Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Three of Four New York Synagogue Terrorists Appear in Court; President Obama Speaks on Matters of National Security
Aired May 21, 2009 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: We're following a number of stories for you today here on CNN.
An autopsy is being performed this morning on an unidentified body found in the Des Plaines River near Chicago. You can see the activity around where the body was found. The discovery sparks speculation that the body may help close one of the two high profile missing person's cases. They are one of them, you may remember, is Stacy Peterson. She's Drew Peterson's fourth wife. He's doing court today to answer charges that he killed his third wife.
A man who got a partial face transplant is meeting the media this morning. It took doctors at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston about 17 hours to complete the complex surgery last month. It is the second face transplant done here in the U.S. He got a new nose. He got an upper lip, as well, and muscles to control the face.
Very interesting.
The Space Shuttle Atlantis is still in space this hour. But the astronauts on board will be appearing on Capitol Hill today. They are testifying from space in congressional hearings on NASA's 2010 budget. Atlantis is scheduled to land, Friday, if the weather cooperates. We hope it does.
The fight against terror is front and center for us this morning. In just minutes, we're going to see two influential speeches on the subject from differing points of view here. The first, by President Barack Obama. The second by former Vice President Dick Cheney. That's coming up a little bit later on this hour. There may be a special message in there for Congress. Both the House and Senate have dealt a major blow to the president's plan to close Guantanamo Bay.
And in New York, four men are under arrest accused of preparing to bomb a pair of synagogues. Three of them are appearing in court this morning.
Our correspondents are covering it all for you from all angles this morning. Taking you inside these top stories as they develop from upstate New York to Capitol Hill to the White House.
Why don't we begin in New York, though? That's where three of the suspects in the alleged bomb plot are appearing in court. Our Susan Candiotti has been following this story from the very beginning. She joins us now from White Plains, New York.
Susan, give us the latest from the courtroom.
SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Don.
Well, the court hearing is expected to begin later this morning. But for now, police are saying that the bombs that those people were planning to use were, in fact, fake. The FBI had made them up to look like the real thing. But authorities say the plot they were planning was not phony.
The four men, three are U.S. citizens, and the fourth one is from Haiti. Court papers say that an FBI informant who himself was on probation on a criminal fraud charge brought in the suspected ring leader and that the alleged terror plot was in the works for at least a year. The targets, two Jewish synagogues in the Riverdale section of the Bronx, and they were also planning to use a stinger missile, allegedly, against some air national guard planes in upstate New York.
Now, the FBI pulled the plug on this plot last night as the four suspects were allegedly planting the bombs in front of a couple of synagogues. There were three bombs in all weighing 37 pounds each. In fact, one of the synagogues also housed a day care center.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARIT BACHRACH, GEN. MIRIAM CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER: Unfortunately, we're not new to this. We were located at the Hebrew Institute. And so 9/11, we were there, as well. And we found ourselves to be quite prepared and ready to act very quickly. And so this is just another incident that thank god was foiled and ended up being a good ending.
SHOSHANA GREEN, PARENT: There are children everywhere here. It's very nice -- it's a nice community, schools right across the street, there are kids all over the place here. Just shows you how careful we need to be and we're not safe anywhere.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CANDIOTTI: The four defendants are charged with two conspiracy counts. And if found guilty, they could face life in prison. Three of the four will be in court this day. The fourth one who is the Haitian immigrant, he is being treated for some kind of an unknown illness. And the FBI says as soon as he is ready and is feeling better, he also will be appearing before a judge. Back to you, Don.
LEMON: Susan Candiotti. Thank you, Susan.
Dealing with terror suspects, how to keep them locked up, how to keep the public safe. Lawmakers are demanding answers. And yesterday the Senate rejected President Obama's efforts to close a prison at Guantanamo Bay.
Our Dana Bash is no Capitol Hill and she joins us now.
Dana, what did democrats want to hear today? DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What they want to hear is a plan, and as many details as the president can possibly give them on exactly what he plans to do once Guantanamo Bay is closed, where he intends to send those terror suspects, and how he intends for them to be tried. Now, we do understand that he is going to give general principles that some could be taken to federal prison, some could be tried in military tribunals, some could be sent back to the country of origin. But that's not going to be enough, Don.
