FYI - Worth a read in its entirety. Sekhar Ramakrishnan of FOIL has compiled an impressive list of articles discussing Obama's intentions on Palestine and Guantanamo
The really impressive thing about Obama is his fearlessness about
taking up multiple issues to put forward a broadly progressive
viewpoint, one that is well ahead of the US public. Just in the past
week, he covered new auto emissions standards, the need for empathy
on the part of judges, the abortion issue at Notre Dame, Palestine with
Netanyahu, and Guantanamo today. For any other national leader,
dealing with just one of these issues would be an achievement.Sekhar Ramakrishnan
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/the-meeting-before-the-talk.html
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/well-that-changes-things.html
both about Obama's meeting with human rights groups yesterday,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us/politics/22obama.html about
Obama's speech today on Guantanamo,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/19/AR2009051902669.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/middle-east/obamas-stealth-middle-east-pea.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/middle-east/middle-east-watch-2.html
all three about Obama applying pressure on Netanyahu and Israel,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/inew-york-timesi-falsifie_b_205201.html
analyzing how the NY Times distorted the whole story to make it appear
that the meeting with Netanyahu was about Iran, and
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.html with
the text of Obama's speech
contain all the material below. Not below:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/the-rebalancing.html
with the reaction of a conservative who opposes torture and
Guantanamo,
http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/21/HP/R/18855/Fmr+VP+Cheney+Counters+Pres+Obama+on+terrorism+Policy.aspx
with the complete Obama speech, and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2009/05/21/VI2009052101871.html?sid=ST2009052101969
a short video with key points made by Obama.
Sekhar
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/the-meeting-before-the-talk.html
By Dan Froomkin | May 21, 2009; 10:22 AM ET
The Meeting Before the Gitmo Speech
Here's something to chew on while we listen to and digest the
president's big speech: Obama and several top aides met yesterday at
the White House with leaders of about a dozen human and civil rights
organizations, as well as several law professors.
The money quote, it seems to me, came from Elisa Massimino, CEO of
Human Rights First, in her interview with Sam Stein of Huffington Post:
On Gitmo, Massimino said, the President "emphasized that he was in
this for the long game. He said he realized that you can't change
people's misperceptions overnight, that they have had eight long years
of a steady dose of fear and a lack of leadership and that is not
something that you wave a magic wand and make it go away."
Stein also writes:
"Obama expressed frustration with Congress' decision to remove
funding for the closure of the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. The
president declared that his hands were tied in some ways regarding the
use of reformed military tribunals, though he pledged to try as many
detainees as possible in Article III federal courts....
"We talked a lot about the framework in which he is operating, and he
talked about his strong desire to reestablish a system under which the
executive is not exercising unfettered authority," said [Massimino]. "One
of the chief differences between him and his predecessor was that he
didn't think he ought to be making these decisions in an ad-hoc,
unaccountable way. And so he said that, in thinking through this, he
was focused on how his successor might operate."...
As for the criticism of Senate Republicans, who suggest that moving
terrorism suspects to America would be tantamount to releasing them
on the streets, Massimino recalled Obama's remarks as being relatively
brief. He dismissed it, she said, "as really an unfounded fear that is
being fanned by people who are seeking political advantage."
Overall, however, Massimino still registered concerns:
"I think that many of us were disappointed by the announcement about
the military commissions and wondered what the reasoning was behind
that. And to be honest, I am still wondering having been in this meeting
today. I don't think that this fits the overall framework that the president
had articulated about using our values to reinforce a counter terrorism
strategy against al Qaeda."
Karen DeYoung writes in The Washington Post:
Several participants discussed the meeting on the condition of
anonymity. One said Obama argued that there was no trade-off
between American values and national security, but that GOP
demagoguery in Congress was dominating the issue. Another said
Obama seemed irritated that some of those who attended the meeting
had recently compared his policies to those of Bush.
Anthony D. Romero, head of the American Civil Liberties Union, who
has used that comparison, declined to discuss what Obama said but in
an interview after the meeting repeated the comparison.
"President Obama's decision to continue George Bush's policies
essentially means that they become his own," Romero said. "And if he
continues down this path, these policies will certainly become known in
the history books as the Bush-Obama doctrine." Romero described the
discussion as "freewheeling" and said Obama was "clearly deeply
steeped in the issues. But he had little interest in revisiting his recent
decisions."
Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times:
President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on
Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a "preventive detention"
system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to
incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national
security but cannot be tried, two participants in the private session
said....
They said Mr. Obama told them he was thinking about "the long game"
— how to establish a legal system that would endure for future
presidents. He raised the issue of preventive detention himself, but
made clear that he had not made a decision on it. Several senior White
House officials did not respond to requests for comment on the
outsiders' accounts.
"He was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the
laws so that we can deal with individuals who we can't charge and
detain," one participant said. "We've known this is on the horizon for
many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea
that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration
over these powers is really stunning."
The other participant said Mr. Obama did not seem to be thinking about
preventive detention for terrorism suspects now held at Guantánamo
Bay, but rather for those captured in the future, in settings other than a
legitimate battlefield like Afghanistan. "The issue is," the participant
said, "What are the options left open to a future president?"
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/well-that-changes-things.html
21 May 2009 12:47 pm
Well, That Changes Things
by Patrick Appel
A reader writes:
Isikoff's reporting has been exaggerated. According to the
secondhand account, Obama was asked:
...one of those present raised the idea of criminal prosecution of at
least one Bush era official, if only as a symbolic gesture. Obama
dismissed the idea, several of those in attendance said, making it clear
that he had no interest in such an investigation. Holder [...] reportedly
said nothing.
Obama is correct to reject any call for using the DoJ as a conduit for
symbolic gestures. This is not the function of the DoJ. Deciding what
is a crime and what isn't, moreover what is a prosecutable crime and
what isn't, is not and should never be reduced to partisan gestures of
symbolism.
