REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON NATIONAL SECURITY
National Archives
Washington, D.C.
10:28 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. Please be seated. Thank you
all for being here. Let me just acknowledge the presence of some of my
outstanding Cabinet members and advisors. We've got our Secretary of
State, Hillary Clinton. We have our CIA Director Leon Panetta. We
have our Secretary of Defense William Gates; Secretary Napolitano of
Department of Homeland Security; Attorney General Eric Holder; my
National Security Advisor Jim Jones. And I want to especially thank
our Acting Archivist of the United States, Adrienne Thomas.
I also want to acknowledge several members of the House who have great
interest in intelligence matters. I want to thank Congressman Reyes,
Congressman Hoekstra, Congressman King, as well as Congressman
Thompson, for being here today. Thank you so much.
These are extraordinary times for our country. We're confronting a
historic economic crisis. We're fighting two wars. We face a range of
challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the
21st century. So there's no shortage of work to be done, or
responsibilities to bear.
And we've begun to make progress. Just this week, we've 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. (Applause.) The -- it's a good bill.
(Laughter.) The engines of our economy are slowly beginning to turn,
and we're working towards historic reform on health care and on
energy. I want to say to the members of Congress, I welcome all the
extraordinary work that has been done over these last four months 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. It's
the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It's
the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.
And 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've taken several steps to achieve that goal. For the first
time since 2002, we're 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're 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 we've launched an effort
to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We're better
protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future
attack or natural disaster. We're 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 --
these 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 around
the world.
I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these
documents. My father came to these shores in search of the promise
that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn their
truths 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've studied the
Constitution as a student, I've taught it as a teacher, I've been bound
by it as a lawyer and a 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 it 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's 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's the reason why America has benefitted from strong alliances that
amplified our power, and drawn a sharp, moral contrast with our
adversaries.
It's the reason why we've been able to overpower the iron fist of
fascism and outlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free
nations and free peoples everywhere in the common cause and common
effort of liberty.
From Europe to the Pacific, we've been the 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 our
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. I believe that many of these decisions were
motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I
also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on
fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed
facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of
strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set
those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And
during 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 one that 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, and that
failed to use our values as a compass. And that's 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. (Applause.)
I know some have argued that brutal methods like waterboarding were
necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As
Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence. I bear the responsibility
for keeping this country safe. And I categorically reject the
assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation.
(Applause.) 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
counterterrorism efforts -- they undermined them, and that is why I
ended them once and for all. (Applause.)
Now, I should add, 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 own 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.
That's why we must leave these methods where they belong -- in the
past. They are not who we are, and they are not America.
The second decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. (Applause.)
For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at
Guantanamo. During that time, the system of military commissions that
were in place 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 setback after setback, cases lingered on, and in
2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system. Meanwhile, over
525 detainees were released from Guantanamo under not my
administration, under the previous 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. In fact, 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 keeping 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's 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 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
don't have the luxury of starting from scratch. We're 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, almost daily basis, and it
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 here in Washington would be taking place whether or not I decided
to close Guantanamo. For example, the court order to release 17
Uighurs -- 17 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 -- not wild-eyed liberals. 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. (Applause.)
Now let me be blunt. There are no neat or easy answers here. I wish
there were. 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. I refuse
to pass it on to somebody else. It is my responsibility to solve the
problem. Our security interests will not permit us to delay. Our
courts won't allow it. And neither should our conscience.
Now, over the last several weeks, we've seen a return of the
politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several
years. I'm an elected official; I understand these problems arouse
passions and concerns. They should. We're confronting some of the
most complicated questions that a democracy can face. But I have no
interest in spending all of our time relitigating the policies of the
last eight years. I'll leave that to others. 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, frankly, 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 most
dear. And I'll focus on two broad areas: first, issues relating to
Guantanamo and our detention policy; but, second, I also want to
discuss issues relating to security and transparency.
Now, 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 -- namely, highly secure prisons that
ensure the public safety.
As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following face: Nobody
has ever escaped from one of our federal, supermax prisons, which hold
hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Republican 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. And as we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last
administration, detainees were released and, in some cases, returned to
the battlefield. That's 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 that our security demands.
Now, going forward, these cases will fall into five distinct categories.
First, whenever 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
our juries, our citizens, are tough enough to convict terrorists. 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. prisons. Zacarias 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're
preparing to transfer another detainee to the Southern District Court
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. (Applause.)
The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of
war and are therefore 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; they allow for the safety and security of
participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the
battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal
courts.
Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part.
They should look at the record. 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 rights for the accused that
could stand up on appeal.
I said at that time, however, that I supported the use of military
commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms, and
in fact there were some bipartisan efforts to achieve those reforms.
