THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________
For ImmediateRelease May 21, 2009
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 ofgovernment 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 alQaeda 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 andPakistan. We're investing in the 21st century military and intelligencecapabilities 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 mostdangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons. And we'velaunched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within fouryears. We're better protecting our border, and increasing ourpreparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We're buildingnew partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaedaand its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we onceagain have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.
Thesesteps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe withevery fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this countrysafe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. Thedocuments that we hold in this very hall -- the Declaration of Independence,the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -- these are not simply words written intoaging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in thiscountry, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality,and dignity around the world.
Istand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by thesedocuments. My father came to these shores in search of the promise thatthey offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn their truthswhen I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey waspaved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words --"to form a more perfect union." I've studied the Constitutionas a student, I've taught it as a teacher, I've been bound by it as a lawyerand a legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend theConstitution 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.
Imake this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our mostcherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthensour country and it keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have beenour best national security asset -- in war and peace; in times of ease and ineras of upheaval.
Fidelityto our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a smallstring of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in theworld.
It'sthe reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they'dreceive better treatment from America's Armed Forces than from their owngovernment.
It'sthe reason why America has benefitted from strong alliances that amplified ourpower, and drawn a sharp, moral contrast with our adversaries.
It'sthe reason why we've been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism andoutlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free nations and free peopleseverywhere in the common cause and common effort of liberty.
FromEurope to the Pacific, we've been the nation that has shut down torturechambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law. That is who weare. And where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder anddestruction, America must demonstrate that our values and our institutions aremore resilient than a hateful ideology.
After9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era -- that enemies who did not abideby 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, andthat these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simplyprosecuting those who try to carry them out.
Unfortunately,faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hastydecisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by asincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe thatall too often our government made decisions based on fear rather thanforesight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fitideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our powerand our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that wecould no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us --Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens -- fellsilent.
Inother words, we went off course. And this is not my assessmentalone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people whonominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite ourmany differences, called for a new approach -- one that rejected torture andone that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
Nowlet me be clear: We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and itsaffiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with thisthreat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of lawand due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasonsthat I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight yearsestablished an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neithereffective nor sustainable -- a framework that failed to rely on our legaltraditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as acompass. And that's why I took several steps upon taking office to betterprotect the American people.
First,I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the UnitedStates of America. (Applause.)
Iknow some have argued that brutal methods like waterboarding were necessary tokeep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, Isee the intelligence. I bear the responsibility for keeping this countrysafe. And I categorically reject the assertion that these are the mosteffective means of interrogation. (Applause.) What's more, theyundermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. Theyserve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of ourenemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work withAmerica. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely thatothers will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will bemistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our warand counterterrorism efforts -- they undermined them, and that is why I endedthem once and for all. (Applause.)
Now,I should add, the arguments against these techniques did not originate from myadministration. As Senator McCain once said, torture "serves as agreat propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight againstus." And even under President Bush, there was recognition amongmembers of his own administration -- including a Secretary of State, othersenior officials, and many in the military and intelligence community -- thatthose who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the debate, andthe wrong side of history. That's why we must leave these methods wherethey belong -- in the past. They are not who we are, and they are notAmerica.
Thesecond decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison camp atGuantanamo Bay. (Applause.)
Forover seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of military commissions that were in place atGuantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspectedterrorists. Let me repeat that: three convictions in over sevenyears. Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecutionmet setback after setback, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Courtinvalidated the entire system. Meanwhile, over 525 detainees were releasedfrom Guantanamo under not my administration, under the previousadministration. Let me repeat that: Two-thirds of the detaineeswere released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.
Thereis also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that isAmerica's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durableframework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply heldvalues and traditions, our government was defending positions that underminedthe rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishingGuantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison therewould be beyond the law -- a proposition that the Supreme Court soundlyrejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism,Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to itscause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terroristsaround the world than it ever detained.
Sothe record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison atGuantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cryfor our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work withus in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By anymeasure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved inclosing it. That's why I argued that it should be closed throughout mycampaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year.
Thethird decision that I made was to order a review of all pending cases atGuantanamo. I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would bedifficult and complex. There are 240 people there who have now spentyears in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we don't have theluxury of starting from scratch. We're cleaning up something that is,quite simply, a mess -- a misguided experiment that has left in its wake aflood of legal challenges that my administration is forced to deal with on aconstant, almost daily basis, and it consumes the time of government officialswhose time should be spent on better protecting our country.