The fact that Holder sat silent as Obama reaffirmed this obvious
point means nothing because Holder has said as much publicly all
along. The fact that this obvious point was missed by most of those
reporting shows how far Obama and Holder's DoJ have to go to restore
the proper application of the rule of law. This stance alone is a major
break with Bush's DoJ and policies.
It sounds like the left wanted Obama to make the DoJ into exactly
what Obama, and the left for that matter, derided about the Bush DoJ--
the partisan, rather than fair and impartial, arbiter of justice.
I agree with this. I watched that video late last night, and somehow
didn't notice this detail. I looked for Isikoff's story to verify my take but it
wasn't posted until this morning. This changes my reading of the civil
liberties meeting and this morning's speech substantially.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us/politics/22obama.html
NY Times May 22, 2009
Obama Mounts Defense of Detainee Plan
By DAVID STOUT and BRIAN KNOWLTON
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday deliverered an
impassioned defense of his administration's anti-terrorism policies,
reiterating his determination to close the prison at the Guantánamo Bay
naval base in Cuba in the face of growing Congressional pressure and
warning that it was essential to stand by the country's basic principles.
The president said that what has gone on at Guantánamo for the past
seven years has demonstrated an unjust, haphazard "ad hoc approach"
that has undermined rather than strengthened America's safety, and
that moving its most dangerous inmates to the United States is both
practical and in keeping with the country's cherished ideals.
Moroever, he said that transferring some Guantánamo detainees to
highly secure prisons in the United States would in no way endanger
American security.
Speaking at the National Archives, which houses the Constitution and
other documents embodying America's system of government and
justice, the president promised to work with Congress to develop a safe
and fair system for dealing with those Guantánamo detainees who
cannot be prosecuted "yet who pose a clear danger to the American
people."
"I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face," the
president said.
Nevertheless, despite the evil intentions of some Guantánamo
detainees and the undeniable fact that Al Qaeda terrorists are
determined to attack America again, United States citizens should not
feel uneasy about a relatively small number of detainees being
imprisoned in the American homeland, the president said.
"As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody
has ever escaped from one of our federal supermax prisons, which
hold hundreds of convicted terrorists," the president said. "As Senator
Lindsey Graham said: 'The idea that we cannot find a place to securely
house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.'"
Only minutes after Mr. Obama finished speaking, former Vice President
Dick Cheney offered a far different perspective, defending the anti-
terrorism policies of the Bush administration and criticizing some of
President Obama's approaches. Taken together, the speeches of
President Obama and the former vice president encapsuled a
fundamental debate over the proper balance between personal liberties
and national security in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorism attacks.
Both speeches came in a week in which Congress has been wrestling
with detention issues. The Senate by a lopsided vote vote of 90-6
rebuffed the president over financing for closing down the detention
center. Republicans and Democrats alike argued that the White House
had yet to outline a realistic plan for what to do with the remaining
detainees after the center is closed.
The supermax prisons to which Mr. Obama alluded, familiar to viewers
of cable-television crime programs, are fortress-like structures of
concrete and steel where the inmates — the worst of the worst of
hardened criminals — live in near-isolation.
"I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges," Mr.
Obama said. "Other countries have grappled with this question, and so
must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a
legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees — not to avoid
one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the
decision of any one man."
The president said Americans should resist the temptation to indulge in
"finger-pointing" over mistakes. But he offered scathing criticism of the
presidency of George W. Bush, referring repeatedly to the missteps, in
Mr. Obama's view, of "the past eight years" and declaring that the harsh
interrogation methods used at Guantanamo have fomented terrorism.
In an address punctuated several times by applause, the president
asserted over and over that fidelity to American values is not a luxury to
be dispensed with in times of crisis but, rather, the compass that will
steer the country to safety in an age of terrorism.
"We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is
right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe," he
said.
But shortly after President Obama finished his speech, television
networks cut away to Mr. Cheney's speech, titled "Keeping America
Safe," delivered to the American Enterprise Institute.
Mr. Cheney gave the president some credit for "wise decisions," notably
in some of the steps he has taken in Afghanistan and in reversing his
plan to release photographs of detainee abuse. But the former vice
president was vigorous in his defense of the "enhanced interrogation"
of detainees that the Obama administration has denounced, saying that
skilled and trained C.I.A. agents had gained invaluable intelligence,
using methods ruled legal by administration lawyers, that had saved
lives.
Mr. Cheney was harshly critical of Mr. Obama's decision to release
documents detailing the Bush administration debate on what
interrogation techniques could legally be employed. Releasing the
memos, Mr. Cheney said, "was flatly contrary to the national security
interest of the United States," undercutting anti-terror efforts by United
States allies around the world, and leaving C.I.A. agents unsure of
high-level backing "when the going gets tough."
Mr. Cheney suggested that the new administration was making a
deeply flawed and risky calculation that the Sept. 11 attacks were in
effect one-time event and not a persistent, existential threat. Mr.
Cheney also offered a withering critique of the suggestion that the
Obama team was seeking middle ground in policies on terrorism.
"In the fight against terrorism," he said, "there is no middle ground, and
half-measures keep you half-exposed. You cannot keep just some
nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every
nuclear-armed terrorist ouf of the United States."
As for the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, Mr. Cheney
suggested that Mr. Obama was short-sightedly playing to foreign
audiences. "It's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing
Guantánamo," he said. "But it's tricky to come up with an alternative
that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security."
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Jeff Zeleny and Kate Phillips contributed reporting.
Washington Post Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Upping the Ante on Israel
By David Ignatius
Binyamin Netanyahu's friends liken him to a good poker player. They
explain, for example, that before the Israeli prime minister plays the
card marked "Palestinian state," he wants an American commitment
that this state will be demilitarized.
But the Israeli leader faced an unusual test in his meeting this week
with Barack Obama. The new president is not the poker-player sort of
politician: When he decides to do something, he goes straight at it,
laying his cards on the table face-up. That direct style is becoming an
Obama signature, and it has subtly changed the dynamics of the U.S.
dialogue with Israel.
