This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Full Text And Wordcloud Of Obama's "Don't Drone Me, Bro" Speech
One can read "The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama" to get a true sense of Obama's "the best defense is a relentless drone everyone offense, ignore collateral damage and take out a few Americans in the process" policy. Or one can stare at rising stawks and enjoy their Obamaphones. Obe can't have both.
Word cloud:
And full speech (via WaPo):
President Obama’s May 23 speech on national security
President Obama delivered remarks on national security on May 23, 2013, at National Defense University in Washington, D.C. Here are his full remarks 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.
»
- 14811 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Hey , Barry's lips are moving . . . . . . .
Where's the part where Barry explains his administration financing and supporting Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria?
the best way to combat terrorist islam, is to reject completely the mental disease that is islam.
or appease the terrorists as is obamas plan.
If Islam is so diseased, it will collapse under it's own weight just like the centrally planned USSR did.
No need to strip your citizens' rights.
But what if the US is so diseased that it IS collapsing under th eweight of it's own WAR excesses?
War war war... it's what's for break fast, lunch and dinner. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria.... war, war war, without end, rhyme or reason and never won.WAr on drugs, war on disease, war war war.....
Live by the gun...
ORI
WAR INC
So Obama's speech for those who want the cliff notes:
"Blah blah blah bullshit bullshit blah blah Islam is the devil blah blah straw-man blah blah and then these bits:
Despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed.
We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force.
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.
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.
Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars.
So it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths, (no one asserted this - strawman) or to create enemies in the Muslim world.
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.
For this reason, I’ve insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action.
That includes the one instance when we targeted an American citizen: Anwar Awlaki, the chief of external operations for AQAP.
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 (which makes it constitutioinal obviously), and briefed the Congress before this strike as well.
So the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism, from North Africa to South Asia.
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 –
As I said earlier, this threat is not new. But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality.
Thank you. God Bless you. And may God bless the United States of America."
" p.s. I hope this speech protects me from future indictment for war crimes."
No, no, don't drone ME, Bro!
The only part I could stomach was the heckler, which you can watch here.
did he say "hard facts," "hard to find facts," or "hard to call them facts?"
cut to the chase, barry: "americans need minerals, raw materials, oil and poppies for our heroin. and we need to defend the dollar by enslaving the rest of mankind. today we need war more than ever."
This is a bit dated. Just substitue Bush's face with Obama's, since essentialy they carry out the same policies, and are controlled by the same people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giaZnIr-faM
Um, yeah. Halliburton, JP Morgan and Exxon appear nowhere in the word cloud. Imagine that.
He shouldn't be indicted for war crimes; just punished for them. He should be on board with that, since he eschews due process for his victims.
What kind of quota monkey fail upward law degree did Harvard give this clown?
Even the bastions of US Imperialism argue that AUMF doesn't fully cover current US hostile actions, and then this wanna-be lawyer who is playing commander-in-chief validates the arguments against AUMF, does a juvenile backtrack, and doesn't even touch on International Law?
Then he says he wants to work with Congress to write "new rules" (i.e. obtain legal US authorization for the currently unauthorized actions his administration is already taking) so his worthless ass doesn't get sent to the gallows...
BTW if he actually wanted to be the commander-in-chief, instead of just playing one on TV, then perhaps one his teleprompter jockeys should go back and look at the US casualty lists from the US Embassy bombingZZ - Americans didn't just die in the country where his grandpa was likely involved in the slave trade.
P.S. He hopes the sheeple are dumb enough to demand MOAR war authority for the Executive branch...
and they most definitely are. And, how much more authority do they need. No declared wars since WWII.
Sorry, meant to say we've not ever been at war since WWII. Police actions and such.
Don't taze me bro.
Thanks for the cliff notes.
'patiently supporting transitions to democracy in places like Egypt, Tunisia and Libya'
... while patiently supporting dictators in places like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Yemen.
...and looking the other way when Iran appeared to be heading toward a populist uprising.
I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States
Gotta pull out old Roget and see when defend became synonymous with wreck.
Yes but it's nothing compared to the war excessive curry makes on my bunghole.