Indeed,the legal challenges that have sparked so much debate in recent weeks here inWashington would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo. For example, the court order to release 17 Uighurs -- 17 Uighur detainees tookplace last fall, when George Bush was President. The Supreme Court thatinvalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelminglyappointed by Republican Presidents -- not wild-eyed liberals. In otherwords, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by mydecision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision toopen Guantanamo in the first place. (Applause.)
Nowlet me be blunt. There are no neat or easy answers here. I wishthere were. But I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend likethis problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo. AsPresident, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. I refuse to pass iton to somebody else. It is my responsibility to solve the problem. Our security interests will not permit us to delay. Our courts won'tallow it. And neither should our conscience.
Now,over the last several weeks, we've seen a return of the politicization of theseissues that have characterized the last several years. I'm an electedofficial; I understand these problems arouse passions and concerns. Theyshould. We're confronting some of the most complicated questions that ademocracy can face. But I have no interest in spending all of our timerelitigating the policies of the last eight years. I'll leave that toothers. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them togetheras Americans.
Andwe will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever wediscuss this issue. Listening to the recent debate, I've heard wordsthat, frankly, are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; wordsthat have more to do with politics than protecting our country. So I wantto take this opportunity to lay out what we are doing, and how we intend toresolve these outstanding issues. I will explain how each action that weare taking will help build a framework that protects both the American peopleand the values that we hold most dear. And I'll focus on two broadareas: first, issues relating to Guantanamo and our detention policy;but, second, I also want to discuss issues relating to security andtransparency.
Now,let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: We are notgoing to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will werelease detainees within the United States who endanger the Americanpeople. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek totransfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold allmanner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders -- namely, highlysecure prisons that ensure the public safety.
Aswe make these decisions, bear in mind the following face: Nobody has everescaped from one of our federal, supermax prisons, which hold hundreds ofconvicted terrorists. As Republican Lindsey Graham said, the idea that wecannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the UnitedStates is not rational.
Weare currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases atGuantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for dealing with them. Andas we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last administration, detaineeswere released and, in some cases, returned to the battlefield. That's whywe are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let thosedetainees go in the past. Instead we are treating these cases with thecare 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 lawsin federal courts -- courts provided for by the United StatesConstitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable ofhandling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts andour juries, our citizens, are tough enough to convict terrorists. Therecord makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World TradeCenter. He was convicted in our courts and is serving a life sentence inU.S. prisons. Zacarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11hijacker. He was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a lifesentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and holdthem 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 federalcourt after years of legal confusion. We're preparing to transfer anotherdetainee to the Southern District Court of New York, where he will face trialon charges related to the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania-- bombings that killed over 200 people. Preventing this detainee fromcoming to our shores would prevent his trial and conviction. And afterover a decade, it is time to finally see that justice is served, and that iswhat we intend to do. (Applause.)
Thesecond category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and aretherefore best tried through military commissions. Military commissionshave a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and theRevolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees forviolations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitivesources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety andsecurity of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered fromthe battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts.
Now,some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. Theyshould look at the record. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislationproposed by the Bush administration and passed by the Congress because itfailed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningfuldue process rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal.
Isaid at that time, however, that I supported the use of military commissions totry detainees, provided there were several reforms, and in fact there were somebipartisan efforts to achieve those reforms. Those are the reforms thatwe are now making. Instead of using the flawed commissions of the lastseven years, my administration is bringing our commissions in line with therule of law. We will no longer permit the use of evidence -- as evidencestatements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degradinginterrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove thathearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will givedetainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protectionsif they refuse to testify. These reforms, among others, will make ourmilitary commissions a more credible and effective means of administeringjustice, and I will work with Congress and members of both parties, as well aslegal authorities across the political spectrum, on legislation to ensure thatthese commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.
Thethird category of detainees includes those who have been ordered released bythe courts. Now, let me repeat what I said earlier: This hasnothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with therule of law. The courts have spoken. They have found that there'sno legitimate reason to hold 21 of the people currently held atGuantanamo. Nineteen of these findings took place before I was sworn intooffice. I cannot ignore these rulings because as President, I too ambound by the law. The United States is a nation of laws and so we mustabide by these rulings.
Thefourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can betransferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved50 detainees for transfer. And my administration is in ongoingdiscussions with a number of other countries about the transfer of detainees totheir soil for detention and rehabilitation.
