Live Blog: Obama Outlines New Policies for Drones, Gitmo in Major Speech
Posted: May 23, 2013 Filed under: Barack Obama, Foreign Affairs, Live Blog, U.S. Politics | Tags: drone assassinations, Guantanamo Bay prison, National Defense University, national security, Pakistan, Yemen 162 Comments
This is a live blog to discuss President Obama’s speech today at the National Defense University. The speech is scheduled for 2PM Eastern time. As I wrote in the morning post, Obama is expected to propose limits to the use of drones to assassinate suspected “terrorists” in places like Pakistan and Yemen.
Time Magazine’s Swampland Blog:
Obama’s speech is expected to reaffirm his national security priorities — from homegrown terrorists to killer drones to the enemy combatants held at the military-run detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — but make no new sweeping policy announcements. The White House has offered few clues on how the president will address questions that have dogged his administration for years and, critics say, given foreign allies mixed signals about U.S. intentions in some of the world’s most volatile areas.
Obama will try to refocus an increasingly apathetic public on security issues as his administration grapples with a series of unrelated controversies stemming from the attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups and government monitoring of reporters. His message will also be carefully analyzed by an international audience that has had to adapt to what counterterror expert Peter Singer described as the administration’s disjointed and often short-sighted security policies.
“He is really wresting with a broader task, which is laying out an overdue case for regularizing our counterterrorism strategy itself,” said Singer, director of the Brookings Institution’s 21st Century Security and Intelligence Center in Washington. “It’s both a task in terms of being a communicator, and a task in term of being a decider.”
The White House said Obama’s speech coincides with the signing of new “presidential policy guidance” on when the U.S. can use drone strikes, though it was unclear what that guidance entailed and whether Obama would outline its specifics in his remarks.
Do we really need to keep using the word “decider” now that Dubya is gone? Oh well…Time’s description of Obama’s remarks makes it sound like he’s not really going to make any real changes–just say some words. I hope that’s wrong.
Here’s USA Today’s take on the speech:
The White House said Obama “will discuss why the use of drone strikes is necessary, legal and just, while addressing the various issues raised by our use of targeted action.”
Obama has also approved new “policy guidance” that sets out “standards under which we take lethal action,” the White House said.
The president “will also discuss how to balance securing our country and protecting our civil liberties at home,” said the statement.
That includes new steps Obama plans to take to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, a frequent target of criticism from civil libertarians. Some detainees at the prison are in the midst of a hunger strike, protesting their conditions.
Obama had pledged to close the facility during his first year in office. But his efforts ran afoul of congressional Republicans who opposed trials of terrorism suspects in the United States, and other countries that refused to take some prisoners.
NBC News’ First Read has a little more:
A White House official, per NBC’s Shawna Thomas, says that the president’s speech also will discuss better securing U.S. diplomatic facilities (after the 2012 Benghazi attack), balancing security while protecting civil liberties at home (see the leak investigations), and stating his desire to close the Guantanamo Bay prison (an action which Congress opposes). Don’t be surprised if Obama says something along the lines of, “We will never send another detainee to Gitmo” as a way to express his willingness to close the facility. And don’t be surprised if he addresses — head on — the Justice Department’s seizure of reporters’ phone records in its prosecution of national security leaks. Obama delivers his remarks at 2:00 pm ET at the National Defense University in DC.
For further reference, here is the letter Attorney General Holder wrote to Congress acknowledging the drone assassinations of four American citizens and Charlies Savage’s article about it.
At Wired’s Danger Room Blog, Spencer Ackerman offers 4 Questions Obama’s Big National Security Speech Should Answer.
I’ll do my best to keep up with the speech, but I would greatly appreciate your contributions too. You can watch the speech on-line at C-Span.org.
peej
Carissa
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
I hope this isn’t going to be “just words.”
The Decider has started his “wide-ranging national security speech”. Right now he’s giving some background for people who have been asleep for the last decade or so.
lol
Hi Beata!
I’m late getting in………….listening now.
I missed the very beginning. It sounds like Obama is just enumerating changes to national security policy that have been made after 9/11.
He thinks we compromised our values “in some cases.”
He has banned torture, expanded consultations w/ congress and obeyed the “rule of law.”
We are safer now, and we are getting out of the wars. But we still face risks from terrorism, “from Benghazi to Boston.”
we’ve spent over a trillion dollars on wars…………..