Curry don't bother me. For me it's jalapeno's on taco tuesday. Oh god, wednesday morning's dump burns. Tuesdays dinner is so fine though.
If I were the Bernank I would eat more
I thought beef was what's for dinner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tviyAIS9c_U
War is just a symptom of decline It'll all pass..
ORI asked:
Please forgive my bewilderment, but what do you mean by "what if"?
What if tomorrow followed today?
"If Islam is so diseased, it will collapse under it's own weight just like the centrally planned USSR did."
Of course Islam will collapse. Unfortunately, if they have their way, they will have killed off the rest of humanity before they do so.
You misunderstand the key difference between the USSR and Islam. The USSR was an atheistic society; communists supplanted God with Man, as embodied in the Party Elite. Since Man, when left strictly to his own devices, never wants to kill himself, when faced with the choice of either collapse, or lash out, the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction led the communists to make the sane choice, and the USSR collapsed without hurting anyone outside the communist system.
Islam worships Allah, and Allah commands to followers of Islam that killing oneself is justifiable, honorable, and necessary if it also helps kill the Infidel.
You can bet your sweet ass if they are going down, they are gonna do their damnedest to take the rest of us with them.
You call it Allah, we call it oil ahhh, let's call the whole thing off
Buck.B.
Read some of Ron Paul's speeches using CIA assessments identifying blow-back from foreign incursions into muslim countries as the major source of the west's conflict with Islamic countries.
pg. 36
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/commun.pdf
Therefore, in stark contrast to the Cold War, the United States today is not seeking to contain a threatening state/empire, but rather seeking to convert a broad movement within Islamic civilization to accept the value structure of Western Modernity — an agenda hidden within the official rubric of a “War on Terrorism.”
There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-U.S. groundswell among Muslim societies — except to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the U.S. so determinedly promotes and defends.
Today, however, the perception of intimate U.S. support of tyrannies in the Muslim World is perhaps the critical vulnerability in American strategy. It strongly undercuts our message, while strongly promoting that of the enemy.
Actually, when you look at the actual results, that sure looks like complete bullshit. Look at what has actually HAPPENED. Since 1979, we have been gradually undermining every secular regime in the arab world. This process sped up under Bush Jr. with the attack on Iraq, and Obama is putting it into overdrive with the overthrow of secular regimes in Egypt, Libya, and now Syria. It is obvious that the people we are really fighting are the secular arabs, and we are clearly supporting the Islamists.
We won the Afghan war against the taliban, and then spent the next 10 years gradually giving it back. Our continuing presence there seems to undermine, rather than support, any hope for a secular regime.
When "policy" fails so consistently and thoroughly over a period of 40 years, one begins to understand that the REAL policy might actually be entirely different from the STATED policy.
Which then begs the question, why are we on the side of Islam? We know their stated goal is to forcibly convert us to their religion, or wipe us out. How does this benefit the people of this country???
Since 1979, we have been gradually undermining every secular regime in the arab world. This process sped up under Bush Jr. with the attack on Iraq, and Obama is putting it into overdrive with the overthrow of secular regimes in Egypt, Libya, and now Syria. It is obvious that the people we are really fighting are the secular arabs, and we are clearly supporting the Islamists.
The US will support / oppose whatever regime is convenient, has nothing to do with religion / democracy etc. through history.
Certainly it's not 'obvious' the people being fought against are secular arabs, the only consistency among the people being fought against are that they stand in opposition to US interests.
When "policy" fails so consistently and thoroughly over a period of 40 years, one begins to understand that the REAL policy might actually be entirely different from the STATED policy.
The stated policy as far as I read it is the US wants to bring freedom and democracy to the middle east. Of course that's not true. Real policy seems obvious - control of resources.
Which then begs the question, why are we on the side of Islam?
Not on the side of Islam, on the side of whoever best controls the people.
Not even sure it's that so much as it is on the side of whoever's easiest to mind fuck.
How easy is it to lead religous fundamentalists around by the nose?
I love Ron Paul, but he's off base on this one. Blowback is a part of the problem, but not the cause of the problem. The problem is Islam. Blowback has simply been an amplifier. Never forget that the ideological core of Islam is that the Infidel must be forcibly converted to Islam, or killed.
