speech may make the President more popular with the progressive caucus, it amounts to Maginot Line strategy: The U.S. won’t go after them if they don’t come after us. If they do come after us—we will treat them like any other criminal. If they do get through—it won’t be our fault; it will be the result of addled minds and “senseless” violence. Obama has warped backed to the Clinton counter terrorism strategy of the 1990s without remembering that was the strategy that led to 9/11.”
President Obama needs to recognize that the Boston Marathon bombing and the London meat cleaver terrorism are clear signs that the war goes on—-despite his wishful thinking.
Why not set aside foolish pride for a moment, Mr. President, and work to defend and protect the American people from terrorism, AND order IRS and Eric Holder to “Stand down” in their ruthless assaults on Americans?
And keep GITMO open to house IRS liars and other administration deniers! Sir!
In PJ Lifestyle yesterday I discuss the Woolwich jihadist's strange notion of family and nationality:
The gist of Obama’s speech was that Al-Qaeda has been decimated and the war on terror has been won … thanks to the stellar leadership of Barack Obama.
As reported in the media, Obama’s speech was both farcical and fanciful in an area of government that requires sober reflection and honest talk:
Yet, even as the new fronts in the war on terrorism sprang up, the Administration continued to argue that it was winning. After Islam terrorists
murdered Americans and burned a U.S. consulate to the ground in Benghazi, the President claimed he was winning. As homegrown terrorists kill in Boston and London, he claims he is winning. As the Taliban mocks the U.S. standing down in Afghanistan, he claims he is winning.
Rather than admit failure and change course, faced with criticism here at home, the President has decided to declare victory, hoping this will re-energize support from the left. In his speech, he promised to do even less and make the less more transparent. This will no doubt please progressives who were unhappy that Obama carried over any vestige of the Bush policies.
While this speech may make the President more popular with the progressive caucus, it amounts to Maginot Line strategy: The U.S. won’t go after them if they don’t come after us. If they do come after us—we will treat them like any other criminal. If they do get through—it won’t be our fault; it will be the result of addled minds and “senseless” violence. Obama has warped backed to the Clinton counter terrorism strategy of the 1990s without remembering that was the strategy that led to 9/11.”
President Obama needs to recognize that the Boston Marathon bombing and the London meat cleaver terrorism are clear signs that the war goes on—-despite his wishful thinking.
Why not set aside foolish pride for a moment, Mr. President, and work to defend and protect the American people from terrorism, AND order IRS and Eric Holder to “Stand down” in their ruthless assaults on Americans?
And keep GITMO open to house IRS liars and other administration deniers! Sir!
Robert Spencer: Why the sword of Islam cuts apart families
In PJ Lifestyle yesterday I discuss the Woolwich jihadist's strange notion of family and nationality:
Last Wednesday, the Islamic jihadist Mujaheed (formerly Michael) Adebolajo, his hands scarlet with the blood of the British soldier he had just brutally murdered on a London street and still holding the tools of his murder, approached a television cameraman and calmly began explaining himself. In the course of his explanation, Adebolajo invoked the Qur’an’s ninth chapter (Surat at-Tawba), which enjoins Muslims to make war against and subjugate Jews and Christians, declaring: “we are forced by the Qur’an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah [verses] in the Qur’an, we must fight them as they fight us.” He added: “I apologize that women had to witness this today but in our lands women have to see the same.”
“Our lands”? Adebolajo’s parents are Nigerians who immigrated to England in the early 1980s. But he meant neither English nor Nigerian lands, of course; Adebolajo converted to Islam around 2003, and that meant that in his mind he was no longer English, if he ever was. Islam supersedes everything else, demanding a loyalty above national allegiances and even ties of kith and kin. The Qur’an commands Muslims to “be good to parents” (17:22). However, even in that relationship, the overarching principle is that Muslims must be “hard against the unbelievers, merciful one to another” (48:29). This includes unbelievers of one’s immediate family: The Muslim holy book specifically forbids believers from being friendly with their non-believing relatives and non-believing clan:
O believers, take not your fathers and brothers to be your friends, if they prefer unbelief to belief; whosoever of you takes them for friends, those—they are the evildoers. Say: “If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your clan, your possessions that you have gained, commerce you fear may slacken, dwellings you love—if these are dearer to you than God and His Messenger, and to struggle in His way, then wait till God brings His command; God guides not the people of the ungodly” (9:23-24).Explains the renowned Qur’an commentator Ibn Kathir:
“Allah commands shunning the disbelievers, even if they are one’s parents or children, and prohibits taking them as supporters if they choose disbelief instead of faith.”The Qur’an emphasizes not only that a Muslim must turn his back on his kismen and have nothing to do with them if they are unbelievers, but that he should not even pray for them:
“It is not for the Prophet and the believers to ask pardon for the idolaters, even though they be near kinsmen, after that it has become clear to them that they will be the inhabitants of Hell” (9:113).In a Qur’anic account of Noah and the great flood, when the flood kills Noah’s son, Noah appeals to Allah on the basis of his promise to save Noah’s family: “And Noah called unto his Lord, and said, ‘O my Lord, my son is of my family, and Thy promise is surely the truth. Thou art the justest of those that judge’” (11:45). But Allah responds: “Noah, he is not of thy family; it is a deed not righteous,” referring to Noah’s son’s saying that he would flee to the top of a mountain to save himself from the flood (11:43, 46).
In line with this, the Qur’an holds up Abraham as a “good example” for the Muslims—uswa hasana, the same appellation given to Muhammad elsewhere (33:21). In Islamic theology, Muhammad’s example is the believer’s supreme guide. When the Qur’an says that Abraham also is a “good example,” however, it is in reference to a specific instance: when Abraham says to his pagan relatives,
“We are quit of you and that you serve, apart from God. We disbelieve in you, and between us and you enmity has shown itself, and hatred for ever, until you believe in God alone” (60:4).Abraham is held up to the Muslims as a model of emulation, then, only when he declares his everlasting enmity and hatred for those who do not follow what Muslims believe to be the true religion.
Then the Qur’an adds a critical caveat: “Except that Abraham said unto his father, ‘Certainly I shall ask pardon for thee; but I have no power to do aught for thee against God.’” In other words, Abraham is a good example for the believers except when he says that he will pray that Allah will pardon his pagan father. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn, a venerable and respected Qur’an commentary written by two mainstream and revered Muslim scholars, emphasizes that this is “an exception where the excellent example is concerned, meaning that you should not imitate him in that by asking forgiveness for unbelievers.”
Abraham’s hatred is exemplary; his prayer for forgiveness for his kindred is not.http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/05/robert-spencer-why-the-sword-of-islam-cuts-apart-families.html
And so Mujaheed Adebolajo committed murder on a street of the land where he grew up in defense of those he considers his only true kith and kin: Muslims worldwide. British government and media elites, unsurprisingly, rushed to assure the public that Islam had nothing to do with his action. But in fact, nothing else did. Until those elites come to grips with the new allegiances to which converts to Islam like Adebolajo consider themselves bound, there will be many more such murders.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Conservatives Became Targets in 2008 The Obama campaign played a big role in a liberal onslaught that far pre-dated Citizens United.