The relationship has traditionally been an intricate political dance, with
American presidents weighing how far they can go without offending
Israel's supporters in Congress. But that sort of gamesmanship was
absent this time: Obama said he wants negotiations for a Palestinian
state, soon, and he challenged the Israeli prime minister to get on
board.
Obama squeezed Netanyahu, ever so gently, in his public comments
after their Oval Office meeting. "I have great confidence in Prime
Minister Netanyahu's political skills, but also his historical vision. . . .
And I have great confidence that he's going to rise to the occasion,"
Obama said.
Obama similarly outmaneuvered Netanyahu in the run-up to the White
House meeting. The Israeli leader sought to link progress on the
Palestinian issue with a tough U.S. stand against Iran. But from his first
day in office, Obama began staking out strong U.S. positions -- for a
Palestinian state and for engagement with Iran. By this week,
Netanyahu found himself acceding to Obama's plans for exploratory
talks with Iran through year-end, even though many Israelis fear this
timetable could be dangerous.
To reassure Israel and its supporters, Obama said the right words
Monday: He spoke about the "special relationship" and pledged that
"Israel's security is paramount." But that didn't paper over the wide gap
between U.S. and Israeli positions on Palestinian statehood.
The Obama strategy over the next few months will be to create a
regional framework for peace negotiations that's enticing enough to
draw in the wary Netanyahu. To give Israel some quick tangible
benefits, the United States wants the Arabs to begin normalizing
relations with the Jewish state. Jordan's King Abdullah describes this
promise of recognition by the Arab League nations as a "23-state
solution."
The key to this front-loading strategy is Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis
warn privately that they won't normalize anything unless Israel makes
some dramatic moves -- such as freezing settlements in the occupied
West Bank -- that demonstrate its commitment to the 2003 "road map"
for peace.
To break this logjam, the Obama administration appears ready to lean
hard on Netanyahu. Obama has a range of options, starting with
criticism of Israel for failing to meet the road map conditions and
escalating to tougher measures.
Obama bluntly stated his opposition to settlements: "I shared with the
prime minister the fact that under the road map . . . there's a clear
understanding that we have to make progress in settlements.
Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward."
To start narrowing the gap between U.S. and Israeli positions, Obama
directed his Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, to sit down with the
Israeli team immediately after the Oval Office meeting. Mitchell's
mediation efforts will intensify in coming days, as Egyptian President
Hosni Mubarak and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas visit
Washington next week and Obama travels to Cairo in early June for a
speech that will dramatize his outreach to the Arab world.
Here's where Netanyahu's poker skills will be tested. The Israeli prime
minister wants U.S. and Arab leaders to pledge that any future
Palestinian state will be demilitarized -- with no army and no control
over its airspace -- before he agrees to negotiate the details of
statehood. Netanyahu probably isn't bluffing on this one: Unless a
formula can be reached that protects Israeli security, he won't play.
Netanyahu knew Obama was a rare politician when they first met in
March 2007. Back then, nobody was giving the Illinois senator much of
a chance, but the Likud leader told his aides: "I think this is the next
president of the United States." Now Netanyahu faces the full force of
the Obama political phenomenon -- a president who feels politically
secure enough to ignore the usual rules of the U.S.-Israel relationship
and push hard for what he thinks is right.
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international
issues. His e-mail address is davidignatius@washpost.com.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/middle-east/obamas-stealth-middle-east-pea.html
By Dan Froomkin | May 19, 2009; 1:05 PM ET
Obama's Stealth Middle East Peace Plan
Yesterday's public exchange of remarks between President Obama
and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered no indication of
progress towards peace in the Middle East -- maybe even the opposite.
Israel's new, hawkish leader refused to even utter the phrase "two-state
solution," demanded concessions from the Palestinians without
expressing any interest whatsoever in making any of his own, and
focused primarily on the Iranian nuclear threat.
Obama spoke vaguely of his confidence that progress could be made
in the "days, weeks and months to come," and of potentially engaging
Arab states and "realign[ing] interests in the region in a constructive
way." But that was just empty words, right?
Perhaps not.
Yitzhak Benhorin writes for Ynet News that Netanyahu met with Israeli
reporters after the meeting and reported that Obama told him "that he
intends to promote a new regional peace initiative for the Middle
East....[T]he prime minister said that his understanding the regional
component will be the key focal point of the new initiative. It will likely be
presented in Obama's planned June 4th speech in Cairo."
Hilary Leila Krieger and Herb Keinon write for the Jerusalem Post that
Netanyahu "termed the plan 'interesting,' and said that it would involve
not just the Palestinians and Israelis, but also a number of moderate
Arab states."
This sounds like the initiative that Jordan's King Abdullah was talking
about last week.
Richard Beeston and Michael Binyon wrote in the Times of London:
"America is putting the final touches to a hugely ambitious peace plan
for the Middle East, aimed at ending more than 60 years of conflict
between Israel and the Arabs, according to Jordan's King Abdullah,
who is helping to bring the parties together.
"The Obama Administration is pushing for a comprehensive peace
agreement that would include settling Israel's conflict with the
Palestinians and its territorial disputes with Syria and Lebanon, King
Abdullah II told The Times. Failure to reach agreement at this critical
juncture would draw the world into a new Middle East war next year. 'If
we delay our peace negotiations, then there is going to be another
conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12-18 months,'
the King said....
"The initiative could form the centrepiece for Mr Obama's much-
anticipated address to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4. A peace
conference could then take place involving all the parties as early as
July or August...
"'What we are talking about is not Israelis and Palestinians sitting at the
table, but Israelis sitting with Palestinians, Israelis sitting with Syrians,
Israelis sitting with Lebanese,' said the King, who hatched the plan with
Mr Obama in Washington last month. He added that, if Mr Obama did
not make good his promise for peace, then his credibility would
evaporate overnight.
"The Israeli Government has so far rejected any moves that would lead
to a two-state solution, the creation of a Palestinian state living side by
side with Israel, but the King insisted that what was being proposed was
a '57-state solution', whereby the Arab and entire Muslim world would
recognise the Jewish state as part of the deal."
