Le 23 mai, dans un discours très attendu à la National Defense University de Washington, le président américain Barack Obama a annoncé un changement radical de la stratégie américaine en matière de lutte contre le terrorisme. Il a notamment évoqué l'encadrement du recours aux drones armés, la relance des efforts pour tenter de fermer la prison militaire de Guantanamo et a mis en garde contre une "guerre perpétuelle" des Etats-Unis contre les extrémistes, selon lui "perdue d'avance".
Dans un discours mettant à jour la stratégie antiterroriste américaine, le président a révélé qu'il avait signé un nouveau mémorandum énonçant les circonstances dans lesquelles son pays pouvait avoir recours à des frappes d'aéronefs sans pilotes à l'étranger. Ce texte précise que les personnes visées par ces bombardements doivent représenter une menace "imminente" contre les Américains. "Les Etats-Unis n'utilisent pas de frappes lorsque nous avons la possibilité de capturer des terroristes, notre préférence est toujours de les capturer, de les interroger et de les poursuivre en justice", a assuré le président.
Une stratégie pour réduire l'extrémisme à la source, plutôt qu'une guerre perpétuelle
Il a en outre cherché à élargir le champ de la discussion en prévenant que "nous ne pouvons pas avoir recours à la force partout où s'enracine une idéologie radicale. Et en l'absence d'une stratégie qui réduirait l'extrémisme à la source, une guerre perpétuelle - via des drones, des commandos ou des déploiements militaires - serait perdue d'avance".
Dans ce discours d'une heure, il est par ailleurs revenu sur le cas d'Anwar Al-Aulaqi, au lendemain de l'aveu par son gouvernement qu'il était responsable de la mort de cet imam radical américano-yéménite dans un bombardement de drone au Yémen en septembre 2011, dénoncée par certains groupes comme contraire à la Constitution.
"Mais lorsqu'un Américain part à l'étranger pour mener la guerre contre les Etats-Unis, et que ni les Etats-Unis, ni nos partenaires ne sont en position de le capturer avant qu'il ne mène à bien un complot, sa nationalité ne devrait pas le protéger, pas plus qu'un tireur isolé en train de faire feu sur la foule ne devrait être protégé d'un commando de la police", a argumenté le président.
Fermer Guantanamo
Lors de ce discours, Barack Obama a aussi annoncé qu'il allait lever le moratoire sur le transfèrement vers le Yémen de détenus de la prison militaire de Guantanamo à Cuba, tout en prévenant que les dossiers de ces prisonniers feraient l'objet d'un examen "au cas par cas". Le gouvernement de Sanaa a salué cette initiative.
Alors que 103 des 166 détenus restant à Guantanamo sont en grève de la faim, Obama a répété son intention de fermer à terme la prison, une vieille promesse de campagne jusqu'ici non concrétisée.
Il a également indiqué qu'il allait nommer un nouvel envoyé spécial pour superviser les transfèrements de prisonniers, et appelé le Pentagone à désigner un site sur le sol américain où seraient organisés les procès militaires d'exception pour les détenus restant inculpés.
Il a sollicité l'aide du Congrès, dont les élus ont inscrit dans la loi dès décembre 2010 l'interdiction de facto de tout transfèrement de détenus de Guantanamo sur le sol américain. "Mais l'histoire sera sévère sur cet aspect de notre lutte contre le terrorisme, et sur ceux qui n'auront pas réussi à y mettre fin", a prévenu le président, dont le discours a été interrompu plusieurs fois par une manifestante liée au groupe pacifiste "Code Pink", finalement expulsée de la salle.
"Le président sous-estime la menace d'Al-Qaïda"
Les adversaires républicains d'Obama ont réagi fraîchement à cet appel, le président de la commission des Affaires étrangères de la Chambre, Ed Royce, estimant que "le président continu(ait) à sous-estimer la grave menace qu'Al-Qaïda et ses terroristes affiliés représentent".
Même le sénateur John McCain, favorable à la fermeture de la prison, a dénoncé l'absence de "plan cohérent", tandis que son collègue Saxby Chambliss reste opposé à la libération des prisonniers, qualifiant les 166 détenus des "plus horribles (...) tueurs du monde".