Let's leave it right there. I've talked to several democrats today, many, many democrats yesterday who say, look, we need a plan from the White House. And there was intense frustration, intense frustration. Even at the highest level of the democratic leadership here on Capitol Hill that the president has made this announcement, made it such a high priority for him, such a priority that he announced on day two of his administration that he was going to close Guantanamo Bay, asked Congress for money for it and didn't give a plan.
Because that allowed republicans to really stir this up, to really press that it's not in my backyard argument. And it's working. Talk to any democrat here and they will tell you, it's working. And that's why before they do anything, they want to hear a plan from the president. But not a lot of people here are confident that they're going to hear enough specifics in the speech today.
LEMON: And Dana, speaking of frustration, democrats being frustrated but republicans because a lot of them are saying they're not sure who speaks for them. So what are republicans saying on Capitol Hill about Dick Cheney being so front and center? Does he speak for the republican party and for the folks up on Capitol Hill?
BASH: Well, look, I mean, let's face it. For the past several weeks Dick Cheney has been speaking for the republican party on national security because he is taking up a lot of oxygen. You know, somebody who covered Dick Cheney in the White House and it was very hard to get an interview with him. It's kind of, you know, bizarre to see how he is out there on almost a daily basis and giving the kind of speech he's giving today which is a, they're taking very seriously as a major policy address.
Given the fact that as republicans have been so successful politically on this Guantanamo issue, I think right now, at this point in time they actually welcome this kind of speech from Dick Cheney.
LEMON: All right. Thank you very much for that. Dana Bash from Capitol Hill.
We're going to give you a quick look now at Gitmo, the terror prison. Right now there are 240 detainees. They represent 30 countries and languages, their ages, 22 to 61. More than 520 detainees have been transferred are released. The Department of Defense claims that 61 of the freed detainees have returned to terrorist activities. The estimated annual cost of operating Guantanamo $60 million. It is a political spectacle that is both remarkable and certainly revealing. A sitting president talks about national security and a former vice president then grabs the spotlight to say that he is wrong. Joining us with a closer look, our senior political correspondent Candy Crowley.
Candy, it's certainly very interesting. We've got, you know, the terror thing going on in New York today and we have the president giving a speech and then we have Dick Cheney following up. It's certainly a very interesting thing that's happening here. CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: A confluence of events. Now, the Cheney people do want you to know that he has scheduled this speech long before President Obama at least went public with his decision to go ahead and give a speech on the very same topics.
But boy, if you want to be able to make up your mind to look at these issues side by side, today is definitely the day to do it and if you want to know what the stakes are, of course, you've got the trial going on in New York. So it does sort of all come together. And really, present the argument for what has been the premiere issue of our time, which has been how to fight the war on terror, which, of course, the Obama administration no longer calls it that.
LEMON: Candy, the democrats certainly are helping the president make his point by voting down a closure of Guantanamo Bay. So he's got his work doubly cut out for him today.
CROWLEY: Oh, he absolutely does. And I agree with Dana that it looks as though if he is going to give the generalities, well some will go to the U.S., and some will go overseas, and we'll try some. It's not going to work. Because what democrats found when the republicans began to push this issue, is that they have people in their home districts saying, well, we really don't want to put a terrorist in a prison here. They knew it was a losing issue with why they went ahead and said what we need is a plan before we're going to give you this money, Mr. President. They're going to need at the White House more of a plan. And I will tell you that when it comes to Dick Cheney and his speech today, he's going to defend the Guantanamo prison and say it should stay open as many on Capitol Hill have also suggested.
LEMON: And when you see what the Senate did and what the house did just last week by voting down the closure of Guantanamo Bay. It makes you wonder if, you know, it all sounded too, you know, closing of Guantanamo Bay sounded good in the beginning, but maybe the president is having some second thoughts about it. Or at least thinking twice about the promise that he made to close Guantanamo Bay.
CROWLEY: Well, so far the White House says he fully intends to close the prison there by January. Obviously, the details of it really is very much the same as with the Bush administration ran into, which is where do you put these detainees? Because there have been very few countries willing to take back even those detainees who come from those countries. We have not been able to get allies to take any of them in their prisons. So it is - it is just really a logistical problem and a legal problem, and those are always far more complicated.
And the president at this point is being pushed both from the left and from the right. From his conservative democrats who say do not bring these detainees to the U.S. and put them in U.S. prisons and from the left saying you better shut down that prison, you said you would. So he really has been stuck and I think this was the first time we've really seen the administration back on its heels on an issue. And that's been Guantanamo Bay.