Ironic in a comment thread about the USA's assassination campaign in the middle east Islam is cited as the great threat.
US propaganda, still the best money can buy!
.
Home of the brave*.
*brave being defined as waking up in a cold sweat because of nightmares about those you've been instructed to fear.
'Blowback' implies one is surprised.
'Blowforward' means they want blowback to justify further violence and promote chaos in which they can take advantage of a social/power vacuum.
I used to think blowback was the cool position until I realized they count on and plan for it.
Chalmers Johnson was on to it before most...
http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Consequences-American-Empire-Trilogy/dp/1...
The "conflict" is ALL about resource grabs, simple as that. People will use religion and whatever else they can conjure up in their fight to push or oppose something. "Problems" never can be properly addressed/resolved unless they are based with a clear and accurate premise.
Sure, I want their oil too. If I can divide the people over there and make them easier to conquer I will. Freedom!
Look at the shit holes and decline of places where Islam is in charge or gaining power: Lebanon: Beirut used to be called "the Paris of the middle east". Now it is a shit hole. Compare India to Pakistan and Bangladesh. Iran, Egypt, Turkey... at a macro level, you can track the ascendancy of Islamic power with economic decline. At a micro-level, you can see individual lives ruined and freedoms lost. Islam is in a constant state of economic collapse.
"Islam is in a constant state of economic collapse."
Is Islam an economic entity?
How rich/wealthy were these countries to start out with? And if you rule out oil/energy?
Meanwhile the non-shit-holes are also collapsing economically, sans Islam.
the magic eight ball says:
"blame bush"
So proud of my country.
America! Fuck yeah! Comin' again to drone your motherfuckin' kids yeah!
It is only illegal for them to fund and support them when they are on the State Department T list
This is why you see all the alleged offshoots of AlCIAda popping up all over the place so they can use the main name to instill fear but technically say its not really them and they're not on the list yet so it is not technically illegal.
It is all part of the manipulation of words and meanings through semantics in order to achieve their goals and objectives
You'll know when a group is no longer being financed, supported and controlled by the gov when they show up on the list
However, as far as you or I are concerned if we had given a pressure cooker to the Tsarnaev brothers to cook some food we would now be in Guantanemo being tortured and rotting away for the rest of your lifes
That word cloud appropriately mashes together "AlCongress". Now we're talking real terrorists!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzdUy90vTuk
Y'all meet the new boss - same as the old boss................
Fucking political bullshit powerless figureheads anyway.
Someone out the real players so the gene pool can be cleansed.
Rainbow skittle shitting unicorns on solid gold flying carpets couldn't turn the USA Titanic away from the fiat iceberg it's gonna hit any minute now.
So many people, so few lifeboats...................
New ones will pop up though. Although, some will understand the calculation that they risk 100% by being such aholes. Plus, there's the satisfaction gained by bashing in a severe aholes head. You won't hear me cry.
Notably, 'No Arrests on Wall Street, But Over 7,700 Americans Have Been Arrested Protesting Big Banks', article by Zaid Jilani
« While Wall Street has escaped prosecutions, thousands of Americans have been arrested in the course of protests against the banks. As of May 2013, that number is 7,736 — according to the website Occupy Arrests, which tracks arrests. »
http://thecontributor.com/no-arrests-wall-street-over-7700-americans-hav...
The Emperor has no clothes.
1. Define an act of terrorism as warfare. (This was done by Bush after 9/11, and people let him get away with it. Even though terrorist acts have always been covered by U.S. laws. The Oklahoma City bombing was not treated as “warfare” but as a crime to investigate and prosecute as usual.)
2. Declare that those who carry out a terrorist act can be imprisoned without a trial, because it would be “dangerous” and a threat to national security to give them a trial. (Witness: Jose Padilla, the prisoners at Guantanamo, imprisoned for years without a trial, which is illegal.)
3. Declare that those who carry out a terrorist act can be killed without a trial, just like on the battlefield.
4. Widen the definition of terrorism to anyone who “gives support” to terrorists. As we have seen from no-fly lists, this includes anti-war people who have organized against the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. It also includes “right-wing extremists” who oppose the globalist agenda.