Le discours présidentiel n'a pas non plus convaincu les défenseurs des droits humains: l'influente organisation ACLU a ainsi estimé qu'"il faut faire sortir notre pays du sentier de la guerre dès maintenant, pas dans un avenir non précisé". Et elle a aussi affirmé que les tribunaux militaires d'exception "inconstitutionnels" devaient être "dissous, pas déplacés sur le sol américain".
Sources : AFP / L'Express
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY
May 23, 2013
The Future of our Fight against Terrorism
EMBARGOED: Remarks of President Barack Obama –
As Prepared for Delivery
National Defense University
May 23, 2013
As Prepared for Delivery --
It’s an honor to return to the National Defense University. Here, at
Fort McNair, Americans have served in uniform since 1791– standing guard in the
early days of the Republic, and contemplating the future of warfare here in the
21st century.
For over two centuries, the United States has been bound together by founding documents that defined who we are as Americans, and served as our compass through every type of change. Matters of war and peace are no different. Americans are deeply ambivalent about war, but having fought for our independence, we know that a price must be paid for freedom. From the Civil War, to our struggle against fascism, and through the long, twilight struggle of the Cold War, battlefields have changed, and technology has evolved. But our commitment to Constitutional principles has weathered every war, and every war has come to an end.
With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, a new dawn of democracy took hold abroad, and a decade of peace and prosperity arrived at home. For a moment, it seemed the 21st century would be a tranquil time. Then, on September 11th 2001, we were shaken out of complacency. Thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. This was a different kind of war. No armies came to our shores, and our military was not the principal target. Instead, a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could.
And so our nation went to war. We have now been at war for well over a decade. I won’t review the full history. What’s clear is that we quickly drove al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, but then shifted our focus and began a new war in Iraq. This carried grave consequences for our fight against al Qaeda, our standing in the world, and – to this day – our interests in a vital region.
Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses – hardening targets, tightening transportation security, and giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values – by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.
After I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda, but also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.
Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.
Now make no mistake: our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. We must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience to draw from, now is the time to ask ourselves hard questions – about the nature of today’s threats, and how we should confront them.
These questions matter to every American. For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, exploding our deficits and constraining our ability to nation build here at home. Our service-members and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions we are making will define the type of nation – and world – that we leave to our children.
So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do – what we must do – is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. To define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. And that begins with understanding the threat we face.
Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. Instead, what we’ve seen is the emergence of various al Qaeda affiliates. From Yemen to Iraq, from Somalia to North Africa, the threat today is more diffuse, with Al Qaeda’s affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula – AQAP –the most active in plotting against our homeland. While none of AQAP’s efforts approach the scale of 9/11 they have continued to plot acts of terror, like the attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009.
Unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria. Here, too, there are differences from 9/11. In some cases, we confront state-sponsored networks like Hizbollah that engage in acts of terror to achieve political goals. Others are simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory. While we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based. That means we will face more localized threats like those we saw in Benghazi, or at the BP oil facility in Algeria, in which local operatives – in loose affiliation with regional networks – launch periodic attacks against Western diplomats, companies, and other soft targets, or resort to kidnapping and other criminal enterprises to fund their operations.
Finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City – America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our time. Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.
Lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad.
Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. In the 1980s, we lost Americans to terrorism at our Embassy in Beirut; at our Marine Barracks in Lebanon; on a cruise ship at sea; at a disco in Berlin; and on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. In the 1990s, we lost Americans to terrorism at the World Trade Center; at our military facilities in Saudi Arabia; and at our Embassy in Kenya. These attacks were all deadly, and we learned that left unchecked, these threats can grow. But if dealt with smartly and proportionally, these threats need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11.
Moreover, we must recognize that these threats don’t arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology – a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam; and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts.
Nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age in which ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our response to terrorism cannot depend on military or law enforcement alone. We need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills and ideas. So let me discuss the components of such a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy.