LEMON: Yes. As you said, a confluence of events and we're going to be front row seat to them. Candy Crowley, thank you very much. We really appreciate it. Candy and I were talking a lot about Dick Cheney and all of us here on CNN. So here's the thing, most Americans still don't like him. But they like him a little more now compared to when he and President Bush left office.
Now according to the latest in an opinion research corporation poll, the former vice president now has a favorable rating of 37 percent. That is compared to 29 percent just back in January. Former President Bush fared just a little bit better. He has a favorable rating of 41 percent compared to 35 back in January.
Make sure you stay with us because we'll have live coverage of Dick Cheney's speech following the president's remarks. The former vice president, Dick Cheney is due to speak at 10:45 Eastern, 10:45 Eastern, in just a few minutes.
Now let's turn to the president's speech. It's set to get started momentarily. Now you see her on the lawn of the White House. CNN's Jill Dougherty. Jill, why is President Obama making this speech today? Why is it so important to him?
JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Don, essentially he had to make this speech. You know, it was reaching critical mass. Because you had not only the republicans, but you also had the democrats criticizing and asking a lot of questions about how are you planning on shutting down Guantanamo? And as we've been reporting, they wouldn't come up with the money and they didn't want the transfer of anyone until they got some details.
So in this speech, you're going to hear some of that. We're not sure that you will hear great specificity. But it should move the argument a little bit farther down the road on how they should deal with these people. And then backing up, Don, you know, setting the scene. He is doing this at the National Archives, in the rotunda for the charters of freedom. And those are the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.
And so you're going to see if there's kind of a skeleton to this speech. It's really that you can, the president would argue, fight terrorism, but at the same time adhere to U.S. values. And so you're going to hear that argument that he is saying in essence we were left a legal mess by the Bush administration, which the president would say essentially didn't build any type of long lasting legal structure to deal with this.
So he is coming in, he is trying to provide that structure. And so you're going to get some specifics, but also this kind of overarching idea. Now, when he says that the Bush administration didn't have that legal structure, that is something that we understand former Vice President Cheney is going to take issue with. He says they actually did and that it kept the U.S.A. for eight years.
LEMON: Hey, Jill, we're up against the break and we're watching the room where the president at the National Archives. I want to ask you this, though, when you see what's happening in New York today with the terror suspects. Does this help Dick Cheney? Does it hurt the president? Help or hurt any one of these people, leaders today who are speaking about terror?
DOUGHERTY: Well, I think that it brings it back home. The fact that he is being tried in the United States, in a city. This is - it's a very complex legal argument, but the emotional impact of seeing an alleged terrorist in the United States, in a court is very strong. And the argument by the critics is, watch out because these people could be in your neighborhood.
That's very emotional and it's very frightening to some people. So although the president has to deliver this legal argument, he also has to reassure Americans that they're doing this properly and that it won't be a threat to average Americans at home.
LEMON: Jill, I think you said it best. It certainly does bring it home today when it's happening right here. Thank you so much. We appreciate that. And as we said, at any moment now, we expect to hear from the president, President Obama. We'll take your speech live as soon as it gets underway. As soon as it gets underway and then following that one, of course, we'll have the former vice president's speech.
So we are about to hear, you know, both of these speeches. You see the live picture there right under me. What do you want to know from them? We want to know from you what should happen to terrorism suspects at Gitmo? Should they stay here? What do you want? Go to cnn.com/newsroom. And then I want to tell you that Tony Harris is going to share some of your comments on the air in the next two hours of the CNN NEWSROOM following this hour. Again, you can find us at cnn.com/newsroom and just click on Tony's name for all of the information there. Get your comments on the air with Tony. We're back in a moment live with the president.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: All right. Welcome back to CNN.
You see that little box there right below me. That's live from the National Archives. The president expected to speak at any moment. He's going to talk about Guantanamo Bay and obviously mention the situation that's happening in New York this morning with the terror suspects being arrested there and that plot being foiled. We're going to go to the National Archives, to that speech, just as soon as it happens. And also want to tell you that the former vice president right after the president will talk about terror. Essentially get his rebuttal to the president's speech just moments away.
In the meantime, I want to tell you, though, that a brutal police beating has been caught on tape. Five Birmingham, Alabama, police officers fired. It all started after 50-mile high-speed police chase more than a year ago.
Look at this.
Did you see the person fly out of that car? It's right under that little live box.
With the person falls of the car, you see them on the ground there. There it is and police go on top of him.