The White House insists President Obama is "outraged" by the
"inappropriate" targeting and harassment of conservative groups. If
true, it's a remarkable turnaround for a man who helped pioneer those
tactics.
On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground.
The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.
What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, "its officers and directors," and its "anonymous donors." Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a "knowing and willful violation" of election law, and wanted "action to enforce against criminal violations."
AIP gave Justice a full explanation as to why it was not in violation. It said that it operated exactly as liberal groups like Naral Pro-Choice did. It noted that it had disclosed its donor, Texas businessman Harold Simmons. Mr. Bauer's response was a second letter to Justice calling for the prosecution of Mr. Simmons. He sent a third letter on Sept. 8, again smearing the "sham" AIP's "illegal electoral purpose."
Also on Sept. 8, Mr. Bauer complained to the Federal Election Commission about AIP and Mr. Simmons. He demanded that AIP turn over certain tax documents to his campaign (his right under IRS law), then sent a letter to AIP further hounding it for confidential information (to which he had no legal right).
The Bauer onslaught was a big part of a new liberal strategy to thwart the rise of conservative groups. In early August 2008, the New York Times trumpeted the creation of a left-wing group (a 501(c)4) called Accountable America. Founded by Obama supporter and liberal activist Tom Mattzie, the group—as the story explained—would start by sending "warning" letters to 10,000 GOP donors, "hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions." The letters would alert "right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives." As Mr. Mattzie told Mother Jones: "We're going to put them at risk."
Associated Press
The
Bauer letters were the Obama campaign's high-profile contribution to
this effort—though earlier, in the spring of 2008, Mr. Bauer filed a
complaint with the FEC against the American Leadership Project, a group
backing Hillary Clinton in the primary. "There's going to be a reckoning
here," he had warned publicly. "It's going to be rough—it's going to be
rough on the officers, it's going to be rough on the employees, it's
going to be rough on the donors. . . Whether it's at the FEC or in a
broader criminal inquiry, those donors will be asked questions." The
campaign similarly attacked a group supporting John Edwards.
American Leadership head (and Democrat) Jason Kinney would rail that Mr. Bauer had gone from "credible legal authority" to "political hatchet man"—but the damage was done. As Politico reported in August 2008, Mr. Bauer's words had "the effect of scaring [Clinton and Edwards] donors and consultants," even if they hadn't yet "result[ed] in any prosecution."
As general counsel to the Obama re-election campaign, Mr. Bauer used the same tactics on pro-Romney groups. The Obama campaign targeted private citizens who had donated to Romney groups. Democratic senators demanded that the IRS investigate these organizations.
None of this proves that Mr. Obama was involved in the IRS targeting of conservative nonprofits. But it does help explain how we got an environment in which the IRS thought this was acceptable.
The rise of conservative organizations (to match liberal groups that had long played in politics), and their effectiveness in the 2004 election (derided broadly by liberals as "swift boating"), led to a new and organized campaign in 2008 to chill conservative donors and groups via the threat of government investigation and prosecution. The tone in any organization—a charity, a corporation, the U.S. government—is set at the top.
This history also casts light on White House claims that it was clueless about the IRS's targeting. As Huffington Post's Howard Fineman wrote this week: "With two winning presidential campaigns built on successful grassroots fundraising, with a former White House counsel (in 2010-11) who is one of the Democrats' leading experts on campaign law (Bob Bauer), with former top campaign officials having been ensconced as staffers in the White House . . . it's hard to imagine that the Obama inner circle was oblivious to the issue of what the IRS was doing in Cincinnati." More like inconceivable.
And this history exposes the left's hollow claim that the IRS mess rests on Citizens United. The left was targeting conservative groups and donors well before the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling on independent political expenditures by corporations.
If the country wants to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal, it must first remember the context for this abuse. That context leads to this White House.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578501411510635312.html?mod=opinion_newsreel
On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground.
The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.
What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, "its officers and directors," and its "anonymous donors." Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a "knowing and willful violation" of election law, and wanted "action to enforce against criminal violations."
AIP gave Justice a full explanation as to why it was not in violation. It said that it operated exactly as liberal groups like Naral Pro-Choice did. It noted that it had disclosed its donor, Texas businessman Harold Simmons. Mr. Bauer's response was a second letter to Justice calling for the prosecution of Mr. Simmons. He sent a third letter on Sept. 8, again smearing the "sham" AIP's "illegal electoral purpose."
Also on Sept. 8, Mr. Bauer complained to the Federal Election Commission about AIP and Mr. Simmons. He demanded that AIP turn over certain tax documents to his campaign (his right under IRS law), then sent a letter to AIP further hounding it for confidential information (to which he had no legal right).
The Bauer onslaught was a big part of a new liberal strategy to thwart the rise of conservative groups. In early August 2008, the New York Times trumpeted the creation of a left-wing group (a 501(c)4) called Accountable America. Founded by Obama supporter and liberal activist Tom Mattzie, the group—as the story explained—would start by sending "warning" letters to 10,000 GOP donors, "hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions." The letters would alert "right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives." As Mr. Mattzie told Mother Jones: "We're going to put them at risk."
Associated Press
President Obama with Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Mona Sutphen and White House Counsel Bob Bauer.
American Leadership head (and Democrat) Jason Kinney would rail that Mr. Bauer had gone from "credible legal authority" to "political hatchet man"—but the damage was done. As Politico reported in August 2008, Mr. Bauer's words had "the effect of scaring [Clinton and Edwards] donors and consultants," even if they hadn't yet "result[ed] in any prosecution."
As general counsel to the Obama re-election campaign, Mr. Bauer used the same tactics on pro-Romney groups. The Obama campaign targeted private citizens who had donated to Romney groups. Democratic senators demanded that the IRS investigate these organizations.
None of this proves that Mr. Obama was involved in the IRS targeting of conservative nonprofits. But it does help explain how we got an environment in which the IRS thought this was acceptable.
The rise of conservative organizations (to match liberal groups that had long played in politics), and their effectiveness in the 2004 election (derided broadly by liberals as "swift boating"), led to a new and organized campaign in 2008 to chill conservative donors and groups via the threat of government investigation and prosecution. The tone in any organization—a charity, a corporation, the U.S. government—is set at the top.
This history also casts light on White House claims that it was clueless about the IRS's targeting. As Huffington Post's Howard Fineman wrote this week: "With two winning presidential campaigns built on successful grassroots fundraising, with a former White House counsel (in 2010-11) who is one of the Democrats' leading experts on campaign law (Bob Bauer), with former top campaign officials having been ensconced as staffers in the White House . . . it's hard to imagine that the Obama inner circle was oblivious to the issue of what the IRS was doing in Cincinnati." More like inconceivable.
And this history exposes the left's hollow claim that the IRS mess rests on Citizens United. The left was targeting conservative groups and donors well before the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling on independent political expenditures by corporations.