First, we must finish the work of defeating al Qaeda and its associated
forces.
In Afghanistan, we will complete our transition to Afghan responsibility
for security. Our troops will come home. Our combat mission will come to an
end. And we will work with the Afghan government to train security forces, and
sustain a counter-terrorism force which ensures that al Qaeda can never again
establish a safe-haven to launch attacks against us or our allies.
Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global
war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to
dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. In
many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries. Thousands of
Pakistani soldiers have lost their lives fighting extremists. In Yemen, we are
supporting security forces that have reclaimed territory from AQAP. In Somalia,
we helped a coalition of African nations push al Shabaab out of its
strongholds. In Mali, we are providing military aid to a French-led
intervention to push back al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and help the people of Mali reclaim
their future.
Much of our best counter-terrorism cooperation results in the gathering
and sharing of intelligence; the arrest and prosecution of terrorists. That’s
how a Somali terrorist apprehended off the coast of Yemen is now in prison in
New York. That’s how we worked with European allies to disrupt plots from
Denmark to Germany to the United Kingdom. That’s how intelligence collected
with Saudi Arabia helped us stop a cargo plane from being blown up over the
Atlantic.
But despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of
terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. Al Qaeda and its affiliates
try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on
Earth. They take refuge in remote tribal regions. They hide in caves and walled
compounds. They train in empty deserts and rugged mountains.
In some of these places – such as parts of Somalia and Yemen – the state
has only the most tenuous reach into the territory. In other cases, the state
lacks the capacity or will to take action. It is also not possible for America
to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. And even
when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose
profound risks to our troops and local civilians– where a terrorist compound
cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal
communities that pose no threat to us, or when putting U.S. boots on the ground
may trigger a major international crisis.
To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden
cannot be the norm. The risks in that case were immense; the likelihood of
capture, although our preference, was remote given the certainty of resistance;
the fact that we did not find ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or
embroiled in an extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning
and professionalism of our Special Forces – but also depended on some luck. And
even then, the cost to our relationship with Pakistan – and the backlash among
the Pakistani public over encroachment on their territory – was so severe that
we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership.
It is in this context that the United States has taken lethal, targeted
action against al Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely
piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones. As was true in previous armed
conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions – about who is
targeted, and why; about civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new
enemies; about the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law;
about accountability and morality.
Let me address these questions. To begin with, our actions are
effective. Don’t take my word for it. In the intelligence gathered at bin
Laden’s compound, we found that he wrote, “we could lose the reserves to the
enemy’s air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives.” Other
communications from al Qaeda operatives confirm this as well. Dozens of highly
skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been
taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted
international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in
Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives.
Moreover, America’s actions are legal. We were attacked on 9/11. Within
a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic
law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the
Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that
right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them
first. So this is a just war – a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and
in self-defense.
And yet as our fight enters a new phase, America’s legitimate claim of
self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. To say a military tactic is
legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance.
For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world
away also demands the discipline to constrain that power – or risk abusing it.
That’s why, over the last four years, my Administration has worked vigorously
to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists –
insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now
codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday.
In the Afghan war theater, we must support our troops until the
transition is complete at the end of 2014. That means we will continue to take
strikes against high value al Qaeda targets, but also against forces that are
massing to support attacks on coalition forces. However, by the end of 2014, we
will no longer have the same need for force protection, and the progress we
have made against core al Qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes.
Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda and its associated
forces. Even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not
take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists - our
preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute them. America cannot
take strikes wherever we choose – our actions are bound by consultations with
partners, and respect for state sovereignty. America does not take strikes to
punish individuals – we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and
imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments
capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken,
there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the
highest standard we can set.
This last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone
strikes – at home and abroad – understandably centers on reports of civilian
casualties. There is a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties,
and non-governmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes
have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the
families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their
loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as
long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have
occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies
against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would
invite far more civilian casualties – not just in our cities at home and facilities
abroad, but also in the very places –like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu –
where terrorists seek a foothold. Let us remember that the terrorists we are
after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against
Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.