The dash cam video captured the whole thing. It was just released publicly and shows a drug suspect's car, it flipped over as he was ejected as you see there. As he lay unconscious, the officers hit him with their fists, their feet, and then a billy club.
The mayor is outraged by this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR LARRY LANGFORD, BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA: Exemplary police work was done up until the last 11 seconds. And it is that 11 seconds that we will not tolerate in this city. And you guys got to understand something, we lived it, we still got major league issues in this city. But we have come so far that police brutality and police misconduct will not be tolerated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Birmingham mayor Larry Langford. An internal investigation is underway. The five officers could face criminal charges.
Here's another disturbing attack caught on surveillance tape. A wheelchair-bound man robbed and beaten. You've got to see this video. Police say this disabled man, look at that, was entering a parking lot when he was attacked. Police say that the thief also wrestled the man's chain from his neck before fleeing the scene. The man sustained minor injuries, no word on any arrests in that case. Nice guys, huh?
Let's move on now, and talk about other things that are hopefully a little nicer. Memorial Day, the unofficial start to summer right around the corner. And would you believe there's still snow in Washington state? Yes, I would believe it because the pictures show it. This is Chinook pass. I wonder if Rob Marciano has been there. It's about the only way to get through there on skis. Avalanche prevention crews are trying to clear the pass by setting off more controlled blasts. Wow, look at that. Our Rob Marciano, big skier, I know you are, because we talked about it. Have you ever been there?
ROB MARCIANO, CNN, METEOROLOGIST: I've never been to Chinook Pass.
LEMON: Pass.
MARCIANO: I've never been to Chinook Pass but they do avalanche control almost right through Memorial day. Not only there, but Snoqualmie pass and all of the passes that go through the Cascades and Oregon, as well. So they get a ton of snow, as you know, Don.
LEMON: Yes.
MARCIANO: You know, the U.S. ski team trains on Mt. Hood which is in the cascades, right through the summer time. So they get it for sure. And you're seeing some of that control issue work right now. All right, we're getting into the rainy season across Florida. Hurricane season just around the corner. As a matter of fact, in a matter of minutes, the National Hurricane Center will be issuing their seasonal forecast for the upcoming season. We'll give that to you as soon as we get it.
Right now, we got an area of low pressure right about there, and it's just kind of spinning moisture into Florida, especially North Florida. Boy, they have just been getting, pounded with wind, with rain and with waves as well. Some of the winds coming into Cape Canaveral easterly at about 30 miles an hour. There is concern about whether or not they can land the space shuttle tomorrow with the storm still festering.
And big winds across parts of Key West last night with winds gusting 40 to 50 miles an hour. We're going to still see that. It will calm down a little bit today, I think more so tomorrow. Still beach erosion going to be a big problem, additional rainfall two to four inches, coastal flooding, of course, and the high risk of rip currents, as well. I want to show you a couple of things. If you can work this for us. This is the drought monitor which shows extreme drought across - is this yet - is this the updated one? This is this week's.
This has improved dramatically. This is for rainfall up until Tuesday. Once we get the next one in next week, I think that we'll see even more marked improvement across parts of Florida. So that's good news for them although the southern half of the state not seeing nearly as much rain as the northern half of the state.
Because I know you got a big weekend coming up, Don. Forecast for Memorial Day, look at the red, white, and blue we put on the map here. Taylor Ward -
LEMON: That's how it looks when you're flying over it. I mean, you've seen it, right?
MARCIANO: On the fourth of July it looks like that. I'm not sure about Memorial Day. We'll get a confirmation that.
LEMON: Yes.
MARCIANO: Looks pretty good.
LEMON: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Rob Marciano.
Hey look, we're waiting for the president, live pictures now, you see the National Archives, and he's going to give a speech on terrorism here in the United States and it's very interesting the timing in all this week got four suspected terrorists under arrest this morning in court right now in New York, and then the vice president, former vice president of the United States Dick Cheney giving a speech, as well, right after the president. Both live right here on CNN moments away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: All right. We're following live coverage of the president's speech just moments away here on CNN. He's going to give a speech about terrorism. And we're watching, this is going to happen at the National Archives. As a matter of fact, it is in the rotunda for the charters of freedom at the National Archives Building.
The president is going to talk about terrorism on the same day that we have a thwarted plot in New York, and four terrorist suspects in court. Just by coincidence, the vice president's going to give a speech following the president. It has been billed as dueling speeches. And seems like the republican rebuttal to the speech on terrorism.