Done. Now you can do whatever you want.
When the dollar collapse comes, ordinary Americans who demonstrate against the globalist state can be disarmed, registered, harassed, have their employers called and questioned to scare them, have their leaders imprisoned without a trial, under the pretext that they are giving support to “the terrorists”. The way the globalists act, there will always be “terrorists” who strike back by force. This is useful for the globalists.
you fucking puke
mass killing of innocent people, or associating with those who do, deserves not only death without trial, but for a spectacle to be made of it.
so fuck y'all. Padilla, the guantanomo ragheads; couldnt kill them enough times to satisfy me
So says the brainwashed fool that plays right into gov't tyranny playbook.
Maybe apply that twisted logic of yours to your own leaders doing the same fucking thing overseas?
rope enough for them, too, scumbag.
it ends with blood; killers of innocents, govt. agents, corrupt bankers and apologists
Which is exactly what the evil fucks running the world want.
Kill all of 'em you want. Doesn't matter, as their power lies within the institutions that do not die, thanks to your belief in them. All that will happen is they will be replaced with an even worse bunch.
Go ahead, go running around trying to "kill" all of "them" and it's certain that that will only INTENSIFY their resolve to kill us as indiscriminately as they would like. And they have FAR more weapons; they control the communications, the banking and transfer of nearly all goods.
Which is the EXACT reason those people are "created."
Remember, it's never the action, it's the reaction.
See, all of those innocent people were murdered, all so you could REACT so passionately about the ensuing criminality.
In other words, you're nothing but a tool of the psychopaths who fund all of the bogeyman you've been taught to fear.
Thanks NA, that is what I was trying to say. We have to rise above this immoral and illogical bullshit and see it for what it truly is.
Mind control, intimidation and fear.
It's like chess--you have to think several moves ahead. The obvious item placed in front of your eyes is just what they want you to focus on. You have to look deeper, probe the associations and the motivations and think like a megalomaniac. And then a whole different picture emerges and you realize it is the same old game as the kings and queens of feudalism past played.
You don't realize that you are also threatening your own life by supporting such policies.
one big lie.
He probably had his fingers crossed the whole time he was reading. That negates the lies, you know...
'Don't Bro me, drone.'
It's a Criminal Regime as was the predecessor. The State Department / CIA who arm, fund and train through Turkey, NATO, Noth Afica and Central Asia the exact same AL CIA duh terrorists they claim to be protecting us from.
Hang them all.
How does one hang abstractions such as NATO, or Al CIAduh? As far as I can tell, all you can do is to switch out the mouth-pieces, and well, that's hardly effective.
Can he say, "I reserve the right to edit and amend my comments", like the congress critters can?
And it can be traced back being sold on the BS that there can be perpetual growth on a finite planet.
I think of the proud Pakistani parents who, after their daughter was invited to the White House
Maybe you can spare a thought for the 176 Pakistani children killed in your drone strikes
Meanwhile, U.S. drones are killing children and terrorizing families abroad. Earlier this year, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that 176 children have been murdered in Pakistan alone. And along with drone attacks, an average of 4.8 children are killed per day in Afghanistan
http://www.policymic.com/articles/20884/is-america-like-adam-lanza-u-s-drone-strikes-have-killed-176-children-in-pakistan-alone
Fuck this scum sucking pigfucker Obama. fuck him
been awhile since i have seen the good ole pig fucker term used.
aumf = gold mother fucker
I'm developing a drone app for cellphones since they use the phones to find you anyway. Five seconds after the drone strikes, a pop-up notice says, "You got served!" Laugh riot funnier than 'due process' found in that old wrinkled constitution document thing.
Significant that Obama, did give a nameless mention, to a man some consider a martyr to the upcoming New American Revolution, Joe Stack - Obama speaks of:
« a plane flying into a building in Texas »
Joe Stack (1956-2010), Joseph Andrew Stack III, a man who seems to have died in the hope of inspiring resistance and revolt to the US regime
Software engineer badly harassed by the IRS and US government and system, on 18 February 2010, Stack first burned down his own house, then, leaving wife and child behind, crashing a plane into IRS offices
"Violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer."