If the country wants to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal, it must first remember the context for this abuse. That context leads to this White House.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578501411510635312.html?mod=opinion_newsreel
National Review: IRS targeting adoptive parents for audit.
adoptive parents are more likely to be targeted for an IRS audit is unbelievable to me. The rot is pervasive. #Serious—
David Paul (@PowerElement) May 22, 2013
Acting IRS chief Steven Miller confessed before the Senate Finance Committee yesterday that his heart is broken over the sullied reputation of the IRS, now that the agency’s “horrible customer service” has been brought to light. We weren’t aware that the IRS had a good reputation to protect, but a report today that the IRS has also targeted adoptive parents for audit isn’t going to help matters.
Today on National Review’s website, David French shared the experience of his own audit and shared some disturbing statistics.
http://twitchy.com/2013/05/22/national-review-irs-targeting-adoptive-parents-for-audit/
IRS Morality: Defend Planned Parenthood, Deluge Adoptive Families with Audits
David Paul (@PowerElement) May 22, 2013
Acting IRS chief Steven Miller confessed before the Senate Finance Committee yesterday that his heart is broken over the sullied reputation of the IRS, now that the agency’s “horrible customer service” has been brought to light. We weren’t aware that the IRS had a good reputation to protect, but a report today that the IRS has also targeted adoptive parents for audit isn’t going to help matters.
Today on National Review’s website, David French shared the experience of his own audit and shared some disturbing statistics.
As we get word that the IRS has harassed a number of pro-life groups, including at least one alleged demand that a pro-life group not picket Planned Parenthood, check out this statistic: In 2012, the IRS requested additional information from 90 percent of returns claiming the adoption tax credit and went on to actually audit 69 percent.Amazingly, Miller testified that a bigger budget would help prevent future abuses by the IRS, which both the New York Times and Washington Post reported is overworked and understaffed. Maybe not harassing adoptive parents would save some time?
WOW. We live in a country where adopting a kid is a red flag for the IRS. nationalreview.com/corner/349077/…—
Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) May 22, 2013
Install solar panels = IRS thumbs up. Adopt a baby = show me your papers.—
Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) May 22, 2013
what does the irs have against adoption? ow.ly/liqtV—
Kathryn Jean Lopez (@kathrynlopez) May 22, 2013
It just doesn't stop. IRS waged concerted audit campaign in 2012 against ADOPTIVE PARENTS. Sick! Twisted! nationalreview.com/corner/349077/…—
Jack Fowler (@jackfowler) May 22, 2013
What the bleep is this now?> RT "IRS Morality: Defend Planned Parenthood, Deluge Adoptive Families w/ Audits" nationalreview.com/node/349077 via @#—
Monica Crowley (@MonicaCrowley) May 22, 2013
Just repulsive. IRS Morality: Deluge Adoptive Families with Audits | National Review Online nationalreview.com/node/349077 via @#—
Michael Gerson (@MJGerson) May 22, 2013
If this article doesn't prove the terrifying institutional anti-child mentality in our country, nothing will. #tcot nationalreview.com/corner/349077/…—
Paul Wilson (@PaulWilson34) May 23, 2013
Why did IRS audit 69% of families that claimed a deduction for adoption? Isn't that a form of profiling? As an adoptive parent i'm offended—
Mark Young (@Mark_JekyllHyde) May 22, 2013
I work with several adoptive families who had major difficulty with the tax credit. It makes sense now in light of the IRS scandal—
Sarah Emily Jordan (@manajordan) May 22, 2013
I'm starting to wonder if the IRS staff doesn't spend too much time reading Mother Jones…targeting Tea Partiers, adoptive parents. Hmm.—
Kirsten Powers (@kirstenpowers10) May 23, 2013
Does the #IRS have data that suggests the ideological persuasion of adoptive parents?—Good question. One thing’s certain: when the IRS takes over health care, the agency will have all sorts of data.
Melissa Clouthier (@MelissaTweets) May 22, 2013
http://twitchy.com/2013/05/22/national-review-irs-targeting-adoptive-parents-for-audit/
IRS Morality: Defend Planned Parenthood, Deluge Adoptive Families with Audits
Earlier
this week, in a feeble attempt at humor on Facebook, I posted: “If you
haven’t been audited by the IRS during the Obama administration, can you
even call yourself a conservative?” Given the scale of the abuses, I
should probably just shorten it and say, “Only RINOs don’t get audited.”
My wife and I got audited in 2011, with the IRS examining every inch of
our adoption the previous year. The process was painful, but we got
through it, and our refund may have been adjusted by a few dollars (the
amount of the adjustment was so small, I don’t actually remember). In
other words, the audit was a gigantic waste of time — for the IRS and
for our family. A Facebook commenter, however, pointed me to a report
that made me rethink the experience.
As we get word that the IRS has harassed a number of pro-life groups, including at least one alleged demand that a pro-life group not picket Planned Parenthood, check out this statistic: In 2012, the IRS requested additional information from 90 percent of returns claiming the adoption tax credit and went on to actually audit 69 percent. More details from the Taxpayer Advocate Service:
This audit wave got almost no media coverage, but what was the experience like for individual families? In a word, grueling. Huge document requests with short turnaround times were followed by lengthy IRS delays in processing, all with no understanding for the unique documentation challenges of international adoption. Here’s how one adoptive family described the experience:
The IRS is a broken institution. Yet despite its moral and legal corruption, it still wields immense power. As Congress investigates wrongdoing, it’s past time to consider fundamental tax reform. In other words, starve the beast. It has proven it can’t be trusted with power.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349077/irs-morality-defend-planned-parenthood-deluge-adoptive-families-audits-david-french
As we get word that the IRS has harassed a number of pro-life groups, including at least one alleged demand that a pro-life group not picket Planned Parenthood, check out this statistic: In 2012, the IRS requested additional information from 90 percent of returns claiming the adoption tax credit and went on to actually audit 69 percent. More details from the Taxpayer Advocate Service:
During the 2012 filing season, 90 percent of returns claiming the refundable adoption credit were subject to additional review to determine if an examination was necessary. The most common reasons were income and a lack of documentation.
■ Sixty-nine percent of all adoption credit claims during the 2012 filing season were selected for audit.
■ Of the completed adoption tax credit audits, over 55 percent ended with no change in the tax owed or refund due in fiscal year 2012. The median refund amount involved in these audits is over $15,000 and the median adjusted gross income (AGI) of the taxpayers involved is about 64,000. The average adoption credit correspondence audit currently takes 126 days, causing a lengthy delay for taxpayers waiting for refunds.While many returns had missing or incomplete information (more on that in a moment), what was the outcome of this massive audit campaign? Not much:
Despite Congress’ express intent to target the credit to low and middle income families, the IRS created income-based rules that were responsible for over one-third of all additional reviews in FY2012.
■ Of the $668.1 million in adoption credit claims in tax year (TY) 2011 as a result of adoption credit audits, the IRS only disallowed $11 million — or one and one-half percent — in adoption credit claims. However, the IRS has also had to pay out $2.1 million in interest in TY 2011 to taxpayers whose refunds were held past the 45-day period allowed by law.So Congress implemented a tax credit to facilitate adoption – a process that is so extraordinarily expensive that it is out of reach for many middle-class families — and the IRS responded by implementing an audit campaign that delayed much-needed tax refunds to the very families that needed them the most. Oh, and the return on its investment in this harassment? Slightly more than 1 percent.