Coming up just moments away, you're not going to miss any of it at CNN. We're going to continue to follow the rest of the news of the day as we await this live event. And let's talk about some very interesting information.
We have been talking a lot about grads because it's graduation season and college students, boy, oh, boy. And now is the time for the class of 2009 to look for jobs. But hold on, parents and grads. You also may want to look for health insurance, as well. That is very important as the next person sitting next to me will attest. Our medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen joins us now with this week's "Empowered Patient." Health insurance, always important.
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Health insurance - it is always important. I tell you, I kind of feel badly for the class of 2009. Well first I want to say congratulations. I mean, say congratulations you graduated.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: You have some good news, bad news and then some good news..
COHEN: Exactly.
But you've got to find a job now.
LEMON: Right.
COHEN: And hopefully you can find a job with health insurance. But you know what? A lot of college grads aren't able to do this. Let's look at some statistics from recent years before things got as bad as they are now. Even in recent years, 34 percent of college graduates do not have insurance at some point in the year after graduation. So that is a lot of uninsured people. So there's certain things you need to do in order to try to get health insurance after you graduate.
For example, you need to know your rights. Now, the reason for that is that in some states, insurance companies have to insure you, keep your on your parents' policy after you graduate. But you need to know if you're in one of those states. Secondly, consider COBRA. I know, I know, COBRA is very expensive but if you're the only one going on COBRA and you're a healthy 21-year-old, it might not be that expensive. Your parents aren't going on COBRA, just you. Also shop around for some policies. We have some examples of policies in our article that really aren't all that expensive. At e- healthinsurance.com folks really helps us with this. So take a look, cnnhealth.com.
LEMON: All right. Elizabeth, thank you very much.
We want to get you back right now live to Washington, D.C.. We're going to get you to the National Archives where the president is about to give a speech on terrorism. The president at the podium now.
Let's listen in.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Please be seated.
Thank you all for being here. Let me just acknowledge the presence of some of my outstanding Cabinet members and advisers. We've got our secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. We have our CIA director, Leon Panetta. We have our secretary of defense, William Gates. Secretary Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security, Attorney General Eric Holder; my national security adviser, Jim Jones; and I want to especially thank our acting archivist of the United States, Adrian (ph) Thomas.
I also want to acknowledge several members of the House who have great interest in intelligence matters. I want to thank Congressman Reyes, Congressman Hoekstra, Congressman King, as well as Congressman Thompson for being here today. Thank you so much.
These are extraordinary times for our country. We're confronting a historic economic crisis. We're fighting two wars. We face a range of challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st century. So there's no shortage of work to be done or responsibilities to bear.
And we've begun to make progress. Just this week, we've taken steps to protect American consumers and homeowners and to reform our system of government contracting so that we better protect our people while spending our money more wisely.
(APPLAUSE)
It's a good bill.
(LAUGHTER)
The engines of our economy are slowing beginning to turn, and we're working towards historic reform on health care and on energy. I want to say to the members of Congress I welcome all the extraordinary work that has been done over these last four months on these and other issues.
In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe. It's the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It's the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.
And this responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our people and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do us great harm.
We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.
Already, we've taken several steps to achieve that goal. For the first time since 2002, we're providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We're investing in the 21st century military intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy.
We have reenergized a global nonproliferation regime to deny the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons. And we've launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years.
We're better protecting our border and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We're building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we, once again, have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.
Now, these steps are all critical to keeping America secure, but I believe with every fiber of my being that, in the long run, we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fund mental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. These are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world.
I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to these shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn their truths when I lived as a child in a foreign land.
My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words: To form a more perfect union. I've studied the Constitution as a student. I've taught it as a teacher. I've been bound by it as a lawyer and a legislator.
I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as commander-in-chief. And as a citizen, I know that we must never, ever turn our back on its enduring principles for expedient's sake. I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right but because it strengthens our country and it keeps us safe.
Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset in war and peace, in time of ease and in eras of upheaval. Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world. It's the reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle knowing they'd receive better treatment from America's armed forces than from their own government.
It's the reason why America has benefited from strong alliances that amplified our power and drawn a sharp moral contrast with our adversaries. It's the reason why we've been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism and outlast the Iron Curtain of communism and enlist free nations and free peoples everywhere in the common cause and common effort of liberty.
From Europe to the Pacific, we've been the nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law. That is who we are. And where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and our institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology.