AFP reports that Abdullah told a session of the World Economic Forum
last week in Jordan: "The Arab peace initiative has offered Israel a
place in the neighbourhood and more: acceptance by 57 nations, the
one-third of the UN members that do not recognise Israel" -- in return
for the creation of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank
and Gaza Strip. There are 57 countries in the Islamic Conference.
The Times predicted that details of the plan would likely to be thrashed
out in a series of meetings -- starting with the one between Obama and
Netanyahu.
The recognition by the Arab states could conceivably be a powerful
incentive for Israel. Netanyahu told Ynet News, for instance, "that Israel
shares Obama's view that as many Arab nations as possible should be
included in the Palestinian process, 'so that they talk directly to Israel.'"
Reuters reported last week: "Among Arab states, only Egypt, Jordan
and Mauritania have diplomatic relations with Israel. Most Muslim
countries avoid political, economic ties and even diplomatic ties."
Jason Burke, Ewan MacCaskill and Rory McCarthy wrote in Sunday's
Observer: "The real strength of Obama's strategy lies in the regional
dimension. His team is following the dictum 'If you can't solve a
problem, make it bigger'. Their aim is to dilute the knotty intricacies of
the Israeli-Palestinian dispute in a broader environment, in the hope
that regional powers such as Jordan and Egypt can offer Israel
incentives that the weakened Palestinians cannot or will not give.
"By linking all the various elements of the complex matrix of conflicts
and rivalries that comprise Middle Eastern politics, the White House
hopes to get something, somewhere, to give.
"Some of those blocks might be clearing. Moderate Arab states such as
Jordan and Egypt, as well as US allies like Saudi Arabia, are concerned
both by the continuing threat of radical Islamic violence and by Iran's
bid for regional primacy and may be prepared to make concessions
themselves or press the Palestinians to do so."
There's also an Iranian angle. Tim McGirk writes for Time: "Obama
wants to rally Arab nations to create a bloc against Iran's nuclear
ambitions, and he thinks that the only way to bring the Arabs on board
is to achieve headway on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict....
"He has his sights on a regional peace initiative, roping in moderate
Arab states, which he will unveil on June 4 in Cairo. Obama knows that
his plan will succeed or flop depending on Israel's willingness to make
concessions to the Palestinians."
Next week, before his trip to Cairo, Obama is hosting Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak and Palestinian Authority President
Mahmoud Abbas at the White House.
As for Iran, Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times:
"President Obama said Monday that he expected to know by the end of
the year whether Iran was making 'a good-faith effort to resolve
differences' in talks aimed at ending its nuclear program, signaling to
Israel as well as Iran that his willingness to engage in diplomacy over
the issue has its limits.
"'We're not going to have talks forever,' Mr. Obama told Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel after a two-hour session in the Oval
Office....
"Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Obama came to the meeting with competing
goals: Mr. Obama wanted Mr. Netanyahu to embrace a two-state
solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and Mr. Netanyahu wanted
Mr. Obama to take a strong stand on the threat to Israel's security
posed by Iran. Some independent experts said afterward that Mr.
Netanyahu appeared to have succeeded."
Aluf Benn writes for Haaretz: "Netanyahu said he hopes 'Obama will
succeed' in his talks with Iran, but this is a diplomatic phrase. It is
doubtful that he believes the Iranians will suddenly become nice and
give up their nuclear program just because Obama talks with them.
"In practice, this means that Netanyahu agreed to give Obama until the
end of the year. Then, if Iran's nuclear program is still proceeding,
Israel will consider 'other options.'"
And in a related development, Joby Warrick and R. Jeffrey Smith write
in The Washington Post: "A planned U.S. missile shield to protect
Europe from a possible Iranian attack would be ineffective against the
kinds of missiles Iran is likely to deploy, according to a joint analysis by
top U.S. and Russian scientists. The U.S.-Russian team also judged
that it would be more than five years before Iran is capable of building
both a nuclear warhead and a missile capable of carrying it over long
distances. And if Iran attempted such an attack, the experts say, it
would ensure its own destruction."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/middle-east/middle-east-watch-2.html
By Dan Froomkin | May 20, 2009; 12:30 PM ET
Middle East Watch
In the wake of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Oval Office
visit, I wrote yesterday about what appears to be President Obama's
stealth Middle East peace plan.
What I'm seeing today suggests that the plan may put Netanyahu under
more pressure than his public appearance with Obama indicated.
David Ignatius writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "The
Obama strategy over the next few months will be to create a regional
framework for peace negotiations that's enticing enough to draw in the
wary Netanyahu. To give Israel some quick tangible benefits, the
United States wants the Arabs to begin normalizing relations with the
Jewish state. Jordan's King Abdullah describes this promise of
recognition by the Arab League nations as a '23-state solution.'
"The key to this front-loading strategy is Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis
warn privately that they won't normalize anything unless Israel makes
some dramatic moves -- such as freezing settlements in the occupied
West Bank -- that demonstrate its commitment to the 2003 'road map'
for peace.
"To break this logjam, the Obama administration appears ready to lean
hard on Netanyahu. Obama has a range of options, starting with
criticism of Israel for failing to meet the road map conditions and
escalating to tougher measures."
The Jerusalem Post Web site reports that Wednesday's Yediot Ahronot
newspaper outlines the details of Obama's plan. "The US president's
initiative, which was formulated in consultation with Jordan's King
Abdullah II during the two leaders' recent meetings at the White House,
reportedly does not significantly stray from the pan-Arab peace initiative
proposed in 2002...
"Obama is expected to present the initiative in an address to the Arab
and Muslim world from Cairo in three weeks, and set out conditions for
a demilitarized Palestinian state, with east Jerusalem as its capital,
within the next four years....
"The matter of borders will be solved with territorial exchanges between
Israel and the Palestinians, and the Old City of Jerusalem will be
established as an international zone."
