National Defense University
Fort McNair
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Please be seated.
It is a great honor to return to the National Defense
University. Here, at Fort McNair, Americans have served in uniform
since 1791 -- standing guard in the earliest 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 a price must be paid for
freedom. From the Civil War to our struggle against fascism, on 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
here at home. And for a moment, it seemed the 21st century would be a
tranquil time. And then, on September 11, 2001, we were shaken out of
complacency. Thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire and 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 is clear
is that we quickly drove al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, but then shifted
our focus and began a new war in Iraq. And this carried significant
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, 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 that 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.
So after I took office, we stepped up the war against al
Qaeda but we 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. But we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and
evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of
experience now to draw from, this is the moment to ask ourselves hard
questions -- about the nature of today’s threats and how we should
confront them.
And these questions matter to every American.
For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a
trillion dollars on war, helping to explode our deficits and
constraining our ability to nation-build here at home. Our
servicemembers 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 that we are making now 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. We have to be
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. But what we can do -- what we must do
-- is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and make it
less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while maintaining
the freedoms and ideals that we defend. And to define that strategy,
we have to make decisions based not on fear, but on hard-earned wisdom.
That begins with understanding the current threat that we face.
Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is
on the 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’ve 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 affiliates in the Arabian
Peninsula -- AQAP -- the most active in plotting against our homeland.
And 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. But here, too, there
are differences from 9/11. In some cases, we continue to confront
state-sponsored networks like Hezbollah that engage in acts of terror to
achieve political goals. Other of these groups are simply collections
of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory. And
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. And that means we'll face more localized
threats like what we saw in Benghazi, or the BP oil facility in
Algeria, in which local operatives -- perhaps 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.
And 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
history. Deranged or alienated individuals -- often U.S. citizens or
legal residents -- can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by
larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism
appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the
Boston Marathon.
So that’s the current threat -- lethal yet less capable al
Qaeda affiliates; threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses
abroad; homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We have
to 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 a Pan Am flight -- 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 brutal; they 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 have to recognize that these threats don’t
arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we faced 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 attacks.
Nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age when
ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our response to
terrorism can’t depend on military or law enforcement alone. We need all
elements of national power to win a battle of wills, a battle of
ideas. So what I want to discuss here today is the components of such a
comprehensive counterterrorism 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 that country’s 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
counterterrorism 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. Already, 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’re providing military aid to French-led
intervention to push back al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and help the people
of Mali reclaim their future.
Much of our best counterterrorism cooperation results in
the gathering and sharing of intelligence, the arrest and prosecution of
terrorists. And that’s how a Somali terrorist apprehended off the
coast of Yemen is now in a 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.
These partnerships work.
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 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 only has the most tenuous reach into the territory.
In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action.
And it’s also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of
Special Forces to capture every terrorist. 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, for example, that pose no threat to us; times 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 that was our preference,
was remote given the certainty that our folks would confront
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 it also depended on some luck. And it was supported by
massive infrastructure in Afghanistan.
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.
So 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. So 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 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. And 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 -- and will -- continue
to support our troops until the transition is complete at the end of
2014. And 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. But by the end of 2014, we will no
longer have the same need for force protection, and the progress we’ve
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. And 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. 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.
Now, this last point is critical, because much of the
criticism about drone strikes -- both here at home and abroad --
understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There’s a
wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties and nongovernmental
reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have
resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in every war. And
for the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can
justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, those
deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the
civilian casualties that have occurred throughout 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 our facilities abroad, but also in the
very places like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu where terrorists seek a
foothold. 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. So doing
nothing is not an option.
Where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively
stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted
lethal action would be the use of conventional military options. As
I’ve already said, even small special operations carry enormous risks.
Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and
are likely to cause more civilian casualties and more 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, result in large numbers of civilian casualties 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 less likely to create
enemies in the Muslim world. The results would be more U.S. deaths,
more Black Hawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and
an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily
escalate into new wars.
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.
Our efforts must be measured against the history of
putting American troops in dist
ant 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
extraordinary 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, and neither does
a sole reliance on law enforcement in territories that have no
functioning police or security services -- and indeed, have no
functioning law.
Now, 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. Moreover, 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
drone strikes and the necessary secrecy often 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.
And 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. Every strike. 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 that have been made. 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 with 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, helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after
the attack, and 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 him out.
Of course, the targeting of any American 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’ve
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’ve 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. But 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 we need to have about a comprehensive
counterterrorism 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 wellspring 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
our values demand that we make the effort.
This means patiently supporting transitions to democracy
in places like Egypt and 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 actively 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 people’s hopes, and not simply their
fears.