Now,finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot beprosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I haveto 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 Guantanamowho 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, insome cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threatto the security of the United States. Examples of that threat includepeople who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda trainingcamps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance toOsama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to killAmericans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the UnitedStates.
Letme repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger theAmerican people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war withthe United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war --must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we mustrecognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can'tbe based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That'swhy my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensurethat they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, andlawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fairprocedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thoroughprocess of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefullyevaluated and justified.
Iknow that creating such a system poses unique challenges. And other countrieshave grappled with this question; now, so must we. But I want to be veryclear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for theremaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal isnot to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system,prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If andwhen we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep themfrom carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicialand congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administrationwill work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that ourefforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.
Now,as our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics inCongress will be difficult. These are issues that are fodder for30-second commercials. You can almost picture the direct mail pieces thatemerge 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 issuestoday, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our effortsto combat terrorism in the future.
Ihave confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what isright to protect this country than in political posturing. I am not theonly person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution -- so dideach and every member of Congress. And together we have a responsibilityto enlist our values in the effort to secure our people, and to leave behindthe legacy that makes it easier for future Presidents to keep this countrysafe.
Now,let me touch on a second set of issues that relate to security andtransparency.
Nationalsecurity requires a delicate balance. One the one hand, our democracydepends on transparency. On the other hand, some information must beprotected from public disclosure for the sake of our security -- for instance,the movement of our troops, our intelligence-gathering, or the information wehave about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these andother cases, lives are at stake.
Now,several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued bythe previous administration's Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do thisbecause I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memosauthorized, and I didn't release the documents because I rejected their legalrationales -- although I do on both counts. I released the memos becausethe existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, theBush administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already bannedthose methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos we areproviding terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated makesno sense. We will not be interrogating terrorists using thatapproach. That approach is now prohibited.
Inshort, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protectthem. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people betterunderstand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.
Onthe other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that weretaken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individualswho violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated andthey have been held accountable. There was and is no debate as to whetherwhat is reflected in those photos is wrong. Nothing has been concealed toabsolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my judgment -- informedby my national security team -- that releasing these photos would inflame anti-Americanopinion and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning, andinaccurate brush, thereby endangering them in theaters of war.
Inshort, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particularphotos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm's way,and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety asCommander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of thesephotos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving inharm's way.
Now,in the press's mind and in some of the public's mind, these two cases arecontradictory. They are not to me. In each of these cases, I had tostrike the right balance between transparency and national security. Andthis balance brings with it a precious responsibility. There's no doubtthat the American people have seen this balance tested over the last severalyears. In the images from Abu Ghraib and the brutal interrogationtechniques made public long before I was President, the American people learnedof actions taken in their name that bear no resemblance to the ideals thatgenerations of Americans have fought for. And whether it was the run-upto the Iraq war or the revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt likepart of the story had been unnecessarily withheld from them. And thatcaused suspicion to build up. And that leads to a thirst foraccountability.
Iunderstand that. I ran for President promising transparency, and I meantwhat I said. And that's why, whenever possible, my administration willmake all information available to the American people so that they can makeinformed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued --and I never will -- that our most sensitive national security matters shouldsimply be an open book. I will never abandon -- and will vigorouslydefend -- the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war, toprotect sources and methods, and to safeguard confidential actions that keepthe American people safe. Here's the difference though: Whenever wecannot release certain information to the public for valid national securityreasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions -- by Congress orby the courts.
We'recurrently launching a review of current policies by all those agenciesresponsible for the classification of documents to determine where reforms arepossible, and to assure that the other branches of government will be in aposition to review executive branch decisions on these matters. Because inour 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 towhat is known as the "state secrets" privilege. This is adoctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secretprograms. It's been used by many past Presidents -- Republican andDemocrat -- for many decades. And while this principle is absolutelynecessary in some circumstances to protect national security, I am concernedthat it has been over-used. It is also currently the subject of a widerange of lawsuits. So let me lay out some principles here. We mustnot protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law orembarrassment to the government. And that's why my administration isnearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.
Andwe plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply astricter legal test to material that can be protected under the state secretsprivilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without firstfollowing our own formal process, including review by a Justice Departmentcommittee and the personal approval of the Attorney General. And eachyear we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilegeand why because, as I said before, there must be proper oversight over ouractions.