- Joe Stack
Stack's dying manifesto was ordered to be pulled down from the web by the US government, though archived and available on the web from others
Article with photo of Joe Stack's burned-down Waco, Texas house
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0218/Who-is-Joe-Stack
Some of the terrorists' names he did use were Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Faisal Shahzad and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Strikes me as a pretty racist (in the generalized sense, including religionism, sexism, and all that other PC crap) attitude on Zero's part.
The manifesto: http://www.businessinsider.com/joseph-andrew-stacks-insane-manifesto-2010-2
i read it, he could be a true ZH'er. what he's saying is pretty much a sum-up of upvoted ZH comments.
His name was Joe Stack.
Carl Drega is more worthy of rememberance IMO
http://www.afn.org/~govern/dregas.html
His name was CARL DREGA.
Carl Drega sounds like a bad ass
He's wrong, the bad guys control the weapons. This is a battle for hearts, minds, and souls. So far the bad guys have more. Hope we can change that soon. Educate as many as you can, that's our only real hope.
This is the most important part of his speech, by far. That he wraps up McVeigh, Stack, and AQ, without really defining the distinct philosophies of domestic v. foreign grown terrorists is bizarre and disturbing.
I see little difference in Stack's quote with that of the general premise of the design of the State.
An evolutionary approach would be to just turn our backs and walk away. Our children would then not be handed the torch of violence.
"persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America ..."
like Tea Party w/ IRS, AP w/ Justice, 2nd Amendment w/ Fast n Furious ... etcetera.
Doubleplusgood for that one Winston.
Here is a compentently made short film about the inevitable mission creep that will happen when drones get deployed domestically. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5eD2PW2ks4
Here is a more benign use of "drones" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozHoP_YThRI
He should probably change the name of the production company tho..
I skipped to the comments here, they make more sense than reading that babble.
The word cloud should be just a line: bullshit.
A 'turd cloud' would have sufficed.
Fuck, even TOTUS likely had trouble reading all of that tripe.
What would happen to the word cloud if you counted Terrorist, Terrorists and Terrorism as one word?
Summary: The drones are the ends and using drones to kill those resisting our ends is the means.
"In closing: Fuck You! That's why!"
With warmest regards,
MIC
"The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words," said an American official, who was not named. 'He's gotten involved in plots'"
Well, if that is the measure of this man's guilt and hence killing him if possible without formal charges or trial is okay, according to the current President, then our Constitution is out the window and The LAW does not mean a damn thing.
What is the difference among our Presidents GWBush and Barack Obama and all their cohorts, going back and forth ten years and our "plots" with Israel to not interfere with their attacks and other attempts to exterminate the Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere? Our "plots" to attack and invade Iraq for reasons of control of oil under the guise of imminent danger from a "mushroom cloud" and [unlocatable] Weapons of Mass Destruction"? Our plots and detailed plans on the Pentagon drawing boards long before 9-11 to attack Afghanistan immediately after the pre-planned 9-11 tragedy happened?
What about the plots that Matt Tabai unearthed and described so well in his article, "The Great American Bubble Machine," that have undermined and almost destroyed our economy and so many middle-class families with firms like Goldman Sachs, AIG, and banks of the Federal Reserve winking at each others as very questionable financial deals, speculations, sell-outs of and bailouts by the taxpayer have sped along the corporate money track crushing the signalmen and the generally unwary like an express train totally out of control?
What about all the preplanning and plotting by the International Monetary Fund [IMF], the World Bank and all those "Economic Hit Men" [John Perkins: "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"] and the Milton Friedman Chicago Boys in league with the U.S. government and the financial sector and corporations to "help" poor third world countries, by lending money to them for this and such, but setting everything up by contract that if these countries can't pay on time that everything they own in terms of important resources [water, minerals, timber, land ... you name it] are consequently privatized. Enter the major domo corporate capitalists and banks to grab everything. What about that?
What about our current method of waging war? Bomb 'em with unmanned drones. Oh??? Oh, dear. We killed thirty-six of your children? Oh, dear. We'll investigate. And then a "fortunate" few may be handed $2,300 for the "accidental deaths" of their baby or child..