And success on all these fronts requires sustained
engagement, but it will also require resources. I know that foreign aid
is one of the least popular expenditures that there is. That’s true
for Democrats and Republicans -- I’ve seen the polling -- even though it
amounts to less than one percent of the federal budget. In fact, a lot
of folks think it’s 25 percent, if you ask people on the streets. Less
than one percent -- still wildly unpopular. But foreign assistance
cannot be viewed as charity. It is fundamental to our national
security. And it’s fundamental to 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. That has to be part of our strategy.
Moreover, America cannot carry out this work if we don’t
have diplomats serving in some very 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’ve called on Congress
to fully fund these efforts to bolster security and 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 trade4offs between security and active
diplomacy, I firmly believe that any retreat from challenging regions
will only increase the dangers that we face in the long run. And that's
why we should be grateful to those diplomats who are willing to serve.
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. But as we guard against dangers from abroad, 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 in some cases its
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.
And the best way to prevent violent extremism inspired by
violent jihadists 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.
In fact, 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 that we’re at war with Islam.
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, but also build in privacy protections to
prevent abuse.
That means that -- even after Boston -- we do not deport
someone or throw somebody 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 counterterrorism 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. That’s who we are. And I’m 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. And that’s why
I’ve called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against
government overreach. And I’ve raised these issues with the Attorney
General, who shares my concerns. So he has agreed to review existing
Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve
reporters, and he’ll convene a group of media organizations to hear
their concerns as part of that review. And I’ve directed the Attorney
General to report back to me by July 12th.
Now, 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 terrorism without
keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing.
The AUMF is now nearly 12 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, our
definitions, 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. I’m going to repeat one more time: 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
wherever 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’re cutting investments in education
and research here at home, and when the Pentagon is struggling with
sequester and budget cuts.
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 here 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 -- this was a bipartisan issue. No person
has ever escaped one of our super-max or military prisons here in the
United States -- ever. Our courts have convicted hundreds of people for
terrorism or terrorism-related offenses, including some folks who are
more dangerous than most GTMO detainees. They're in our prisons.
And 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 have never
have been opened. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Excuse me, President Obama --
THE PRESIDENT: So -- let me finish, ma'am. So today, once again --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: There are 102 people on a hunger strike. These are desperate people.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm about to address it, ma'am, but you've got to let me speak. I'm about to address it.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: You're our Commander-In-Chief --
THE PRESIDENT: Let me address it.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- you an close Guantanamo Bay.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don’t you let me address it, ma'am.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: There’s still prisoners --
THE PRESIDENT: Why don’t you sit down and I will tell you exactly what I'm going to do.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: That includes 57 Yemenis.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. (Applause.) Ma'am, thank you. You should let me finish my sentence.
Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. (Applause.)
I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site
in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I’m
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.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- prisoners already. Release them today.
THE PRESIDENT: Where appropriate, we will bring
terrorists to justice in our courts and our military justice system.
And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: It needs to be --
THE PRESIDENT: Now, ma'am, let me finish. Let me finish,
ma'am. Part of free speech is you being able to speak, but also, you
listening and me being able to speak. (Applause.)
Now, even after we take these steps one issue will remain
-- just 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 -- 10 years from now or 20
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 part of our country. Look at the current situation, where we are
force-feeding detainees who are being held on a hunger strike. I'm
willing to cut the young lady who interrupted me some slack because it's
worth being passionate about. Is this who we are? Is that something
our Founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave 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's 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.”
AUDIENCE MEMBER: How about Abdulmutallab -- locking up a
16-year-old -- is that the way we treat a 16-year old? (Inaudible) --
can you take the drones out of the hands of the CIA?
Can you stop the
signature strikes killing people on the basis of suspicious activities?
THE PRESIDENT: We’re addressing that, ma’am.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- thousands of Muslims that got killed
-- will you compensate the innocent families -- that will make us safer
here at home. I love my country. I love (inaudible) --
THE PRESIDENT: I think that -- and I’m going off script,
as you might expect here. (Laughter and applause.) The voice of that
woman is worth paying attention to. (Applause.) Obviously, I do not
agree with much of what she said, and obviously she wasn’t listening to
me in much of what I said. But these are tough issues, and the
suggestion that we can gloss over them is wrong.
When that judge sentenced Mr. Reid, the shoe bomber, 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.”
So, America, we’ve 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 and
fascism and communism. In just these last few years as President, I’ve
watched the American people bounce back from painful recession, mass
shootings, 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 all 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’re 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. And 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 at 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; a citizen shouting
her concerns at a President.
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, and
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 very, everybody. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