Where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism
in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted, lethal action is the
use of conventional military options. As I’ve said, even small Special
Operations carry enormous risks. Conventional airpower or missiles are far less
precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local
outrage. And invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying
armies; unleash a torrent of unintended consequences; are difficult to contain;
and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict. So it is false to
assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian
deaths, or to create enemies in the Muslim world. The result would be more U.S.
deaths, more Blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and
an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate
into new wars.
So yes, the conflict with al Qaeda, like all armed conflict, invites
tragedy. But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill
us, and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action
least likely to result in the loss of innocent life. Indeed, our efforts must
also be measured against the history of putting American troops in distant
lands among hostile populations. In Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of civilians
died in a war where the boundaries of battle were blurred. In Iraq and
Afghanistan, despite the courage and discipline of our troops, thousands of
civilians have been killed. So neither conventional military action, nor
waiting for attacks to occur, offers moral safe-harbor. Neither does a sole
reliance on law enforcement in territories that have no functioning police or
security services – and indeed, have no functioning law.
This is not to say that the risks are not real. Any U.S. military action
in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and impacts public opinion
overseas. Our laws constrain the power of the President, even during wartime,
and I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The
very precision of drones strikes, and the necessary secrecy involved in such
actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a
troop deployment invites. It can also lead a President and his team to view
drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.
For this reason, I’ve insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action.
After I took office, my Administration began briefing all strikes outside of
Iraq and Afghanistan to the appropriate committees of Congress. Let me repeat
that – not only did Congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every
strike that America takes. That includes the one instance when we targeted an
American citizen: Anwar Awlaki, the chief of external operations for AQAP.
This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the
deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency
and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims.
For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government
to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due
process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.
But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is
actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States,
nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot
– his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down
on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team.
That’s who Anwar Awlaki was – he was continuously trying to kill people.
He helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two U.S. bound
cargo planes. He was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. When
Farouk Abdulmutallab – the Christmas Day bomber – went to Yemen in 2009, Awlaki
hosted him, approved his suicide operation, and helped him tape a martyrdom
video to be shown after the attack. His last instructions were to blow up the
airplane when it was over American soil. I would have detained and prosecuted
Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. But we couldn’t. And as
President, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the
strike that took out Awlaki.
Of course, the targeting of any Americans raises constitutional issues
that are not present in other strikes – which is why my Administration submitted
information about Awlaki to the Department of Justice months before Awlaki was
killed, and briefed the Congress before this strike as well. But the high
threshold that we have set for taking lethal action applies to all potential
terrorist targets, regardless of whether or not they are American citizens.
This threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human life. Alongside the
decision to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way, the decision to use
force against individuals or groups – even against a sworn enemy of the United
States – is the hardest thing I do as President. But these decisions must be
made, given my responsibility to protect the American people.
Going forward, I have asked my Administration to review proposals to
extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our
reporting to Congress. Each option has virtues in theory, but poses
difficulties in practice. For example, the establishment of a special court to
evaluate and authorize lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch
of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about
presidential and judicial authority. Another idea that’s been suggested – the
establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch –
avoids those problems, but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into
national-security decision-making, without inspiring additional public
confidence in the process. Despite these challenges, I look forward to actively
engaging Congress to explore these – and other – options for increased
oversight.
I believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a
larger discussion about a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. Because for
all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot
use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of
a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war – through
drones or Special Forces or troop deployments – will prove self-defeating, and
alter our country in troubling ways.
So the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying
grievances and conflicts that feed extremism, from North Africa to South Asia.
As we’ve learned this past decade, this is a vast and complex undertaking. We
must be humble in our expectation that we can quickly resolve deep rooted
problems like poverty and sectarian hatred. Moreover, no two countries are
alike, and some will undergo chaotic change before things get better. But our
security and values demand that we make the effort.