Today’s threats are different. We have spent over a trillion dollars on wars, exploding our budget. Thousands of soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice or brought the shadows of combat back home. America is at a crossrds.
I’m looking for the prepared text.
No luck.
We face more localized threats like in Benghazi. Also kidnapping and radicalized individuals in US>
Threat today is “more diffuse”; more “localized”. Kidnapping, etc.
Now he’s calling the Ft. Hood shooting terror, even tho Repubs keep saying he called it “workplace violence.”
We face terror threats much like what was happening before 9/11.
Local terrorist operatives playing a larger role now.
Home grown terrorism has grown, he talks about the groups here over the years.
He says much of what we face is related to Islamist ideology, but it’s based on a lie because we aren’t at war with Islam.
But we are dropping drones on muslim countries…. (my words)
He says we are not at war with islam……………hey couldn’t prove that by the christian republicans who have been spewing their hate in this country.
We must work w/other nations–Pakistan, Yemen, Mali…
They help us gather intelligence and prosecute terrorists.
We’ve worked with Great Britain and Saudi Arabia…
Exactly BB……..drones and other measures (keeping Gitmo open), and other measures to have our mark on other countries like Libya.
Sometimes we can’t prosecute an imprison terrorists. It just isn’t practical because they are hiding in deserts, caves, places where the state lacks capacity or will to take action. We can send special forces for every terrorist. Some places it would pose profound risks to our troops and civilians or trigger international crisis.
We are “not at war with Islam”.
We can’t rely on our own intelligence-gathering or military intervention alone. Stresses importance of shared counter-terrorism information with other countries.
Getting bin Laden was a special case. And it has caused backlash in Pakistan.
Now we get to the drones.
Who is targeted and why? Legality? Civilian deaths? Accountability and morality.
Defends use of drone strikes: “Our actions are effective.” “These strikes have saved lives.” Also “these actions are legal”. “This is a just war.” But “this is not to say this ( meaning drone strikes? ) is always wise or moral.”
The use of drones is heavily constrained???
Had to run out for a min.
He says we consult w/partners before drone strikes.
Drone strikes are “not to punish individuals”. Done as last resort.
On civilian casualties, yes we have killed civilians–a risk that exists in every war.
Whenever we can we capture terrorists, but we have to weigh the heartbreaking losses of civilians against the worse consequences of doing nothing.
Terrorists target civilians and kill many more than drone strikes do.
Drones are more accurate than planes and bombs, which cause people in these countries to see us as “occupying army.”
ROFLOL. That’s what we are isn’t it?
Yeah, right?
It’s not a bad speech but it kinda reminds me of Hillary’s AUMF speech.
Haven’t yet heard the words “human rights”
Drone rights
No, but he’s said “civil liberties.”
I caught that BB……we’ll need transcript……….I kinda got lost at the end on Gitmo…………wonder if he said he would transfer them to Gitmo North, Illinois?
“We must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’—but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts.”
Says civilian casualities have resulted from drone strikes, just as they do in conventional warfare. But “doing nothing is not an option”. Says even small military operations would result in more civilian casualities than drone strikes and could provoke war.
The risks of military action in foreign lands does risk creating more enemies.
Now he’s talking about the dangers of presidential power used in this way. He has insisted on strong oversight from Congress.
Congress briefed on every strike including targeting Anwar Al Awlaki. He doesn’t say anything about minor son.
Strong oversight of all lethal action?????
I feel The Decider is talking in circles here but it could just be my vertigo problem.
Ditto….
Shouldn’t use drones on US soil, but when US citizen goes overseas to plot against US, his citizenship should not serve as shield.
Says Al Awlaki planned plot to blow up airplane over US.
Killing people with drones is the hardest thing I do as President.
Well there you have it… 21st century POTUS and drone are partners…. Reluctant partners, but partners nonetheless
Presidentin’ is hard work.
Where have we heard that before?
LOL yes…we have.
Well of course, congress is briefed on all strikes……………
Yes, our very astute and trusted Congress who as public servants/future lobbyists of America, are such honest brokers and keep us so informed.
well of course
No drone strikes on US soil! Good. It is safe to go to my mailbox.
Well…there could be other risks….
Yep. Tornadoes. Space junk. Stink bugs.
Let’s not go postal…………..
Lol….sob. The drone is still gonna spy on us though.