After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era, that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application the law, that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who tried to carry them out.
Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight.
All too often, our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and power principles, too often, we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us, Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens fell silent. In other words, we went off course. This is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people who nominated candidates for president from both major parties to, despite our many differences, called for a new approach, one that rejected torture, and one that recognized the imperative the closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
Now, let me be clear. We are, indeed, at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process, in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable; a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions and that failed to use our values as a compass.
And that's why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people. First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I know some have argued that brutal methods like waterboarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. It's commander-in-chief, I see the intelligence. I bear the responsibility for keeping this country safe. And I categorically reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation.
(APPLAUSE)
What's more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists and increase the will of our enemies to fight us while decreasing the will of others to work with America.
They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts; they undermined them. And that is why I ended them once and for all.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I should add, the arguments against these techniques did not originate from my administration. As Senator McCain once said, torture serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us.
And even under President Bush, there was recognition among members of his own administration, including a secretary of state, other senior officials, and many in the military and in intelligence community that those who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the debate and the wrong side of history.
That's why we must leave these methods where they belong, in the past. They are not who we are, and they are not America.
Now, the second decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.
(APPLAUSE)
For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of military commissions that were in place at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists. Let me repeat that -- three convictions in over seven years.
Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts of prosecution met setback after setback. Cases lingered on. And in 2006, the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system. Meanwhile, over 525 detainees were released from Guantanamo under -- not my administration -- under the previous administration. Let me repeat that. Two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.
There's also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply-held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law, a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected.
Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo, likely, created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained. So the record is clear. Rather than keeping us safer, the president at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It success back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries.
By any measure, the cost of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That's why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year.
The third decision that I made was to order a receive of all pending cases at Guantanamo. I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and complex. There are 240 people there are who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with the situation, we don't have the luxury of starting from scratch. We're cleaning up something that is quite simply a mess, a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my administration is forced to deal with on a constantly, almost daily, basis and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.
Indeed, the legal challenges that have sparked so much debate in recent weeks here in Washington would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo. For example, the court ordered the release of 17 Uighurs -- 17 Uighur detainees took place last fall when George Bush was president.
The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican presidents, not wild-eyed liberals. In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility. The problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, let me be blunt. There are no neat or easy answers here. I wish there were. But I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo.
As president, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. I refuse to pass it on to somebody else. It is my responsibility to solve the problem. Our security interests will not permit us to delay. Our courts won't allow it and neither should our conscience.
Now, over the last several weeks, we've seen a return of politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years. I'm an elected official. I understand these problems arouse passions and concerns. They should. We're confronting some of the most complicated questions that a democracy can face.
But I have no interest in spending all of our time relitigating the policies of the last eight years. I'll leave that to others. I want to solve these problems. And I want to solve them together as Americans. And we will be ill served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue.
Listening to the recent debate, I've heard words that, frankly are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country. So I want to take this opportunity to lay out what we are doing and how we intend to resolve these outstanding issues. I will explain how each action that we are taking will help build a framework that protects both the American people and the values that we hold most dear.
And I'll focus on two broad areas. First, issues relating to Guantanamo and our detention policy, but second, I also want to discuss issues relating to security and transparency.
Now, let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can. We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders; namely, highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety.
As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact. Nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal super-max prisons which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said, the idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the states is not rational.
We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for doing with them. And as we do so, we are acutely aware that, under the last administration, detainees were released and, in some cases, returned to the battle field. That's why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that led those detainees go in the past.
Instead, we are treating these case with the care and attention that the law requires and that our security demands.
Now, going forward, these cases will fall into five distinct categories. First, whenever feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts. Courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong.
Our courts and our juries, our citizens, are tough enough to convict terrorists. The record make that clean. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center. He was convicted in our courts and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prisons.
Zacarius Moussaoui has been identified as the twentieth 9/11 hijacker. He was convicted in our courts, and he, too, is serving a life sentence in prison.
If we try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo. Recently, we prosecuted and received a guilty plea from a detainee, Al Mari, in federal court after years of legal confusion. We're preparing to transfer another detainee to the Southern District Court of New York where he will face trial to charges related to the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, bombings that killed over 200 people.
Preventing this detainee from coming to our shores would prevent his trial and conviction. And after over a decade, it is time to finally see that justice is served.
(APPLAUSE)
And that is what we intend to do.