This means patiently supporting transitions to democracy in places like
Egypt, Tunisia and Libya – because the peaceful realization of individual
aspirations will serve as a rebuke to violent extremists. We must strengthen
the opposition in Syria, while isolating extremist elements – because the end
of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism. We are working to
promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians – because it is right, and
because such a peace could help reshape attitudes in the region. And we must
help countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage
entrepreneurship – because American leadership has always been elevated by our
ability to connect with peoples’ hopes, and not simply their fears.
Success on these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources. I know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures – even though it amounts to less than one percent of the federal budget. But foreign assistance cannot be viewed as charity. It is fundamental to our national security, and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism. Moreover, foreign assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance might ultimately prevent. For what we spent in a month in Iraq at the height of the war, we could be training security forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists.
America cannot carry out this work if we do not have diplomats serving
in dangerous places. Over the past decade, we have strengthened security at our
Embassies, and I am implementing every recommendation of the Accountability
Review Board which found unacceptable failures in Benghazi. I have called on
Congress to fully fund these efforts to bolster security, harden facilities,
improve intelligence, and facilitate a quicker response time from our military
if a crisis emerges.
But even after we take these steps, some irreducible risks to our
diplomats will remain. This is the price of being the world’s most powerful
nation, particularly as a wave of change washes over the Arab World. And in
balancing the trade-offs between security and active diplomacy, I firmly
believe that any retreat from challenging regions will only increase the
dangers we face in the long run.
Targeted action against terrorists. Effective partnerships. Diplomatic
engagement and assistance. Through such a comprehensive strategy we can
significantly reduce the chances of large scale attacks on the homeland and
mitigate threats to Americans overseas. As we guard against dangers from
abroad, however, we cannot neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from
within our borders.
As I said earlier, this threat is not new. But technology and the
Internet increase its frequency and lethality. Today, a person can consume
hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda, and learn how to
kill without leaving their home. To address this threat, two years ago my
Administration did a comprehensive review, and engaged with law enforcement.
The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American
community – which has consistently rejected terrorism – to identify signs of
radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting
towards violence. And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that
Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family. Indeed, the success of
American Muslims, and our determination to guard against any encroachments on
their civil liberties, is the ultimate rebuke to those who say we are at war
with Islam.
Indeed, thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part
because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America
home. That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to
strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving
those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of
law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, and build in
privacy protections to prevent abuse. That means that – even after Boston – we
do not deport someone or throw someone in prison in the absence of evidence.
That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to
protect sensitive information, such as the State Secrets doctrine. And that
means finally having a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to review those
issues where our counter-terrorism efforts and our values may come into
tension.
The Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks offers
a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between
our security and our open society. As Commander-in Chief, I believe we must
keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the
field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and
breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is
also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak
investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government
accountable.
Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus
must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to
pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. I have raised
these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed
to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations
that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear
their concerns as part of that review. And I have directed the Attorney General
to report back to me by July 12th.
All these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact
– in sometimes unintended ways – the openness and freedom on which our way of
life depends. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing
Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue
to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing.
The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an
end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be
dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels
themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we
discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we
don’t need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited
for traditional armed conflicts between nation states. So I look forward to
engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately
repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this
mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations
must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history
advises. That’s what our democracy demands.
And that brings me to my final topic: the detention of terrorist
suspects.
To repeat, as a matter of policy, the preference of the United States is
to capture terrorist suspects. When we do detain a suspect, we interrogate
them. And if the suspect can be prosecuted, we decide whether to try him in a
civilian court or a Military Commission. During the past decade, the vast
majority of those detained by our military were captured on the battlefield. In
Iraq, we turned over thousands of prisoners as we ended the war. In
Afghanistan, we have transitioned detention facilities to the Afghans, as part
of the process of restoring Afghan sovereignty. So we bring law of war
detention to an end, and we are committed to prosecuting terrorists whenever we
can.
The glaring exception to this time-tested approach is the detention
center at Guantanamo Bay. The original premise for opening GTMO – that
detainees would not be able to challenge their detention – was found
unconstitutional five years ago. In the meantime, GTMO has become a symbol
around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law. Our allies won’t
cooperate with us if they think a terrorist will end up at GTMO. During a time
of budget cuts, we spend $150 million each year to imprison 166 people –almost
$1 million per prisoner. And the Department of Defense estimates that we must
spend another $200 million to keep GTMO open at a time when we are cutting
investments in education and research here at home.