What about all the scheming and plotting of so many in the government whose positions require funding for re-election and who take from corporations and agree to do favors and forget about their voting constituencies when the gold and silver nuggets are pressed into their palms?
We have a criminal government with criminal elements as part of it who do not give one fat, friggin' damn about the ordinary people of the United States. Isn't that obvious by now?
This country is being brought down. That is no accident. That is the result of plotting and scheming for MONEY, POWER and CONTROL of anything that isn't nailed down, nationally and globally.
Now according to the logic that one can kill or assassinate people, and in this instance American citizens without trial, and with Habeus Corpus becoming an old memory of once upon a time and heinous Torture still being applauded on every talk show available by the likes of a very smarmy, sick-in-the-head-and-heart former Vice President and his daughter and many, many more, it seems that the legal fabric of our nation has been irrevocably shredded and torn.
So where does that leave us? Do we run out to purchase AK -47's or 57's, or whatever the models are now, and start tracking and shooting all these criminal bastards to save ourselves and our nation before it is too late and we have become a fully fascist nation like Germany and Italy were under Hitler and Mussolini, respectively?
I am certainly not advocating this, and I've never had a gun in my hand other than an antique relic someone showed me once. But to me, when this President, as his predecessor did, makes decisions that clearly violate our Constitutional protections as citizens and as human beings, a message is being sent that is the wrong message, and that is WE ARE A NATION WITHOUT RESPECT FOR THE LAW; A NATION WITH LAWS THAT CAN BE VIOLATED, especially if one has power, position and enough money, and enough corrupt idiots in Congress. AND THE HELL WITH YOU.
What I'm seeing is that if this keeps up, and the people of this slumbering nation ever stop watching the insipid, untruthful television news and wake up at last because what is happening all around, including to each of us individually, can no longer be ignored, then our hearts and our minds and our bodies may have to be put on the line.
And that's the bottom line, whether we like it or not.
What about all the people buying and hoarding guns and ammo. Clearly that is a potential threat beyond words...if and when.
Yes to all of it. Should have acted sooner rather than later.
The tragic irony is this: the criminals of the US government NEED there to be resistance to their theft and murder to further perpetrate their theft and murder.
That's not irony, so much as their game plan, as it's all about divide and conquer. The more one "side" rises up, the more the other demands they be put back down.
that's a long speech. did he show up, or just have the teleprompter read it aloud?
LIAR!!!!
I wonder, does TOTUS sound like Stephen Hawking? SIRI?
http://www.sovereignman.com/?inf_contact_key=131ffcf185b252a2f22523a38862dbbec85780d88f52880db9665180bb34b830
Obama's shite speech brings to mind the sharpest criticism ever of Obama by a US black leader, America's most famous black preacher, Louis Farrakhan
Amazing intensity as Farrakhan shouts:
« That's a MURDERER in the White House! Who will say It? I will! ... »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCjX7KPfguI
Amen to that. Some people are waking up to the "black plague" that is O
He has killed 95 Civillans for every 5 terrorists, Holder admitted yesterday that they have killed 4 US citizens......and now he is backtracking.
What an asshole. At least Darth Vadar (Dick Cheny) didn't pretend that he didn't embrace torture.
There're not assholes. There're War Criminals. Remember that and repeat it loud and clear. Control the Narrative. It gets worse:
We are all enemies of the State (DC). In 1917, the Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917) was passed and which defined, regulated and punished trading with enemies, who were then required by that act to be licensed by the government to do business. The National Banking System Act (Public Law 73-1, 73rd Congress, Session I, Chapter 1, March 9, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2038 (March 6, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2039 (March 9, 1933), and Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260 prove that in 1933, the United States Government formed under the executive privilege of the original martial rule went bankrupt, and a new state of national emergency was declared under which United States citizens were named as the enemy to the government and the banking system as per the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The legal system provided for in the Constitution was formally changed in 1938 through the Supreme Court decision in the case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 US 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188.
In 1945 the United States gave up any remaining national sovereignty when it signed the United Nations Treaty, making all American citizens subject to United Nations jurisdiction.