Those are the reforms that we are now 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. We will no
longer permit the use of evidence -- 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 members of
both parties, as well as 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 have been ordered
released by the courts. Now, let me repeat what I said earlier: This
has nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do
with the rule of law. The courts have spoken. They have found that
there's no legitimate reason to hold 21 of the people currently held at
Guantanamo. Nineteen of these findings took place before I was sworn
into office. I cannot ignore these rulings because as President, I too
am bound by the law. The United States is a nation of laws and so 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 50 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.
Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who
cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American
people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single
issue that we will face. We're 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, in some cases
because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to
the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include
people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda
training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or 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.
Let me repeat: 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. Having
said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be
unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive
branch decide alone. That's why my administration has begun to reshape
the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule
of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those
who fall into 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. And other
countries have grappled with this question; now, so must we. But I
want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal
framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be
transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework.
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.
Now, as our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the
politics in Congress will be difficult. These are issues that are
fodder for 30-second commercials. You can almost picture the direct
mail pieces that emerge from any vote on this issue -- designed to
frighten the population. I get it. But if we continue to make
decisions 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. And 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.
Now, let me touch on a second set of issues that relate to security and transparency.
National security requires a delicate balance. One the one hand, our
democracy depends on transparency. On the other hand, some information
must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security
-- for instance, the movement 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.
Now, 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, and I didn't release the
documents because I rejected their legal rationales -- 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 makes no sense. We will not be interrogating terrorists
using that approach. 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 they have been held accountable.
There was and is no debate as to whether what is reflected in those
photos is wrong. 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, thereby 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.
Now, in the press's mind and in some of the public's mind, these two
cases are contradictory. They are not to me. In each of these cases,
I had to strike the right balance between transparency and national
security. And this balance brings with it a precious responsibility.
There's no doubt that the American people have seen this balance tested
over the last several years. 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. And that caused
suspicion to build up. And that leads to a thirst for accountability.
I understand that. I ran for President promising transparency, and I
meant what I said. And that's why, whenever possible, my
administration will make all information available to the American
people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us
accountable. But I have never argued -- and I never will -- that our
most sensitive national security matters should simply be an open
book. I will never abandon -- and 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. Here's the difference though: 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're currently launching a review of current policies by all 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 administration -- information.
Now, along these 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's been used by many past Presidents --
Republican and Democrat -- for many decades. And while this principle
is absolutely necessary in some circumstances to protect national
security, I am concerned that it has been over-used. It is also
currently the subject of a wide range of lawsuits. So let me lay out
some principles here. We must not protect information merely because
it reveals the violation of a law or embarrassment to the government.
And that's why my administration is nearing completion of a thorough
review of this practice.
And 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 our own formal process, including review by a Justice
Department committee and the personal approval of the Attorney
General. And each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we
have invoked the privilege and why because, as I said before, there
must be proper oversight over our actions.
On all these matters related to the disclosure of sensitive
information, I wish I could say that there was some simple formula out
there to be had. There is not. These often involve tough calls,
involve 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's
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. (Applause.)
Now, in all the areas that I've discussed today, the policies that I've
proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. To
protect the American people and our values, we've 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 we're 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. Their implementation will take time, but they
will get done.
There's a core principle that we will apply to all of our actions.
Even as we clean up the mess at Guantanamo, we will constantly
reevaluate our approach, subject our decisions to review from other
branches of government, as well as the public. We seek the strongest
and most sustainable legal framework for addressing these issues in the
long term -- not to serve immediate politics, but to do what's right
over the long term. By doing that we can leave behind a legacy that
outlasts my administration, my presidency, that endures for the next
President and the President after that -- a legacy that protects the
American people and enjoys a broad legitimacy at home and abroad.
Now, this 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 actions of the last eight years, passions
are high. Some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates
that have been settled, in some cases debates that they have lost. I
know that these debates lead directly, in some cases, to a call for a
fuller accounting, perhaps through an independent commission.
I've 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 or miscarriages of
justice.
It's no secret there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time
pointing fingers at one another. And it's no secret that our media
culture feeds the impulse that lead to a good fight and good copy. But
nothing will contribute more than that than a extended relitigation of
the last eight years. Already, we've seen how that kind of effort only
leads those in Washington to different sides to laying blame. It can
distract us from focusing our time, our efforts, and our politics on
the challenges of the future.
We see that, above all, in the recent debate -- how the recent debate
has obscured the truth and sends people into opposite and absolutist
ends. On the one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little
allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and would
almost never put national security over transparency. And 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 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's the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That
has been the source of our strength through the ages. That's 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 our core values,
then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in
this hall. (Applause.)
The Framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the
challenges that have unfolded over the last 222 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. And we hear such voices today. But over
the long haul the American people have resisted that temptation. And
though we've made our share of mistakes, required some course
corrections, ultimately 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.
And unlike the Civil War or World War II, we can't 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 -- 10 years from now. Neither I nor
anyone can stand here today and 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 and as one
nation. We've 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. (Applause.)