As President, I have tried to close GTMO. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries, or imprisoning them in the United States. These restrictions make no sense. After all, under President Bush, some 530 detainees were transferred from GTMO with Congress’s support. When I ran for President the first time, John McCain supported closing GTMO. No person has ever escaped from one of our super-max or military prisons in the United States. Our courts have convicted hundreds of people for terrorism-related offenses, including some who are more dangerous than most GTMO detainees. Given my Administration’s relentless pursuit of al Qaeda’s leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened.
Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on
detainee transfers from GTMO. I have asked the Department of Defense to
designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I
am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense
Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of
detainees to third countries. I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers
to Yemen, so we can review them on a case by case basis. To the greatest extent
possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other
countries. Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts
and military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be
available for every detainee.
Even after we take these steps, one issue will remain: how to deal with
those GTMO detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks,
but who cannot be prosecuted – for example because the evidence against them
has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. But once we commit
to a process of closing GTMO, I am confident that this legacy problem can be
resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.
I know the politics are hard. But history will cast a harsh judgment on
this aspect of our fight against terrorism, and those of us who fail to end it.
Imagine a future – ten years from now, or twenty years from now – when the
United States of America is still holding people who have been charged with no
crime on a piece of land that is not a part of our country. Look at the current
situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger
strike. Is that who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is
that the America we want to leave to our children?
Our sense of justice is stronger than that. We have prosecuted scores of
terrorists in our courts. That includes Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to
blow up an airplane over Detroit; and Faisal Shahzad, who put a car bomb in
Times Square. It is in a court of law that we will try Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who
is accused of bombing the Boston Marathon. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, is as
we speak serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison here, in the
United States. In sentencing Reid, Judge William Young told him, “the way we
treat you…is the measure of our own liberties.” He went on to point to the
American flag that flew in the courtroom – “That flag,” he said, “will fly
there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for freedom.”
America, we have faced down dangers far greater than al Qaeda. By
staying true to the values of our founding, and by using our constitutional
compass, we have overcome slavery and Civil War; fascism and communism. In just
these last few years as President, I have watched the American people bounce
back from painful recession, mass shootings, and natural disasters like the
recent tornados that devastated Oklahoma. These events were heartbreaking; they
shook our communities to the core. But because of the resilience of the
American people, these events could not come close to breaking us.
I think of Lauren Manning, the 9/11 survivor who had severe burns over
80 percent of her body, who said, “That’s my reality. I put a Band-Aid on it,
literally, and I move on.”
I think of the New Yorkers who filled Times Square the day after an
attempted car bomb as if nothing had happened.
I think of the proud Pakistani parents who, after their daughter was
invited to the White House, wrote to us, “we have raised an American Muslim
daughter to dream big and never give up because it does pay off.”
I think of the wounded warriors rebuilding their lives, and helping
other vets to find jobs.
I think of the runner planning to do the 2014 Boston Marathon, who said,
“Next year, you are going to have more people than ever. Determination
is not something to be messed with.”
That’s who the American people are. Determined, and not to be messed
with.
Now, we need a strategy – and a politics –that reflects this resilient
spirit. Our victory against terrorism won’t be measured in a surrender ceremony
on a battleship, or a statue being pulled to the ground. Victory will be measured
in parents taking their kids to school; immigrants coming to our shores; fans
taking in a ballgame; a veteran starting a business; a bustling city street.
The quiet determination; that strength of character and bond of fellowship;
that refutation of fear – that is both our sword and our shield. And long after
the current messengers of hate have faded from the world’s memory, alongside
the brutal despots, deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who litter history
– the flag of the United States will still wave from small-town cemeteries, to
national monuments, to distant outposts abroad. And that flag will still
stand for freedom.
Thank you. God Bless you. And may God bless the United States of
America.
Aucun commentaire :
Enregistrer un commentaire