(APPLAUSE)
The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are, therefore, best tried through military commissions. Now, military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence gathering. They allow for the safety and security of participants and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battle field that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts.
Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They should look at the record. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework with the kind of meaningful due process, rights, for the accuses that could stand up on appeal.
I said at that time, however, that I supported the use of military commissions to try detainees provided there were several reforms. And in fact, there was some bipartisan efforts to achieve those reforms. Those are the reforms that we are now making.
Instead of using the flawed commissions of the last seven years, my administration is bringing our commissions in line with the rule of law. We will no longer permit the use of evidence -- as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel and more protections if they refuse to testify.
These reforms, among others, will make our military commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice. And I will work with Congress and members of both parties as well as legal authorities across the political spectrum on legislation to ensure that these commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.
The third category of detainees includes those who have been ordered released by the courts. Now, let me repeat what I said earlier. This has nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with the rule of law. The courts have spoken. They have found that there is no legitimate reason to hold 21 of the people currently held at Guantanamo.
Nineteen of these findings took place before I was sworn into office. I cannot ignore these rulings because, as president, I, too, am bound by the law. The United States is a nation of laws, and so we must abide by these rulings.
The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved 50 detainees for transfer. And my administration is in ongoing discussions with a number of other countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for detention and rehabilitation.
Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here. This is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases, because evidence may be tainted, but who, nonetheless, pose a threat to the security of the United States.
Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps or commanded Taliban troops in battle or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States. Let me repeat, I am not going release individuals who endanger the American people.
Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture, like other prisoners of war, must prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. And that's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law.
We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must be fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.
I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges and other countries have grappled with this question. Now, so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework.
In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine in that United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime, that our efforts are consistent with all values and our Constitution.
Now, as our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These are issues that are fodder for 30-second commercials. You can almost picture the direct mail pieces that emerge from many who vote on this issue designed to frighten the population. I get it.
But if we continue it make decisions within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. And if he refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future. I have confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what is right to protect this country than in political posturing. I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. So did each and every member of Congress. And together, we have a responsibility to enlist our values in the effort to secure our people and to leave behind the legacy that makes it easier for future presidents to keep this country safe.
Now let me touch on a second set of issues that relate to security and transparency. National security requires a delicate balance. On the one hand, our democracy depends on transparency. On the other hand, some information must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security. For instance, the movement of our troops, our intelligence gathering, or the information we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates.
In these and other cases, lives are at stake. Now, several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous administration's office of legal counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized. And I didn't release the documents because I rejected their legal rationales. Although, I do on both counts.
I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known. The Bush administration had acknowledged its existence. And I had already banned those methods.
The argument that, somehow, by releasing those memos, we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated makes no sense. We will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach. That approach is now prohibited.
In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.
On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individuals who violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated, and they have been held accountable. There was and is no debate as to what is reflected in those photos is wrong.
Nothing's been concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my judgment, informed by my national security team, that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning, and inaccurate brush, thereby endangering them in theaters of war.
In short, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serve in harm's way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as commander-in-chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving in harm 's way.
Now, in the press' mind and in some of the public's mind, these two cases are contradictory. They are not to me. In each of these cases, I had to strike the right balance between transparency and national security. And this balance brings with it a precious responsibility. There's no doubt that the American people have seen this balance tested over the last several years.
In the images from Abu Ghraib and the brutal interrogation techniques made public long before I was president, the American people learned of actions taken in their name that bear no resemblance to the ideals that generations of Americans have fought for. And whether it was the run-up to the Iraq war or the revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt like part of the story had been unnecessarily withheld from them. And that caused suspicion to build up. And that leads to a thirst for accountability.
I understand that. I ran for president promising transparency. And I meant what I said. And that's why, whenever possible, my administration will make all information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued -- and I never will -- that our most sensitive national security matters should simply be an open book.
I will never abandon and will vigorously defend the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war, to protect sources and methods, and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe.
Here's the difference, though. Whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions by Congress or by the courts. We're currently launching a review of current policies by all those agencies responsible for the classification of documents to determine where reforms are possible and to assure that the other branches of government will be in a position to review executive branch decisions on these matters because, in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers especially when it comes to sensitive administration -- information.
Now, along these same lines, my administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the state secrets privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. It's been used by many past presidents, Republican and Democrat, for many decades. And while this principle is absolutely necessary in some circumstances to protect national security, I am concerned that it has been overused. It is also currently the subject of a wide range of lawsuits.