They don’t need drones for that. They have little planes like the ones circling above Boston since the bombings.
Oh. Right.
I guess I should just eat my soylent 3D and keep quiet….
Yeah Mona, keep quiet or we will pull a soup nazi on you…but it will be a:
No Soylent 3-D for you!
Maybe we should establish a special court, but that would raise questions…
Independent oversight in exec branch…another layer of bureaucracy.
Looks forward to discussing options w/Congress. Well that’s the end of that then. Congress never does anything…
Talking about pushing democracy in middle east, strengthen opposition in Syria (which may consist of terrorists….)
We could be helping train security in other countries, building schools and otherwise creating “reservoirs of goodwill.”
Thank you for covering this – I can’t stand to listen to the guy.
Frankly I think doing nothing is a valid option. What we are doing doesn’t help – it has the opposite effect. Pulling our armies the frack out would save more lives than killing suspects and anyone standing too close to them with drones.
We are creating generations of enemies who will always hate us for as long as we exist on this earth. Maybe that’s the goal. Feeds the MIC.
I am implementing every recommendation of those who investigated failings of Benghazi. Of course Congress will have to fund the extra security….
The problem is he can’t have military at those consulates, that’s a call for the other country, not the USA. In other words we can’t put foreign troops – willy nilly anywhere we want in other countries.
We can’t ignore terrorism within our borders.
Like peace marchers, environmental activists, Occupy….
Lol…
cost benefit anaylsis on “foreign charity” and it’s impact and our dislike of funds going out to other countries for training, education. etc.
Now he’s talking about domestic terrorism/terrorism from within.
Good!!!! Finally.
If we give countries enough foreign aid, they will forgive us our drone strikes.
Good translation.
That’s the read between the lines for sure
Yup, beholding.
Brilliant Beata.
We need to work with the Muslim community.
If he wants to do that, he’ll have to get the FBI to stop trying to recruit them as informants and entrapping their young men into fake terrorist plots.
And shooting them dead during questioning.
Privacy and civil liberties board?
Talking about his prosecution of whistleblowers.
A free press is essential. Journalists should not be at legal risk…
Media shield law…
The one he’s proposing reportedly puts the press more at risk than now.
Talking about the AUMF. Can we fight terrorism without keeping US on perpetual wartime footing?
“This war, like all wars, must end.” That brings him to detention of suspects.
Guantanamo is a symbol for an American that flouts the rule of law.
Holy crap, over million per prisoner at Gitmo, and couple more on top to keep the prison open.
No person has ever escaped Super Max prison here……………right, lockdown 23/7………………..my words.
Hmm. I need to read Hillary’s memos on Gitmo and go back to the transcript of his Gitmo comments (here in this speech) and compare.
And who is protesting with questions in the audience????
Some one heckling. It seems to be one woman. Applause–I don’t know if that’s from audience or demonstrators.
Is anyone watching on TV? C-Span just has the one camera
I was confused too, who are they applauding
Yes ma’am……………..you can speak, but you listen too.
Lol. He really just said that… And to resounding applause. I guess that answers the question. They’re applauding Obama
The applause seems to be from audience.
A woman is shouting something at Obama ( about Gitmo? ). I can’t hear what she’s saying. Seems she is not being dragged away by security.
Obama says he is willing to cut the “young woman” who was shouting “some slack” because it is okay to be passionate about the issue.
She is still shouting. I’m surprised she is being allowed to stay.
Me too!
Obama: “The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to.” “These are tough issues.” Can’t “gloss over them”.
Even tho he didn’t agree with her, and she didn’t agree with him.
How will we deal with Gitmo detainees who we know are guilty but the evidence isn’t there.
Doesn’t our system say they go free then?
The lady is from the audience, and want Gitmo closed today……………..so do we, close it NOW.
Force feeding detainees on hunger strike…………………the young lady is right, it is something to be passionate about…………………
“I’m willing to cut the young lady some slack.”
“Is this the American we want to leave our children?” We have shown we can prosecute terrorists in courts of law.
She’s shouting again….
And she’s really emotional.
They really should take her out. She’s out of control.
“I’m going off script.”
The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to. Obviously I do not agree and she obviously wasn’t listening to me. These are tough issues that we can’t gloss over.
We face dangers far greater than al Qaeda. We have overcome slavery, fascism, etc. natural disasters…
Tell me again how really resilient we are.
What????? It’s over???