Donald Macintyre writes for the Independent: "Amid a series of
differences between the US and Israel's right wing-led government over
Jewish settlements, Iran, and a two-state solution, one possible area of
common ground began tentatively to emerge in the wake of the White
House meeting. This is the idea of 'phased normalisation' by the Arab
states in return for movement by Israel towards Palestinian demands.
"Thinking in Washington continues to evolve on a possible
comprehensive regional solution in the Middle East."
Why the relative black-out in the news columns of American
newspapers? Beats me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/inew-york-timesi-falsifie_b_205201.html
David Bromwich, Professor of Literature at Yale
Posted: May 19, 2009 11:43 AM
New York Times Falsifies Obama-Netanyahu Meeting
The New York Times assigned to the story a campaign-trail reporter,
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, whose political perceptions are bland and whose
knowledge of Israeli-American relations is an antiseptic zero. At the
newspaper of record, a thing like that does not happen by accident.
They took the most anxiously awaited meeting with a foreign leader of
President Obama's term thus far, and buried it on page 12. The
coverage of a major event, which the same newspaper had greeted
only the day before by running an oversize attack-Iran op-ed by Jeffrey
Goldberg, has officially now shrunk to the scale of a smaller op-ed.
What is more disturbing and far more consequential is that the Times
made this meeting into a story about Iran. They read into Obama's
careful and measured remarks exactly the hostile intention toward Iran
and the explicit deadline for results from his negotiations with Iran that
Obama had taken great pains to avoid stating. Obama's relevant
remark was this:
> My expectation would be that if we can begin discussions
> soon, shortly after the Iranian elections, we should have a
> fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they
> are moving in the right direction and whether the parties
> involved are making progress and that there's a good faith
> effort to resolve differences. That doesn't mean every issue
> would be resolved by that point, but it does mean that we'll
> probably be able to gauge and do a reassessment by the end
> of the year of this approach.
"Shortly after," "fairly good sense," "the right direction," "good faith
effort," "probably," "by the end of the year." This was a language
chosen deliberately to cool the fever of Netanyahu and his far-right War
Coalition in Israel. But Stolberg, writing for the Times, converts these
hedged and vague suggestions into a revelation that Obama for the
first time seemed "willing to set even a general timetable for progress in
talks with Iran."
In fact, as any reader of the transcript may judge, President Obama
sounded a more urgent note about the progress Israel ought to make in
yielding what it long has promised to the Palestinian people. Palestine
was the proper name that dominated Obama's side of the news
conference. In the Times story, by contrast, the word Iran occurs three
times before the first mention of "Palestinians." Iran is mentioned twice
more before the words West Bank are uttered once.
Regarding the necessity of a Palestinian state, President Obama was
explicit:
> We have seen progress stalled on this front, and I suggested
> to the Prime Minister that he has an historic opportunity to
> get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure.
And when Netanyahu said the Israeli attitude toward Palestine would
completely depend on the details of progress toward securing Iran
against the acquisition of a single nuclear weapon, Obama replied that
his view was almost the reverse. In a leader as averse as Barack
Obama to the slightest public hint of personal conflict, this was a critical
moment in the exchange; how far, a reporter asked Obama, did he
assent to the Netanyahu concept of "linkage" -- the idea that first the
U.S. must deal with Iran, and a more obliging Israeli approach to
Palestine will surely follow. Obama answered:
> I recognize Israel's legitimate concerns about the
> possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon when they
> have a president who has in the past said that Israel should
> not exist. That would give any leader of any country pause.
> Having said that, if there is a linkage between Iran and the
> Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it
> actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make
> peace with the Palestinians -- between the Palestinians and
> the Israelis -- then I actually think it strengthens our
> hand in the international community in dealing with a
> potential Iranian threat.
This was a reluctantly formulated but direct and inescapable inversion
of the Netanyahu doctrine on linkage. Not a trace of it appears in the
Times account.
Finally, Gaza was much in President Obama's mind and on his
conscience at this meeting; so much so that he broke decorum and
stepped out of his way to mention it:
> The fact is, is that if the people of Gaza have no hope, if
> they can't even get clean water at this point, if the border
> closures are so tight that it is impossible for
> reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place, then
> that is not going to be a recipe for Israel's long-term
> security or a constructive peace track to move forward.
And yet not a word from Stolberg and the Times about these words of
Obama's on Gaza. Nor was any analytic piece offered as a supplement
-- the usual procedure in assessing an event of this importance.
To sum up, what happened at the meeting can be judged plainly
enough by the news conference that followed. Binyamin Netanyahu
tried to make it all about Iran. Obama declined, and spoke again and
again about the importance of peace in the entire region, and the
crucial role that Israel would have to play by freezing the West Bank
settlements and negotiating in good faith to achieve a Palestinian state.
Let us end where we began, with Barack Obama on the good of
peaceable relations with Iran, and the New York Times on the
importance of thinking such relations are close to impossible.
President Obama: "You know, I don't want to set an artificial deadline."
Now the Times headline: "Obama Tells Netanyahu He Has a Timetable
on Iran." And the Times front-page teaser for their A12 story: "Obama's
Iran Timetable."
The decision-makers at the New York Times are acting again as if their
readers had no other means of checking the facts they report. They are
saying the thing that is not, without remembering that the record which
refutes them has become easily and quickly available. A great
newspaper is dying. And on the subject of Israel, it is doing its best to
earn its death-warrant.
UPDATE BELOW
A commenter on this column pointed out that there was an analytic
companion to the Stolberg report, after all. It is a web-only piece, dated
May 19, written by David Sanger.
Sanger begins:
> WASHINGTON -- Now that President Obama has established what
> he called a "clear timetable" for Iran to halt its nuclear
> program--progress must be made by the end of the year, he
> declared on Monday--both American and Israeli officials are
> beginning to talk about how to accomplish that goal.