This audit wave got almost no media coverage, but what was the experience like for individual families? In a word, grueling. Huge document requests with short turnaround times were followed by lengthy IRS delays in processing, all with no understanding for the unique documentation challenges of international adoption. Here’s how one adoptive family described the experience:
It was early June when a letter arrived from IRS explaining that we (and lots of other adoptive parents, as it turns out) were being audited re: our adoption tax credit. The folks at IRS gave us 30 days to gather our receipts, invoices, cancelled checks, etc. to document our expenses and submit said documents to their tax examiner. If we couldn’t comply within the time limit, they would set aside our request for a credit and we would be out of luck, meaning no more of our money would be refunded to us. If we got them the paperwork, then they would review our records and decide how much more of our money they would refund to us. (Am I bitter? Just a tad bit . . .)
Anyway, this might seem to be an easy fix to those unfamiliar with foreign adoption. After all, if you adopt, you work with an agency and that’s a business, right? Businesses give receipts and invoices, right? And everyone has cancelled checks, rights? Um, not so much. See, we adopted from Kazakhstan…on the other side of the freakin’ earth…and it’s a cash economy…that uses its own currency…and English isn’t the language of Kazakhstan. The aforementioned issues presented a teensy problem to securing what IRS needed in a timely manner.She went on to explain the challenges of documenting expenses (challenges we shared in our own audit, when I ultimately decided it was simply futile trying to document how we spent all the cash we took to Ethiopia). Her post concluded as she wrapped up the audit and waited for the IRS to respond:
Anyway, here we are, 30 days later. For the last several days, my dining room table has been covered with documents. I’ve been reliving my bad old times of adoption dossier preparation but in reverse this time. I finally got it all compiled, copies made, and the huge package of receipts, invoices, translations and conversions sent off to the IRS via Express mail. Now we wait for an answer…to see how much of our money the IRS will give us back. Let’s see if they can turn it around in 30 days like I had to. Bitter??? Nooooo, not me.Is it the IRS’s job to frustrate and obstruct the intent of Congress by targeting vulnerable families? Once again, here’s the Taxpayer Advocate Service:
With respect to the Adoption Credit, and in particular the credit for adoption of special needs children, the IRS has failed abysmally to take into account that over 45 percent of adopting families are at or below 200 percent federal poverty level, presenting particular communication and functional literacy challenges even as they are desperately in need of the funds which Congress has sought to deliver to them.As an adoptive family, it’s sometimes difficult to describe the immense challenges in gathering paperwork, opening your lives to social workers for home studies, then expensive travel to sometimes-corrupt foreign locales to then launch a new life with a child you love immensely but who is also experiencing his or her own culture shock and adjustment. All of this places a great strain on family finances and emotions. To then face an audit on the other side? All so the IRS can collect a whopping 1 percent additional revenue? It’s beyond the pale. If the IRS is concerned about fraud, it can audit random samples, not the vast majority of adoptive families claiming the credit.
The IRS is a broken institution. Yet despite its moral and legal corruption, it still wields immense power. As Congress investigates wrongdoing, it’s past time to consider fundamental tax reform. In other words, starve the beast. It has proven it can’t be trusted with power.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349077/irs-morality-defend-planned-parenthood-deluge-adoptive-families-audits-david-french
GOP lawmaker questions how Harry Reid ‘obtained’ false claims about Mitt Romney’s taxes: Small wonder. Reid’s assertion was not very credible to begin with — he earned Four Pinocchios for making an unsupported claim.
J. Russell George, U.S. Treasury inspector general for tax administration, from left, Douglas Shulman, former commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Lois Lerner, the director of the IRS’s exempt organizations office, and Neal S. Wolin, deputy secretary of the Treasury, are sworn in during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing Wednesday. (Pete Marovich/BLOOMBERG - BLOOMBERG)
REP. PAUL GOSAR: “Are you aware that in July 2012 Senator Harry Reid claimed Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes for the last 10 years and claimed to have the information supporting that? Are you aware of that? I’m sure you are.”
FORMER IRS COMMISSIONER DOUG SHULMAN: “I have a recollection of reading that in the paper.”
GOSAR: “Do you know how Mr. Reid obtained that information? Did you look into this?”
SHULMAN: “I have no idea how he...”
GOSAR: “Doesn’t that alarm you that — all of a sudden, this pertinent information comes up, you’re the head of this agency, and you’re not asking questions? Shame on you. Absolutely shame on you.”
— Exchange at House Oversight Committee hearing, May 22, 2013
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) brought up the question of Mitt Romney’s taxes after inquiring about two other cases involving alleged Internal Revenue Service leaks — one supposedly involving White House aide Austan Goolsbee and another involving not-for-profit journalism organization ProPublica. Former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman responded that Inspector General inquiries were launched in the first two instances, but he seemed puzzled by the Romney reference.
Small wonder. Reid’s assertion was not very credible to begin with — he earned Four Pinocchios for making an unsupported claim. Let’s quickly review the history.
The Facts
Reid took aim at Romney after the Republican nominee took the unusual step
of refusing to release more than two years of his tax returns. Reid, on
the floor of the Senate, charged that “the word’s out that he [Romney]
hasn’t paid any taxes for 10 years.” (At other times,
he asserted the period was 12 years.) Reid originally said he learned
this from a person who had invested with Bain Capital, Romney’s former
firm, but then he said that “a number of people” had told him this
claim.Oddly, Reid asserted that he had no obligation to offer proof for his incendiary charge. “I don’t think the burden should be on me,” he said. “The burden should be on him. He’s the one I’ve alleged has not paid any taxes.”
At the time, we consulted with a number of tax experts who said Reid’s claim was highly improbable. But he never claimed he got this from the IRS; he had cited a Bain investor — without explaining how such a person would know the details of Romney’s taxes. Indeed, one presumes if Reid had actual dirt on Romney’s taxes from the IRS, he would have released the details, rather than just wisps of rumors. (A Reid aide has denied Reid ever got his tip from the IRS.)
In any case, as Gosar should well know, Romney eventually did offer more information about his taxes. Within weeks of Reid’s claim, he released a letter from his accountants, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC, which stated that he paid both state and federal taxes every year between 1990 and 2009. “There were no years during the period in which you did not owe both federal and state income taxes,” the letter said.
Some Democrats remained skeptical, given that the letter did not include the actual tax returns and gave only broad summaries. But presumably Gosar believed the nominee of his party when Romney said Reid’s claim was bunk.
“Rep. Gosar was merely asking questions and seeking information,” said spokesman Orlando Watson. “He did not accuse the former IRS commissioner of anything except being asleep at the wheel. Proving the congressman’s point, Mr. Shulman said he was aware of Senator Reid’s claim yet did not look into the possibility of a leak.”
Watson said Gosar was asking his questions because “we know for a fact that confidential information was released by the IRS during the election.” However, the Goolsbee incident, which turned out to be unsubstantiated, took place in 2010, while ProPublica did not print anything about the confidential documents it had received until December 2012. (Update: Watson pointed to allegations made by the National Organization for Marriage that the IRS leaked private documents in April, 2012 to the Human Rights Campaign.)
