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
No comments:
Post a Comment