The Constitution for the United States of America and the Bill of Rights are no longer in effect in their original form or where they conflict with the United Nations Treaty and other international agreements. Citizens of the several States of the Union who were formerly sovereigns protected by the common law are now United States citizens and are thus subjects to International Admiralty jurisdiction.
Given they're merely words on paper, they never were truly in effect, as it's all just one giant belief system wrapped around power.
The state does NOT exist, but in your mind.
A disgusting speech, full of lies and propaganda that woud make Joesph Goebbels blush.
You have to completely brainwashed to believe this garbage.
his supporters are brainwashed. A collection of worthless fucks who don't deserve to live in this country
The "supporters" are the only ones that really count, and they aren't to be found among the people on main street... You might be thinking of "cheering" types, who, as should be pretty clear, would be readily drone'd if it were to serve a "higher purpose" (and by way of "removal" would NOT reduce the REAL "support").
Or to click the down arrow on your comment.
he's getting heckled good 'n proper; the teleprompter guy must be shitting himself
regarding gitmo, why does he blame congress, surely his mighty pen can scribe an EO in a heartbeat; he's meant to the fucking POTUS, man-up ffs
What is with all of the clapping? This is insane.
the black suits are throwing fish to the crowd
Fine. But where are the loaves?
I was just following orders...
Otherwise, you're gonna get droned!
Now he can focus on getting those Fema camps going in place here where the real war is going on. The tea party. Those gun owners. Those catholics protesting at abortion clinics. Those reporters at Fox who dare to express the First ammendment. Speaking of which he can focus on getting rid of all of those cumbersome things in the Constitution. Forward.
just need to keep the 5th for obama's dick suckers to utilize
Here we go again, the "oppressed." Spare me.
WTF would one even bother to go through all the hassles of FEMA camps when you can just drone anyone/everyone?
The FEMA shit is just more public works project shit.
Further, anyone ever stop to wonder if these camps are for protecting the chosen people, some place to locate the servants when the masses start to turn? How many of these people would there be vs. how many "bad guys?" A measly 5% of the masses is 15 million people. How many camp seats are there? Are there really only That few "Christians," "Fox News reporters," "baby killers" and "Tea Party" people in the US? (1% of the population is still 3 million- I'm not thinking FEMA's camp seating comes close; either there are far more camp seats or there are far fewer people "selected" for entrance [or, the camps are Auschwitz's]- Gott Mit Uns)
If I may paraphrase, this is what I got out his speach:
"So, instead of indiscriminately killing, we vow instead to discriminately kill. After all, we were 'attacked' 12 years ago, so this is all perfectly legal. That's right, we'll kill whomever we please. What the fuck you gona do about it? Yeah, that's what I thought, bitchez!"
Of course this tangled web leads right back to the original deceit and corruption - that of the non enforcement of Illegal aliens in te US (and Europe and Britain).
Just about anyone can obtain a US passport (and become a citizen) with enough money while being from a "minority" group. Even though they are supporteres of Islamofascism.
So when they go abroad and fight against the US and become targets... the conundrum becomes "can't target a US citizen".
Not speaking of the innocent civilian deaths here at all. Just to emphasize... the Immigration non enforcement is creating as many problems as the Federal deficit and Fed printing.
That is the triangle of deceit and corruption.
LOL... And just what should the original natives have thought of your statement?
Never mind that our entire premise is based on perpetual growth on a finite planet. Yeah, like That has nothing to do with today's tensions! (bickering over resources)
'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."
Obama now appeals to the authority of Osama.
Message: I am relevant!
“we could lose the reserves to the enemy’s air strikes."
taken out of context///
"IF WE KEEP FLYING OUR FLAG AND MOVING AROUND IN CONVOYS IN LAND CRUISERS AND STAY IN TORA BORA..
WE COULD LOSE THE RESERVES TO THE ENEMY AIR STRIKES.
PLEASE SEND SOME FRESH PORN AND SOME OF THE GOOD SMOKIN SHIT TO ABOTTABAD... REGARDS BINNY"
Oh, man, his teleprompter was on fi-ya!
Wonder how long ahead of this speech the MIC had a copy.