Onall these matters related to the disclosure of sensitive information, I wish Icould say that there was some simple formula out there to be had. Thereis not. These often involve tough calls, involve competing concerns, andthey require a surgical approach. But the common thread that runs throughall of my decisions is simple: We will safeguard what we must to protectthe American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversightthat is the hallmark of our constitutional system. I will never hide thetruth because it's uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and thecourts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the Americanpeople what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly orkeep something secret, I will tell you why. (Applause.)
Now,in all the areas that I've discussed today, the policies that I've proposedrepresent a new direction from the last eight years. To protect theAmerican people and our values, we've banned enhanced interrogationtechniques. We are closing the prison at Guantanamo. We are reformingmilitary commissions, and we will pursue a new legal regime to detainterrorists. We are declassifying more information and embracing moreoversight of our actions, and we're narrowing our use of the state secretsprivilege. These are dramatic changes that will put our approach tonational security on a surer, safer, and more sustainable footing. Theirimplementation will take time, but they will get done.
There'sa core principle that we will apply to all of our actions. Even as weclean up the mess at Guantanamo, we will constantly reevaluate our approach,subject our decisions to review from other branches of government, as well asthe public. We seek the strongest and most sustainable legal frameworkfor addressing these issues in the long term -- not to serve immediatepolitics, but to do what's right over the long term. By doing that we canleave behind a legacy that outlasts my administration, my presidency, thatendures for the next President and the President after that -- a legacy thatprotects 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. Irecognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. Whenit comes to actions of the last eight years, passions are high. SomeAmericans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, insome cases debates that they have lost. I know that these debates leaddirectly, in some cases, to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through anindependent commission.
I'veopposed the creation of such a commission because I believe that our existingdemocratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. TheCongress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries bythe Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. TheDepartment of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violationsof our laws or miscarriages of justice.
It'sno secret there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingersat one another. And it's no secret that our media culture feeds theimpulse that lead to a good fight and good copy. But nothing willcontribute 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 todifferent sides to laying blame. It can distract us from focusing ourtime, our efforts, and our politics on the challenges of the future.
Wesee that, above all, in the recent debate -- how the recent debate has obscuredthe truth and sends people into opposite and absolutist ends. On the oneside of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the uniquechallenges posed by terrorism, and would almost never put national securityover transparency. And on the other end of the spectrum, there are thosewho embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "Anythinggoes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorismcan be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanketauthority to do whatever he wants -- provided it is a President with whom theyagree.
Bothsides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. TheAmerican people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigidideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice oursecurity for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long aswe 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 challengelaid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strengththrough the ages. That's what makes the United States of Americadifferent as a nation.
Ican stand here today, as President of the United States, and say withoutexception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorouslyprotect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows usto fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make nomistake: If we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken overthe 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 withthe documents that are enshrined in this hall. (Applause.)
TheFramers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the challengesthat have unfolded over the last 222 years. But our Constitution hasendured through secession and civil rights, through World War and Cold War,because it provides a foundation of principles that can be appliedpragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way. Ithasn't always been easy. We are an imperfect people. Every now andthen, there are those who think that America's safety and success requires usto walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building. Andwe hear such voices today. But over the long haul the American peoplehave resisted that temptation. And though we've made our share ofmistakes, required some course corrections, ultimately we have held fast to theprinciples that have been the source of our strength and a beacon to the world.
Nowthis generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism. Andunlike the Civil War or World War II, we can't count on a surrender ceremony tobring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and incrowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. Thatwill be the case a year from now, five years from now, and -- in allprobability -- 10 years from now. Neither I nor anyone can stand heretoday and say that there will not be another terrorist attack that takesAmerican lives. But I can say with certainty that my administration --along with our extraordinary troops and the patriotic men and women who defendour national security -- will do everything in our power to keep the Americanpeople safe. And I do know with certainty that we can defeat alQaeda. Because the terrorists can only succeed if they swell their ranksand alienate America from our allies, and they will never be able to do that ifwe stay true to who we are, if we forge tough and durable approaches tofighting terrorism that are anchored in our timeless ideals. This must beour common purpose.
Iran for President because I believe that we cannot solve the challenges of ourtime unless we solve them together. We will not be safe if we seenational security as a wedge that divides America -- it can and must be a causethat unites us as one people and as one nation. We've done so before intimes that were more perilous than ours. We will do so once again.
Thankyou, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)