A one-sentence paragraph, and all business. Is the Times trying once
again to commandeer public opinion for U.S. or Israeli military action
against a large country in the Middle East? Improbable as it may sound,
it is becoming hard to escape that conclusion. Certainly, the reader of
Sanger's piece is encouraged to draw the same inference as the reader
of Stolberg's report: namely that the central subject between Netanyahu
and Obama on Monday was the laying out of a timetable against Iran;
and that Obama was friendly, compliant, and with-the-program (if
vague).
Symptomatic excerpts from Sanger:
"So now begins Mr. Obama's diplomatic sprint." (The Times holds a
stopwatch. And the title of the article reinforces the pressure: "After
Israeli Visit, a Diplomatic Sprint on Iran").
One of "Obama's strategists" is quoted as saying: "the Israelis, of
course, are racing to come up with a convincing military alternative that
could plausibly set back the Iranian program." A military alternative to
what? Alternative to negotiations, or to some other, American, military
action? Sanger withholds comment, only noting: "Neither Mr. Obama
nor Mr. Netanyahu made any reference on Monday to Israel's regular
allusions to those alternatives. This was, after all, a first meeting."
Notice the public assumption by Sanger--contradicted by the tenor and
details of the news conference itself--that Obama has already agreed to
pay respectful attention to Israel's military ideas. Obama's reluctance to
say so aloud is taken to exhibit merely the shyness of a new leader on
a "first meeting."
Again: "Mr. Obama's strategy is based on a giant gamble: That after
the Iranian elections on June 12, the way will be clear to convince the
Iranians that it is in their long-term interest to strike a deal." How
gigantic is the gamble, in fact? That depends on whether you set
greater store by the Israeli or the American estimate of Iran's progress
toward a weapon. It is a gigantic gamble only on the Israeli view.
Evidently, Sanger takes on trust the accuracy of that view.
This analytic piece concludes with two paragraphs of Israeli doubts
about any dealings at all with Iran, and Israeli doubts about Obama.
There is a rushed, single paragraph in the middle, on Palestine. No
second analytic piece about Palestine as a subject of Monday's news
conference has yet been posted at the New York Times on-line.
The Times story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and the Times analysis by
David Sanger both tell the same story. It says that Iran is the major
business between the U.S. and Israel in the coming year. The story is
false, as an impartial viewer or reader of Monday's news conference
will recognize. The giant gamble of the Times is that by repeating the
story they can shape events and help to make it true. This double
distortion was policy, not accident.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.html
NY Times May 21, 2009
Text: Obama's Speech on National Security
Following is a text of President Obama's prepared speech on Thursday
on national security issues.
These are extraordinary times for our country. We are confronting an
historic economic crisis. We are fighting two wars. We face a range of
challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st
century. There is no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to
bear.
And we have begun to make progress. Just this week, we have taken
steps to protect American consumers and homeowners, and to reform
our system of government contracting so that we better protect our
people while spending our money more wisely. The engines of our
economy are slowly beginning to turn, and we are working toward
historic reform of health care and energy. I welcome the hard work that
has been done by the Congress on these and other issues.
In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important
responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. That is
the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It is the
last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.
This responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist
ideology threatens our people, and technology gives a handful of
terrorists the potential to do us great harm. We are less than eight
years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our
history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again.
We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we
must use all elements of our power to defeat it.
Already, we have taken several steps to achieve that goal. For the first
time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and
strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on
9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are investing in the 21st century
military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step
ahead of a nimble enemy. We have re-energized a global non-
proliferation regime to deny the world's most dangerous people access
to the world's deadliest weapons, and launched an effort to secure all
loose nuclear materials within four years. We are better protecting our
border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural
disaster. We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt,
dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed
American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and
standing to truly lead the world.
These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe
with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep
this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental
values. The documents that we hold in this very hall – the Declaration
of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights –are not simply
words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty
and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek
freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.
I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by
these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the
promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to
learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own
American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave
meaning to those simple words – "to form a more perfect union." I have
studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I
have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief,
and as a citizen, I know that we must never – ever – turn our back on
its enduring principles for expedience sake.
I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our
most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because
it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our
values have been our best national security asset – in war and peace;
in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.
Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America
grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the
strongest nation in the world.
It is the reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle,
knowing they'd receive better treatment from America's armed forces
than from their own government.
It is the reason why America has benefited from strong alliances that
amplified our power, and drawn a sharp and moral contrast with our
adversaries.
It is the reason why we've been able to overpower the iron fist of
fascism, outlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free nations
and free people everywhere in common cause and common effort.
>From Europe to the Pacific, we have been a nation that has shut down
torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law. That is who
we are. And where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and
destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and institutions
are more resilient than a hateful ideology.
After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era – that enemies who
did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our
application of the law; that our government would need new tools to
protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow
us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to
carry them out.
Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a
series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were
motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also
believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon
fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence
to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our
power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as
luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too
many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and
citizens – fell silent.
In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment
alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people,
who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who,
despite our many differences, called for a new approach – one that
rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at
Guantanamo Bay.
Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its
affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat.
But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due
process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I
will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years
established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was
neither effective nor sustainable – a framework that failed to rely on our
legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values
as a compass. And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to
better protect the American people.
First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques
by the United States of America.
I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were
necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-
in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this
country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective
means of interrogation. What's more, they undermine the rule of law.
They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for
terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while
decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of
our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in
battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are
captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism
efforts – they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and
for all.
The arguments against these techniques did not originate from my
Administration. As Senator McCain once said, torture "serves as a
great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us."
And even under President Bush, there was recognition among
members of his Administration – including a Secretary of State, other
senior officials, and many in the military and intelligence community –
that those who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the
debate, and the wrong side of history. We must leave these methods
where they belong – in the past. They are not who we are. They are not
America.
The second decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison
camp at Guantanamo Bay.
For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at
Guantanamo. During that time, the system of Military Commissions at
Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected
terrorists. Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years.
Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met
setbacks, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court
invalidated the entire system. Meanwhile, over five hundred and twenty-
five detainees were released from Guantanamo under the Bush
Administration. Let me repeat that: two-thirds of the detainees were
released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.