The Pinocchio Test
This turns out to be Pinocchios inside of Pinocchios. It was
bad enough when Reid made his outlandish charges during the campaign.
But now Gosar has compounded the error by treating it as an accepted
fact — long after it has been disproven — in order to browbeat a witness
at a congressional hearing.At the very least, he should have acknowledged that there was no truth to Reid’s charge, rather than suggesting that Reid “obtained” something legitimate from the IRS. In doing so, he indicated there was something credible about Reid’s long-debunked claims.
Four Pinocchios
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Breaking: Obama vigorously defends drone policy that most of the public already supports his response to Rand Paul’s filibuster:
Here’s the transcript.
I defy you to tell me what the point of the speech is. The reaction
among conservative twitterati is nearly unanimous: The speech is a
distraction, designed to knock Scandalmania off the front page. I
disagree, just because … there’s nothing here that’s distracting. He’s
offering a robust defense of drone warfare to a public that already accepts it.
The speech is really just an unusually exhaustive
compendium of the foreign-policy establishment’s favorite counterterror bromides. Foreign Policy magazine has a Cliff’s Notes version of the four major takeaways, but none of them are actually major. He wants to close Gitmo, which we knew; he kinda likes the idea of independent oversight on drone strikes but maybe not too much, which we could have guessed; he wants to codify drone practices to make sure they’re used as narrowly as possible, but an Obama official couldn’t tell FP how that differs from the current policy; oh, and he thinks it’s time to stop thinking of this as a “boundless” global war on terror and start thinking in terms of discrete actions, which is semantic nonsense. No one, George Bush included, has done more to make the war on terror more “global” and “boundless” than The One. The whole story of his counterterror strategy from the beginning has been to extend operations to countries like Yemen and Libya and who knows where else special forces are now currently operating. His goal here, to the extent there was any goal at all, was to get the public to see him as someone who’s shrinking and narrowing the WoT when his actions indicate the opposite.
A few key passages. Here he is explaining that Pakistanis were enraged by having American boots on the ground during the Bin Laden raid, which is why we need to focus more on … drone strikes, which also enrage Pakistanis. Wait, what?
Finally, I suspect this bit is designed to give him a little cover if/when the public starts demanding to know why he hasn’t sent in troops to Libya to grab the five Benghazi suspects the feds have identified:
Anyway, “distraction” over. If people are still talking about the speech six hours from now, I’ll be shocked. While we wait to find out, via Mediaite, here’s Code Pink making The One’s week even more unpleasant than it already was. To borrow a line made famous by his former pastor, in light of Obama’s history with the group, consider this a case of the chickens having come home to roost.
It’s an honor to return to the National Defense University. Here, at Fort McNair, Americans have served in uniform since 1791– standing guard in the early days of the Republic, and contemplating the future of warfare here in the 21st century.
compendium of the foreign-policy establishment’s favorite counterterror bromides. Foreign Policy magazine has a Cliff’s Notes version of the four major takeaways, but none of them are actually major. He wants to close Gitmo, which we knew; he kinda likes the idea of independent oversight on drone strikes but maybe not too much, which we could have guessed; he wants to codify drone practices to make sure they’re used as narrowly as possible, but an Obama official couldn’t tell FP how that differs from the current policy; oh, and he thinks it’s time to stop thinking of this as a “boundless” global war on terror and start thinking in terms of discrete actions, which is semantic nonsense. No one, George Bush included, has done more to make the war on terror more “global” and “boundless” than The One. The whole story of his counterterror strategy from the beginning has been to extend operations to countries like Yemen and Libya and who knows where else special forces are now currently operating. His goal here, to the extent there was any goal at all, was to get the public to see him as someone who’s shrinking and narrowing the WoT when his actions indicate the opposite.
A few key passages. Here he is explaining that Pakistanis were enraged by having American boots on the ground during the Bin Laden raid, which is why we need to focus more on … drone strikes, which also enrage Pakistanis. Wait, what?
To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm. The risks in that case were immense; the likelihood of capture, although our preference, was remote given the certainty of resistance; the fact that we did not find ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or embroiled in an extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning and professionalism of our Special Forces – but also depended on some luck. And even then, the cost to our relationship with Pakistan – and the backlash among the Pakistani public over encroachment on their territory – was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership.
It is in this context that the United States has taken lethal, targeted action against al Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones.Here’s his response to Rand Paul’s filibuster:
This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.So there you go: No summary executions of American citizens unless you’re plotting terror and you can’t be captured, which is the same policy that was stated in the DOJ’s “white paper” on targeting Awlaki months ago. Nothing new here, unless you consider him ruling out drone strikes on U.S. soil as news. That was always implied by the white paper’s criteria that a target be beyond the reach of capture, though. If you’re on American soil, almost by definition you’re in a position to be captured. Also, note that Alwaki’s teenaged son, who was killed incidentally while in the presence of another jihadi who was being targeted, fits none of the above criteria. He wasn’t plotting and he certainly didn’t get due process. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time, as many other drone victims have been, which is one of the main reasons Pakistanis aren’t any more pro-Predator than they are pro-military raid.
But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team.
That’s who Anwar Awlaki was – he was continuously trying to kill people.
Finally, I suspect this bit is designed to give him a little cover if/when the public starts demanding to know why he hasn’t sent in troops to Libya to grab the five Benghazi suspects the feds have identified:
Where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted, lethal action is the use of conventional military options. As I’ve said, even small Special Operations carry enormous risks. Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage. And invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies; unleash a torrent of unintended consequences; are difficult to contain; and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict. So it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths, or to create enemies in the Muslim world. The result would be more U.S. deaths, more Blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars…You don’t want to drone the Benghazi five because we’re “committed to prosecuting terrorists whenever we can” and because the friendly-ish Libyan government might be able to help us capture them instead. On the other hand, capture is a verrrrry risky proposition. So for the moment we’re sitting tight and waiting while prosecutors build a case, a.k.a. while Obama figures out a way to proceed that’ll involve the least amount of risk.
To repeat, as a matter of policy, the preference of the United States is to capture terrorist suspects. When we do detain a suspect, we interrogate them. And if the suspect can be prosecuted, we decide whether to try him in a civilian court or a Military Commission. During the past decade, the vast majority of those detained by our military were captured on the battlefield. In Iraq, we turned over thousands of prisoners as we ended the war. In Afghanistan, we have transitioned detention facilities to the Afghans, as part of the process of restoring Afghan sovereignty. So we bring law of war detention to an end, and we are committed to prosecuting terrorists whenever we can.
Anyway, “distraction” over. If people are still talking about the speech six hours from now, I’ll be shocked. While we wait to find out, via Mediaite, here’s Code Pink making The One’s week even more unpleasant than it already was. To borrow a line made famous by his former pastor, in light of Obama’s history with the group, consider this a case of the chickens having come home to roost.
Full Text of Obama's 'Future of our Fight against Terrorism' Address
The full text of President Obama's "Future of our Fight against Terrorism" address, as prepared for delivery:
It’s an honor to return to the National Defense University. Here, at Fort McNair, Americans have served in uniform since 1791– standing guard in the early days of the Republic, and contemplating the future of warfare here in the 21st century.