Several weeks I'm sure.Just a coincidence all these scandals flared up
around the same time.
There are no coincidences in politics.........FDR
Distraction!
@ Winston C.,
Don't kid yourself. The MIC, DoD, Pentagram and CIA false narrative script writers wrote the dam thing.
I'd hug you if I could: good work here!
Fuck you Barry,
Your words carry no weight son, you are a laughable excuse of a human being.
You fucking piece of dogs shit. Killing folk indiscriminatley in Africa and other far flung places and moralising back home you cunt.
Who the fuck do you think you are?
I can only hope you get yours you filthy fucking bastard, you have to be from what I have seen with my own eyes the most morally blank, outright fucking stupid and deviously lying bastard I have ever seen in my life. You make career criminals look like kids, you hateful swine, standing their giving your speach of complete fucking bollocks to the stupid fuckers that still believe a word that comes out your fucking pathetic mouth, just who the fuck do you think you are son?
You are in for a rude awakening you cunt, same as this lot over here, you will pay a price boy, time is not on your side on either side of the pond, you fuckers think you can dictate to your populations, you will find out in short order that you dont.
You fucking in-humane fucking bastard.
Now, sit back and realize he's just the latest in a long, long line of narcissistic psychopaths.
Then drink heavily.
"Your words carry no weight son"
Hate to break this to you, but they're not HIS words.
Oh, and just in case the "opposition" is lurking I wouldn't be claming to be his father if I were you.
who was the heckler and where did they take her?
They took her to GITMO.
Not a chance. It was Medea Benjamin, a Soros Code-Pink stooge.
Pardon me for posting a BI link, but of course, they have the story already.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-heckled-guantanamo-bay-heckler-prot...
"Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat."
What fucking planet is this lying fucker talking about?
Most of Al Qaeda has migrated to Syria, where they collect goodies from Uncle Zero.
They were first test-driven in the Balkins. Getting lots of mileage out of these folks. Why one would almost think that they're an arm of some US special forces or something...
"Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat."
What fucking planet is this lying fucker talking about?
"path to defeat"..... he fails to mention we are 10 years into a hundred year war
The only clear 'path to defeat' is America's coming tail-between-legs exit from Afghanistan.
For over two centuries, the United States has been bound together by founding documents that defined who we are as Americans -- I don't recall what they were off the top of my head
I liked the part in one of them that said it is a person's duty to overthrow abusive government.
'My Pet Goat' was incorporated by amendment, as I recall.
Concerning Obma's words, does anyone even care what he says?
-30-
Unfortunately, outside of the Hedge....
MILLIONS of people hang on every word outta his pie-hole.
And cherish him for his "Peace Price"
....Bringing Democracy to Millions of Tortured Souls.....via Drones
Millions of Winkies, wait'n on words.
Ccanuck
...something something something dark side.
...something something something dark side.
...something something something dark side.
This week I authorized
with his magic authorizing stick
guest professor, friend and defender of terrorists both domestic and foreign, snipe at bush, waterboarding and multiple pats on his own back... cant you motherfuckers see how great i am and how much aforethought and genius goes into each drone attack, and how i am conflicted to save my place in history, and any motherfucker who disagrees with me is now served notice that i will drone your ass and anyone who is within 50 yards of you with some HE bearing bomb.. gee but its great to be a gangsta ... i mean the knig.. hey i forgot to mention the fort hood islamic jihadi scumbag in the list of al awlaki inspired acts of terror... ooooops i think i'll give him a pay raise..and holder will get him a top notch attorney. Does this stupid motherficker realize that he is the one denying military justice from taking place. the gitmo islamic scum should be courtmartialed and shot or hung.. what ever they do these days. And the pos forgot to mention that al queda is on his payroll now, and he be down with the bros. HOW DOES THIS DIRBAG THINK THEY GOT THE LOWDOWN ON BIN LADEN.... WATERBOARDING... obama speeches are self serving doubletalk jaberwokey in his own isolated delusional tiny world, following which chris mathews jerksoff on tv. After his imeachment he will be cleaning urinals.. the only job he is really qualified for ....
and if he doens't drone you he'll sic the IRS on you
drones must be the peace-prize way of killing people