It took an hour. That’s pretty long for a speech these days.
It was long. I guess the conclusion just felt abrupt to me. Or nothing really resolved
You were expecting something to be resolved by Obama? Lol.
Lol. My bad.
Did anybody just hear the tinfoil hAt caller on Cspan saying the drones are spraying evil chemicals on us….
The Time article in my post indicated that he wouldn’t be proposing any big policy changes. That’s why I said I hope it’s not “just words.” He seems to be pushing it off on Congress, and he doesn’t need Congress to start closing Gitmo.
Yeah, I realize it wasn’t going to be any major policy changes, but the way he kept going back and forth like a pendulum…he didn’t really end with a takeaway, but then again he was interrupted by the heckler.
You’re right, we just need to see if he follows through on any of the stuff he says.
Hey, a drone stole my ovaries!
LMAO
Beata you are suppose to still love them, even if they stole your ovaries. Bet they are making soup with them……….hee hee.
I guess that was Medea Benjamin and she was asking about the 16-year-old boy who was killed. Which Obama didn’t address.
Here’s the transcript of the speech.
Thanks for the link!
Thanks, BB, for the link and the live blog. Good job!
You’re welcome! Thank you!
Yeah this was great, I appreciate what you did here!
Thanks everyone for helping. I thought we should take note this particular speech. We need to follow up and see whether he actually tries to push any of this stuff.
Great work BB! And great comments everyone Couldn’t have gotten through it without you 🙂
yup
Good Job BB………………
Oh, was that lady a code pink or what?
I imagine we will soon find out who she is. I am still surprised she was allowed to speak for as long as she did. Usually hecklers are quickly taken away. Wonder if she was an Obama plant to make it appear he is willing to listen to opposing viewpoints? ( That is my tinfoil hat theory. Now I need to go search for my ovaries. BBL. Maybe. )
I wondered for a moment there too, Beata…
Actually, she was Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink.
Yeah, that’s what Bb said–and that she was asking about the 16 year old boy who was killed.
Just back from dentist with a clean bill of dental health. Thanks to BB and everyone for the blog and comments which kept me in the loop. 🙂
Congrats 🙂
Glad your teeth are OK, Ralph!
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/live-analysis-of-obamas-speech-on-drone-policy/
Mazzetti is the guy who wrote “The Way of the Knife” — about the CIA black ops and secret prisons.
Have you read it Bb? Sorry if you posted on it and I missed it.
No, I decided to read Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill instead. But I’ve only read a couple of chapters because I ended up reading The Terror Factory first–about the FBI’s sting operations first.
I should download it to my kindle.
Dirty Wars is less than $10.00.
Chickenhaws Scum Saxby Chambliss: GOP Sen: Obama’s Counterterrorism Speech A Victory For Terrorists
That douchenozzle has a lot of nerve.
They need a new script…yawn
McCain was outraged that Obama said al Qaeda is on the run. I heard it on NPR while I was out getting allergy meds.
I turned Cspan off when McCain started…figures.
McCain may run out of new countries to bomb and people he wants others to kill for him someday, but it won’t be too soon
What does he care, he is leaving…but even if he wasn’t he still would be an asshole and probably say the same shit anyway.
Charles Pierce: The President’s Tightrope Walk
Charles liked his speech and this Obama quote is a winner.
Yeah, I liked that too, but Republicans won’t.
I think they’re trying to expand it and make it permanent in Congress now. A veto of that would be precious.
Oprecious, even. 😉
I’ll believe it when it happens. (And give credit where due– That would be great to veto. )
I’m confused. I thought in her outgoing memos Hillary outlined steps for him to shut down Gitmo .without Congress.. .and this speech sounded like he was still passing the buck to Congress. I guess I just need to re-read the transcript.
I’m just wondering how you end a war on a noun. That’s unprecedented.
Maybe if we end the war on the other noun (drugs), that would help? 😉
Hey, I put up a new post. There have been a bunch of changes to the tale of the FBI shooting in Orlando yesterday.
@Mona: and this speech sounded like he was still passing the buck to Congress.
Yup, totally agree…
Wow, thanks everyone for the commentary.
So now Obama wants to undo or roll back the AUMF. Funny, when in Congress he kept voting for everything connected with it. And he thinks it’s perfectly legal to kill American citizens abroad because they’re guilty without trial. Well, that’s transparent.
Yes, guilty without trial…you are spot on there.