For over two centuries, the United States has been
bound together by founding documents that defined who we are as
Americans, and served as our compass through every type of change.
Matters of war and peace are no different. Americans are deeply
ambivalent about war, but having fought for our independence, we know
that a price must be paid for freedom. From the Civil War, to our
struggle against fascism, and through the long, twilight struggle of the
Cold War, battlefields have changed, and technology has evolved. But
our commitment to Constitutional principles has weathered every war, and
every war has come to an end.
With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, a new dawn of
democracy took hold abroad, and a decade of peace and prosperity
arrived at home. For a moment, it seemed the 21st century would be a tranquil time. Then, on September 11th
2001, we were shaken out of complacency. Thousands were taken from us,
as clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning.
This was a different kind of war. No armies came to our shores, and our
military was not the principal target. Instead, a group of terrorists
came to kill as many civilians as they could.
And so our nation went to war. We have now been at
war for well over a decade. I won’t review the full history. What’s
clear is that we quickly drove al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, but then
shifted our focus and began a new war in Iraq. This carried grave
consequences for our fight against al Qaeda, our standing in the world,
and – to this day – our interests in a vital region.
Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses – hardening
targets, tightening transportation security, and giving law enforcement
new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some
caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised
difficult questions about the balance we strike between our interests in
security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we
compromised our basic values – by using torture to interrogate our
enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule
of law.
After I took office, we stepped up the war against
al Qaeda, but also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted
al Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly
150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and
increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned
torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our
policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with
Congress.
Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of
his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the
United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are
in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come
home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In
sum, we are safer because of our efforts.
Now make no mistake: our nation is still threatened
by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically
reminded of that truth. We must recognize, however, that the threat has
shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a
decade of experience to draw from, now is the time to ask ourselves
hard questions – about the nature of today’s threats, and how we should
confront them.
These questions matter to every American. For over
the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on
war, exploding our deficits and constraining our ability to nation build
here at home. Our service-members and their families have sacrificed
far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate
sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield,
or brought the shadows of battle back home. From our use of drones to
the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions we are making will
define the type of nation – and world – that we leave to our children.
So America is at a crossroads. We must define the
nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of
James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in
the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can
promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that
lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to
our open society. What we can do – what we must do – is dismantle
networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new
groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals
that we defend. To define that strategy, we must make decisions based
not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. And that begins with understanding
the threat we face.
Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and
Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more
time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did
not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They have not carried out a
successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. Instead, what we’ve seen
is the emergence of various al Qaeda affiliates. From Yemen to Iraq,
from Somalia to North Africa, the threat today is more diffuse, with Al
Qaeda’s affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula – AQAP –the most active in
plotting against our homeland. While none of AQAP’s efforts approach the
scale of 9/11 they have continued to plot acts of terror, like the
attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009.
Unrest in the Arab World has also allowed
extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria. Here,
too, there are differences from 9/11. In some cases, we confront
state-sponsored networks like Hizbollah that engage in acts of terror to
achieve political goals. Others are simply collections of local
militias or extremists interested in seizing territory. While we are
vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat,
most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they
are based. That means we will face more localized threats like those we
saw in Benghazi, or at the BP oil facility in Algeria, in which local
operatives – in loose affiliation with regional networks – launch
periodic attacks against Western diplomats, companies, and other soft
targets, or resort to kidnapping and other criminal enterprises to fund
their operations.
Finally, we face a real threat from radicalized
individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh
Temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the
extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma
City – America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our
time. Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal
residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger
notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have
led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston
Marathon.
Lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates.
Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown
extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats
seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our
response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely
resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. In the 1980s, we
lost Americans to terrorism at our Embassy in Beirut; at our Marine
Barracks in Lebanon; on a cruise ship at sea; at a disco in Berlin; and
on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. In the 1990s, we lost Americans to
terrorism at the World Trade Center; at our military facilities in Saudi
Arabia; and at our Embassy in Kenya. These attacks were all deadly, and
we learned that left unchecked, these threats can grow. But if dealt
with smartly and proportionally, these threats need not rise to the
level that we saw on the eve of 9/11.
Moreover, we must recognize that these threats
don’t arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face
is fueled by a common ideology – a belief by some extremists that Islam
is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence
against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of
a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the
United States is not at war with Islam; and this ideology is rejected by
the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of
terrorist acts.
Nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age
in which ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our
response to terrorism cannot depend on military or law enforcement
alone. We need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills
and ideas. So let me discuss the components of such a comprehensive
counter-terrorism strategy.
First, we must finish the work of defeating al Qaeda and its associated forces.
In Afghanistan, we will complete our transition to
Afghan responsibility for security. Our troops will come home. Our
combat mission will come to an end. And we will work with the Afghan
government to train security forces, and sustain a counter-terrorism
force which ensures that al Qaeda can never again establish a safe-haven
to launch attacks against us or our allies.
Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not
as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of
persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent
extremists that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve
partnerships with other countries. Thousands of Pakistani soldiers have
lost their lives fighting extremists. In Yemen, we are supporting
security forces that have reclaimed territory from AQAP. In Somalia, we
helped a coalition of African nations push al Shabaab out of its
strongholds. In Mali, we are providing military aid to a French-led
intervention to push back al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and help the people
of Mali reclaim their future.
Much of our best counter-terrorism cooperation
results in the gathering and sharing of intelligence; the arrest and
prosecution of terrorists. That’s how a Somali terrorist apprehended off
the coast of Yemen is now in prison in New York. That’s how we worked
with European allies to disrupt plots from Denmark to Germany to the
United Kingdom. That’s how intelligence collected with Saudi Arabia
helped us stop a cargo plane from being blown up over the Atlantic.
But despite our strong preference for the detention
and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed.
Al Qaeda and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most
distant and unforgiving places on Earth. They take refuge in remote
tribal regions. They hide in caves and walled compounds. They train in
empty deserts and rugged mountains.
In some of these places – such as parts of Somalia
and Yemen – the state has only the most tenuous reach into the
territory. In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take
action. It is also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of
Special Forces to capture every terrorist. And even when such an
approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound
risks to our troops and local civilians– where a terrorist compound
cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding
tribal communities that pose no threat to us, or when putting U.S. boots
on the ground may trigger a major international crisis.
To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan
against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm. The risks in that case were
immense; the likelihood of capture, although our preference, was remote
given the certainty of resistance; the fact that we did not find
ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or embroiled in an
extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning and
professionalism of our Special Forces – but also depended on some luck.
And even then, the cost to our relationship with Pakistan – and the
backlash among the Pakistani public over encroachment on their territory
– was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this
important partnership.
It is in this context that the United States has
taken lethal, targeted action against al Qaeda and its associated
forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as
drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology
raises profound questions – about who is targeted, and why; about
civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new enemies; about the
legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law; about
accountability and morality.
Let me address these questions. To begin with, our
actions are effective. Don’t take my word for it. In the intelligence
gathered at bin Laden’s compound, we found that he wrote, “we could lose
the reserves to the enemy’s air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes
with explosives.” Other communications from al Qaeda operatives confirm
this as well. Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers,
bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots
have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation,
U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in Afghanistan.