There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral
authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of
building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that
drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was
defending positions that undermined the rule of law. Indeed, part of the
rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the
misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law – a
proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile,
instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became
a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the
existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the
world than it ever detained.
So the record is clear: rather than keep us safer, the prison at
Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying
cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work
with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any
measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications
involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed
throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one
year.
The third decision that I made was to order a review of all the pending
cases at Guantanamo.
I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and
complex. There are 240 people there who have now spent years in
legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we do not have the luxury of
starting from scratch. We are cleaning up something that is – quite
simply – a mess; a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a
flood of legal challenges that my Administration is forced to deal with on
a constant basis, and that consumes the time of government officials
whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.
Indeed, the legal challenges that have sparked so much debate in
recent weeks in Washington would be taking place whether or not I
decided to close Guantanamo. For example, the court order to release
seventeen Uighur detainees took place last fall – when George Bush
was President. The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of
prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by
Republican Presidents. In other words, the problem of what to do with
Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the
facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open
Guantanamo in the first place.
There are no neat or easy answers here. But I can tell you that the
wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain
an unsustainable status quo. As President, I refuse to allow this
problem to fester. Our security interests won't permit it. Our courts
won't allow it. And neither should our conscience.
Now, over the last several weeks, we have seen a return of the
politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several
years. I understand that these problems arouse passions and
concerns. They should. We are confronting some of the most
complicated questions that a democracy can face. But I have no
interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight
years. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them
together as Americans.
And we will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges
whenever we discuss this issue. Listening to the recent debate, I've
heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate
them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our
country. So I want to take this opportunity to lay out what we are doing,
and how we intend to resolve these outstanding issues. I will explain
how each action that we are taking will help build a framework that
protects both the American people and the values that we hold dear.
And I will focus on two broad areas: first, issues relating to
Guantanamo and our detention policy; second, issues relating to
security and transparency.
Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are
not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security,
nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger
the American people. Where demanded by justice and national
security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of
facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals
within our borders – highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety.
As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody
has ever escaped from one of our federal "supermax" prisons, which
hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said:
"The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus
detainees within the United States is not rational."
We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases
at Guantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for dealing with
them. As we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last
Administration, detainees were released only to return to the battlefield.
That is why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard
approach that let those detainees go in the past. Instead, we are
treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires
and our security demands. Going forward, these cases will fall into five
distinct categories.
First, when feasible, we will try those who have violated American
criminal laws in federal courts – courts provided for by the United
States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable
of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and juries
of our citizens are tough enough to convict terrorists, and the record
makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade
Center – he was convicted in our courts, and is serving a life sentence
in U.S. prison. Zaccarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th
9/11 hijacker – he was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a
life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and
hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from
Guantanamo.
Recently, we prosecuted and received a guilty plea from a detainee –
al-Marri – in federal court after years of legal confusion. We are
preparing to transfer another detainee to the Southern District of New
York, where he will face trial on charges related to the 1998 bombings
of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania – bombings that killed over
200 people. Preventing this detainee from coming to our shores would
prevent his trial and conviction. And after over a decade, it is time to
finally see that justice is served, and that is what we intend to do.
The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws
of war and are best tried through Military Commissions. Military
commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George
Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue
for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the
protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering;
for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of
evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be effectively
presented in federal Courts.
Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part.
They are wrong. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by
the Bush Administration and passed by the Congress because it failed
to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful
due process and rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal. I
did, however, support the use of military commissions to try detainees,
provided there were several reforms. And those are the reforms that we
are making.
Instead of using the flawed Commissions of the last seven years, my
Administration is bringing our Commissions in line with the rule of law.
The rule will no longer permit us to use as evidence statements that
have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation
methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is
unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees
greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if
they refuse to testify. These reforms – among others – will make our
Military Commissions a more credible and effective means of
administering justice, and I will work with Congress and legal authorities
across the political spectrum on legislation to ensure that these
Commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.
The third category of detainees includes those who we have been
ordered released by the courts. Let me repeat what I said earlier: this
has absolutely nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It
has to do with the rule of law. The courts have found that there is no
legitimate reason to hold twenty-one of the people currently held at
Guantanamo. Twenty of these findings took place before I came into
office. The United States is a nation of laws, and we must abide by
these rulings.
The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have
determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our
review team has approved fifty detainees for transfer. And my
Administration is in ongoing discussions with a number of other
countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for detention and
rehabilitation.
Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who
cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American
people.
I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are
going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at
Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this
process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be
prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the
security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people
who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training
camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance
to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill
Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the
United States.
As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the
American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with
the United States, and those that we capture – like other prisoners of
war – must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must
recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is
why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to
ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear,
defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We
must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must
have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged
detention is carefully evaluated and justified.
I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other
countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want
to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal
framework for Guantanamo detainees – not to avoid one. In our
constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of
any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must
hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do
so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight.
And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to
develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent
with our values and our Constitution.
As our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the
politics in Congress will be difficult. These issues are fodder for 30-
second commercials and direct mail pieces that are designed to
frighten. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions from within a
climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. And if we refuse to deal
with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an
albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future. I have
confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what
is right to protect this country than in political posturing. I am not the
only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution –
so did each and every member of Congress. Together we have a
responsibility to enlist our values in the effort to secure our people, and
to leave behind the legacy that makes it easier for future Presidents to
keep this country safe.
The second set of issues that I want to discuss relates to security and
transparency.
National security requires a delicate balance. Our democracy depends
upon transparency, but some information must be protected from public
disclosure for the sake of our security – for instance, the movements of
our troops; our intelligence-gathering; or the information we have about
a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and other cases, lives
are at stake.