Simply put, these strikes have saved lives.
Moreover, America’s actions are legal. We were
attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the
use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United
States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated
forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as
many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a
just war – a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in
self-defense.
And yet as our fight enters a new phase, America’s
legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. To
say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is
wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives
us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the
discipline to constrain that power – or risk abusing it. That’s why,
over the last four years, my Administration has worked vigorously to
establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists –
insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is
now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday.
In the Afghan war theater, we must support our
troops until the transition is complete at the end of 2014. That means
we will continue to take strikes against high value al Qaeda targets,
but also against forces that are massing to support attacks on coalition
forces. However, by the end of 2014, we will no longer have the same
need for force protection, and the progress we have made against core al
Qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes.
Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda
and its associated forces. Even then, the use of drones is heavily
constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to
capture individual terrorists - our preference is always to detain,
interrogate, and prosecute them. America cannot take strikes wherever we
choose – our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and
respect for state sovereignty. America does not take strikes to punish
individuals – we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and
imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other
governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any
strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be
killed or injured – the highest standard we can set.
This last point is critical, because much of the
criticism about drone strikes – at home and abroad – understandably
centers on reports of civilian casualties. There is a wide gap between
U.S. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports.
Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in
civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of
those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss.
For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as
long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that
have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these
heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the
face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties –
not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the
very places –like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu – where terrorists seek
a foothold. Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target
civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against
Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.
Where foreign governments cannot or will not
effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative
to targeted, lethal action is the use of conventional military options.
As I’ve said, even small Special Operations carry enormous risks.
Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and
likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage. And
invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies;
unleash a torrent of unintended consequences; are difficult to contain;
and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict. So it is
false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to
result in civilian deaths, or to create enemies in the Muslim world. The
result would be more U.S. deaths, more Blackhawks down, more
confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep
in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars.
So yes, the conflict with al Qaeda, like all armed
conflict, invites tragedy. But by narrowly targeting our action against
those who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among, we are
choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of
innocent life. Indeed, our efforts must also be measured against the
history of putting American troops in distant lands among hostile
populations. In Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of civilians died in a
war where the boundaries of battle were blurred. In Iraq and
Afghanistan, despite the courage and discipline of our troops, thousands
of civilians have been killed. So neither conventional military action,
nor waiting for attacks to occur, offers moral safe-harbor. Neither
does a sole reliance on law enforcement in territories that have no
functioning police or security services – and indeed, have no
functioning law.
This is not to say that the risks are not real. Any
U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and
impacts public opinion overseas. Our laws constrain the power of the
President, even during wartime, and I have taken an oath to defend the
Constitution of the United States. The very precision of drones strikes,
and the necessary secrecy involved in such actions can end up shielding
our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment
invites. It can also lead a President and his team to view drone strikes
as a cure-all for terrorism.
For this reason, I’ve insisted on strong oversight
of all lethal action. After I took office, my Administration began
briefing all strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan to the appropriate
committees of Congress. Let me repeat that – not only did Congress
authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that America
takes. That includes the one instance when we targeted an American
citizen: Anwar Awlaki, the chief of external operations for AQAP.
This week, I authorized the declassification of
this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes,
to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some
of the more outlandish claims. For the record, I do not believe it
would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S.
citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. Nor should
any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.
But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war
against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and
when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to
capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no
more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd
should be protected from a swat team
That’s who Anwar Awlaki was – he was continuously
trying to kill people. He helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate
explosive devices on two U.S. bound cargo planes. He was involved in
planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. When Farouk Abdulmutallab – the
Christmas Day bomber – went to Yemen in 2009, Awlaki hosted him,
approved his suicide operation, and helped him tape a martyrdom video to
be shown after the attack. His last instructions were to blow up the
airplane when it was over American soil. I would have detained and
prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. But
we couldn’t. And as President, I would have been derelict in my duty had
I not authorized the strike that took out Awlaki.
Of course, the targeting of any Americans raises
constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes – which is
why my Administration submitted information about Awlaki to the
Department of Justice months before Awlaki was killed, and briefed the
Congress before this strike as well. But the high threshold that we have
set for taking lethal action applies to all potential terrorist
targets, regardless of whether or not they are American citizens. This
threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human life. Alongside
the decision to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way, the
decision to use force against individuals or groups – even against a
sworn enemy of the United States – is the hardest thing I do as
President. But these decisions must be made, given my responsibility to
protect the American people.
Going forward, I have asked my Administration to
review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of
warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. Each option has
virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice. For example, the
establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action
has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the
process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and
judicial authority. Another idea that’s been suggested – the
establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch –
avoids those problems, but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into
national-security decision-making, without inspiring additional public
confidence in the process. Despite these challenges, I look forward to
actively engaging Congress to explore these – and other – options for
increased oversight.
I believe, however, that the use of force must be
seen as part of a larger discussion about a comprehensive
counter-terrorism strategy. Because for all the focus on the use of
force, force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere
that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy
that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war – through
drones or Special Forces or troop deployments – will prove
self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.
So the next element of our strategy involves
addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism,
from North Africa to South Asia. As we’ve learned this past decade, this
is a vast and complex undertaking. We must be humble in our expectation
that we can quickly resolve deep rooted problems like poverty and
sectarian hatred. Moreover, no two countries are alike, and some will
undergo chaotic change before things get better. But our security and
values demand that we make the effort.
This means patiently supporting transitions to
democracy in places like Egypt, Tunisia and Libya – because the peaceful
realization of individual aspirations will serve as a rebuke to violent
extremists. We must strengthen the opposition in Syria, while isolating
extremist elements – because the end of a tyrant must not give way to
the tyranny of terrorism. We are working to promote peace between
Israelis and Palestinians – because it is right, and because such a
peace could help reshape attitudes in the region. And we must help
countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage
entrepreneurship – because American leadership has always been elevated
by our ability to connect with peoples’ hopes, and not simply their
fears.
Success on these fronts requires sustained
engagement, but it will also require resources. I know that foreign aid
is one of the least popular expenditures – even though it amounts to
less than one percent of the federal budget. But foreign assistance
cannot be viewed as charity. It is fundamental to our national security,
and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism. Moreover,
foreign assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars
that our assistance might ultimately prevent. For what we spent in a
month in Iraq at the height of the war, we could be training security
forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its
neighbors, feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan,
and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists.
America cannot carry out this work if we do not
have diplomats serving in dangerous places. Over the past decade, we
have strengthened security at our Embassies, and I am implementing every
recommendation of the Accountability Review Board which found
unacceptable failures in Benghazi. I have called on Congress to fully
fund these efforts to bolster security, harden facilities, improve
intelligence, and facilitate a quicker response time from our military
if a crisis emerges.
But even after we take these steps, some
irreducible risks to our diplomats will remain. This is the price of
being the world’s most powerful nation, particularly as a wave of change
washes over the Arab World. And in balancing the trade-offs between
security and active diplomacy, I firmly believe that any retreat from
challenging regions will only increase the dangers we face in the long
run.
Targeted action against terrorists. Effective
partnerships. Diplomatic engagement and assistance. Through such a
comprehensive strategy we can significantly reduce the chances of large
scale attacks on the homeland and mitigate threats to Americans
overseas. As we guard against dangers from abroad, however, we cannot
neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our borders.
As I said earlier, this threat is not new. But
technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality. Today,
a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent
agenda, and learn how to kill without leaving their home. To address
this threat, two years ago my Administration did a comprehensive review,
and engaged with law enforcement. The best way to prevent violent
extremism is to work with the Muslim American community – which has
consistently rejected terrorism – to identify signs of radicalization,
and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards
violence. And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that
Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family. Indeed, the
success of American Muslims, and our determination to guard against any
encroachments on their civil liberties, is the ultimate rebuke to those
who say we are at war with Islam.
Indeed, thwarting homegrown plots presents
particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil
liberties for all who call America home. That’s why, in the years to
come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate
balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that
make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law
enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, and build
in privacy protections to prevent abuse. That means that – even after
Boston – we do not deport someone or throw someone in prison in the
absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools
the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the State
Secrets doctrine. And that means finally having a strong Privacy and
Civil Liberties Board to review those issues where our counter-terrorism
efforts and our values may come into tension.
The Justice Department’s investigation of national
security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in
striking the right balance between our security and our open society. As
Commander-in Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that
protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must
enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their
commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also
essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak
investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds
government accountable.
Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing
their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I
have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against
government over-reach. I have raised these issues with the Attorney
General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing
Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve
reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their
concerns as part of that review. And I have directed the Attorney
General to report back to me by July 12th.
All these issues remind us that the choices we make
about war can impact – in sometimes unintended ways – the openness and
freedom on which our way of life depends. And that is why I intend to
engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force,
or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without
keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing.
The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan
War is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self.
Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every
collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a
credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking
and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight,
or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for
traditional armed conflicts between nation states. So I look forward to
engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and
ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed
to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle
terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must
end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.
And that brings me to my final topic: the detention of terrorist suspects.
To repeat, as a matter of policy, the preference of
the United States is to capture terrorist suspects. When we do detain a
suspect, we interrogate them. And if the suspect can be prosecuted, we
decide whether to try him in a civilian court or a Military Commission.
During the past decade, the vast majority of those detained by our
military were captured on the battlefield. In Iraq, we turned over
thousands of prisoners as we ended the war. In Afghanistan, we have
transitioned detention facilities to the Afghans, as part of the process
of restoring Afghan sovereignty. So we bring law of war detention to an
end, and we are committed to prosecuting terrorists whenever we can.
The glaring exception to this time-tested approach
is the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The original premise for
opening GTMO – that detainees would not be able to challenge their
detention – was found unconstitutional five years ago. In the meantime,
GTMO has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the
rule of law. Our allies won’t cooperate with us if they think a
terrorist will end up at GTMO. During a time of budget cuts, we spend
$150 million each year to imprison 166 people –almost $1 million per
prisoner. And the Department of Defense estimates that we must spend
another $200 million to keep GTMO open at a time when we are cutting
investments in education and research here at home.
As President, I have tried to close GTMO. I
transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed
restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring
detainees to other countries, or imprisoning them in the United States.
These restrictions make no sense. After all, under President Bush, some
530 detainees were transferred from GTMO with Congress’s support. When I
ran for President the first time, John McCain supported closing GTMO.
No person has ever escaped from one of our super-max or military prisons
in the United States. Our courts have convicted hundreds of people for
terrorism-related offenses, including some who are more dangerous than
most GTMO detainees. Given my Administration’s relentless pursuit of al
Qaeda’s leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for
Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have
been opened.
Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the
restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. I have asked the
Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we
can hold military commissions. I am appointing a new, senior envoy at
the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility
will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries. I am
lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen, so we can review
them on a case by case basis. To the greatest extent possible, we will
transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. Where
appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and
military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be
available for every detainee.
Even after we take these steps, one issue will
remain: how to deal with those GTMO detainees who we know have
participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted
– for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or
is inadmissible in a court of law. But once we commit to a process of
closing GTMO, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved,
consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.
I know the politics are hard. But history will cast
a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism, and
those of us who fail to end it. Imagine a future – ten years from now,
or twenty years from now – when the United States of America is still
holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land
that is not a part of our country. Look at the current situation, where
we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike. Is that
who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the
America we want to leave to our children?
Our sense of justice is stronger than that. We have
prosecuted scores of terrorists in our courts. That includes Umar
Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up an airplane over Detroit; and
Faisal Shahzad, who put a car bomb in Times Square. It is in a court of
law that we will try Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is accused of bombing the
Boston Marathon. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, is as we speak serving a
life sentence in a maximum security prison here, in the United States.
In sentencing Reid, Judge William Young told him, “the way we treat
you…is the measure of our own liberties.” He went on to point to the
American flag that flew in the courtroom – “That flag,” he said, “will
fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for
freedom.”
America, we have faced down dangers far greater
than al Qaeda. By staying true to the values of our founding, and by
using our constitutional compass, we have overcome slavery and Civil
War; fascism and communism. In just these last few years as President, I
have watched the American people bounce back from painful recession,
mass shootings, and natural disasters like the recent tornados that
devastated Oklahoma. These events were heartbreaking; they shook our
communities to the core. But because of the resilience of the American
people, these events could not come close to breaking us.
I think of Lauren Manning, the 9/11 survivor who
had severe burns over 80 percent of her body, who said, “That’s my
reality. I put a Band-Aid on it, literally, and I move on.”
I think of the New Yorkers who filled Times Square the day after an attempted car bomb as if nothing had happened.
I think of the proud Pakistani parents who, after
their daughter was invited to the White House, wrote to us, “we have
raised an American Muslim daughter to dream big and never give up
because it does pay off.”
I think of the wounded warriors rebuilding their lives, and helping other vets to find jobs.
I think of the runner planning to do the 2014
Boston Marathon, who said, “Next year, you are going to have more people
than ever. Determination is not something to be messed with.”
That’s who the American people are. Determined, and not to be messed with.
Now, we need a strategy – and a politics –that
reflects this resilient spirit. Our victory against terrorism won’t be
measured in a surrender ceremony on a battleship, or a statue being
pulled to the ground. Victory will be measured in parents taking their
kids to school; immigrants coming to our shores; fans taking in a
ballgame; a veteran starting a business; a bustling city street. The
quiet determination; that strength of character and bond of fellowship;
that refutation of fear – that is both our sword and our shield. And
long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world’s
memory, alongside the brutal despots, deranged madmen, and ruthless
demagogues who litter history – the flag of the United States will still
wave from small-town cemeteries, to national monuments, to distant
outposts abroad. And that flag will still stand for freedom.
Thank you. God Bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/full-text-obamas-future-our-fight-against-terrorism-address_728945.html?nopager=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Recent presidential tradition includes leaving a handwritten letter in the Oval Office for the next man who takes the o...