Several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released
memos issued by the previous Administration's Office of Legal
Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced
interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, or because I
reject their legal rationale – although I do on both counts. I released the
memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was
already widely known, the Bush Administration had acknowledged its
existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that
somehow by releasing those memos, we are providing terrorists with
information about how they will be interrogated is unfounded – we will
not be interrogating terrorists using that approach, because that
approach is now prohibited.
In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding
reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the
American people better understand how these interrogation methods
came to be authorized and used.
On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain
photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between
2002 and 2004. Individuals who violated standards of behavior in these
photos have been investigated and held accountable. There is no
debate as to whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong, and
nothing has been concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes.
However, it was my judgment – informed by my national security team
– that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion, and
allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning and
inaccurate brush, endangering them in theaters of war.
In short, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these
particular photos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving
in harm's way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as
Commander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these
photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women
serving in harm's way.
In each of these cases, I had to strike the right balance between
transparency and national security. This balance brings with it a
precious responsibility. And there is no doubt that the American people
have seen this balance tested. In the images from Abu Ghraib and the
brutal interrogation techniques made public long before I was
President, the American people learned of actions taken in their name
that bear no resemblance to the ideals that generations of Americans
have fought for. And whether it was the run-up to the Iraq War or the
revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt like part of the story
had been unnecessarily withheld from them. That causes suspicion to
build up. That leads to a thirst for accountability.
I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said.
That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to
the American people so that they can make informed judgments and
hold us accountable. But I have never argued – and never will – that
our most sensitive national security matters should be an open book. I
will never abandon – and I will vigorously defend – the necessity of
classification to defend our troops at war; to protect sources and
methods; and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American
people safe. And so, whenever we cannot release certain information to
the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is
oversight of my actions – by Congress or by the courts.
We are launching a review of current policies by all of those agencies
responsible for the classification of documents to determine where
reforms are possible, and to assure that the other branches of
government will be in a position to review executive branch decisions
on these matters. Because in our system of checks and balances,
someone must always watch over the watchers – especially when it
comes to sensitive information.
Along those same lines, my Administration is also confronting
challenges to what is known as the "State Secrets" privilege. This is a
doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving
secret programs. It has been used by many past Presidents –
Republican and Democrat – for many decades. And while this principle
is absolutely necessary to protect national security, I am concerned that
it has been over-used. We must not protect information merely
because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrasses the
government. That is why my Administration is nearing completion of a
thorough review of this practice.
We plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a
stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the State
Secrets privilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without first
following a formal process, including review by a Justice Department
committee and the personal approval of the Attorney General. Finally,
each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked
the privilege and why, because there must be proper oversight of our
actions.
On all of these matter related to the disclosure of sensitive information,
I wish I could say that there is a simple formula. But there is not. These
are tough calls involving competing concerns, and they require a
surgical approach. But the common thread that runs through all of my
decisions is simple: we will safeguard what we must to protect the
American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and
oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system. I will never
hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and
the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American
people what I know and don't know, and when I release something
publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why.
In all of the areas that I have discussed today, the policies that I have
proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. To protect
the American people and our values, we have banned enhanced
interrogation techniques. We are closing the prison at Guantanamo.
We are reforming Military Commissions, and we will pursue a new legal
regime to detain terrorists. We are declassifying more information and
embracing more oversight of our actions, and narrowing our use of the
State Secrets privilege. These are dramatic changes that will put our
approach to national security on a surer, safer and more sustainable
footing, and their implementation will take time.
There is a core principle that we will apply to all of our actions: even as
we clean up the mess at Guantanamo, we will constantly re-evaluate
our approach, subject our decisions to review from the other branches
of government, and seek the strongest and most sustainable legal
framework for addressing these issues in the long-term. By doing that,
we can leave behind a legacy that outlasts my Administration, and that
endures for the next President and the President after that; a legacy
that protects the American people, and enjoys broad legitimacy at
home and abroad.
That is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I
recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past.
When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans
are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most
clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates
lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an
Independent Commission.
I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe
that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver
accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and
there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced
interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can
work through and punish any violations of our laws.
I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington
to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media
culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will
contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight
years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in
Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from
focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the
future.
We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by
two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there
are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by
terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over
transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who
embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes."
Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be
used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket
authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with
whom they agree.
Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The
American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a
rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice
our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so
long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a
dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America.
That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the
source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United
States of America different as a nation.
I can stand here today, as President of the United States, and say
without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we
will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable
framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of
law. Make no mistake: if we fail to turn the page on the approach that
was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that
as President. And if we cannot stand for those core values, then we are
not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall.
The Framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the
challenges that have unfolded over the last two hundred and twenty two
years. But our Constitution has endured through secession and civil
rights – through World War and Cold War – because it provides a
foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a
compass that can help us find our way. It hasn't always been easy. We
are an imperfect people. Every now and then, there are those who think
that America's safety and success requires us to walk away from the
sacred principles enshrined in this building. We hear such voices today.
But the American people have resisted that temptation. And though we
have made our share of mistakes and course corrections, we have held
fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength, and a
beacon to the world.
Now, this generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism.
Unlike the Civil War or World War II, we cannot count on a surrender
ceremony to bring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training
camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American
lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and –
in all probability – ten years from now. Neither I nor anyone else can
standing here today can say that there will not be another terrorist
attack that takes American lives. But I can say with certainty that my
Administration – along with our extraordinary troops and the patriotic
men and women who defend our national security – will do everything
in our power to keep the American people safe. And I do know with
certainty that we can defeat al Qaeda. Because the terrorists can only
succeed if they swell their ranks and alienate America from our allies,
and they will never be able to do that if we stay true to who we are; if we
forge tough and durable approaches to fighting terrorism that are
anchored in our timeless ideals.
This must be our common purpose. I ran for President because I
believe that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve
them together. We will not be safe if we see national security as a
wedge that divides America – it can and must be a cause that unites us
as one people, as one nation. We have done so before in times that
were more perilous than ours. We will do so once again. Thank you,
God Bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
__._,_.___