So let me lay out some principles here. We must not protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrassment to the government. And that's why my administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice. We plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the state secrets privilege.
We will not assert the privilege in court without first following our own formal process including review by a Justice Department committee and the personal approval of the attorney general. And each year, we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why because, as I said before, there must be proper oversight over our actions.
Now, all these matters related to disclosure of sensitive information, I wish I could say that there was some simple formula out there to be had. There is not. These often involve tough calls, involve competing concerns, and they require a surgical approach.
But the common thread that runs through all my decisions is simple. We will safeguard what we must to protect the American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system. I will never hide the truth because it's uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know. And when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, in all the areas that I've discussed today, the policies that I propose represent a new direction for the last eight years. To protect the American people and our values, we banned enhanced interrogation techniques. We are closing the prison at Guantanamo. We are reforming military commissions, and we will pursue a new legal regime to detain terrorists.
We are declassifying more information and embracing more oversight of our actions. And we're narrowing our use of the state secrets privilege.
These are dramatic changes that will put our approach to national security on a surer, safer, and more sustainable footing. Their implementation will take time, but they will get done. There's a core principle that we will apply to all of our actions. Even as we clean up the mess at Guantanamo, we will constantly reevaluate our approach, subject our decisions to review from other branches of government as well as the public.
We seek the strongest and most sustainable legal framework for addressing these issues in the long term; not to serve immediate politics, but to do what's right over the long term. By doing that, we can leave behind a legacy that outlasts my administration, my presidency, that endures for the next president and the president after that; a legacy that protects the American people and enjoys broad legitimacy at home and abroad.
Now, this is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes it actions of the last eight years, passions are high. Some Americans are angry. Others want to refight debates that have been settled, in some cases, debates that they have lost.
I know that these debates lead directly, in some cases, to a call for fuller accounting, perhaps, through an independent commission. I have opposed the creation of such a commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of all values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques.
The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws or miscarriages of justice. It's no secret there's a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And it's no secret that our media culture feeds the impulse that leads to a good fight and good copy.
But nothing will contribute more than that than an extended relitigation of the last eight years. Already, we've seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides to laying blame. It can distract us from focusing our time, our efforts, and our politics on the challenges of the future.
We see that, above all, in the recent debate -- how the recent debate has obscured the truth. And since people in the opposite and absolutist sense -- on the one side of the spectrum, there those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism and would almost never put national security over transparency.
And on the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words -- anything goes. Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means and that the president should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants provided it is a president with whom they agree.
Now, both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist. They don't elect U.S. to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values nor sacrifice our values for our security so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty and care and a dose of common sense.
That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That's the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That's what makes the United States of America different as a nation.
I can stand here today as president of the United States and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture and that we will vigorously protect our people while forge a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake. If we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as president.
And if we cannot stand for our core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall.
(APPLAUSE)
The framers -- the framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the challenges that have unfolded over the last 222 years. But our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights, through world war and Cold War because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically. It provides a compass that can help us find our way.
It hasn't always been easy. We are an imperfect people. Every now and then, there are those who think that America's safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building. And we hear such voices today.
But overly long haul, the American people have resists that temptation. Though we've made our share of mistakes, required some course corrections, ultimately, we have held fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength and a beacon to the world.
Now, this generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism. And unlike the Civil War or World War II, we can't count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will the case a year from now, five years from now, and in all probability, ten years from now.
Neither I nor anyone can stand here today and say that there will not be another terrorist attack that takes American lives. But I can say with certainty that my administration, along with our extraordinary troops and the patriotic men and women who defend our national security, will do everything in our power to keep the American people safe.
And I do know with certainty that we can and will defeat al Qaeda because the terrorists can only succeed if they swell their ranks and alienate America from our allies. They will never be able to do that if we stay true to who we are, if we forge tough and durable approaches to fighting terrorism that are anchored in our timeless ideals.
This must be our common purpose. I ran for president because I believed that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together. We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America. It can and must be a cause that you unites us as one people and as one nation.
We've done so before in times that were more perilous than ours. We will do so once again.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: So much there. We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America, closing comment there from the president.
The president wrapping up what was described by his team as a major national security speech. The president addressing the future of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay on the critical question here, what will be done with the detainees. We've got some further guidance from the president to the critical question, what do we do with those detainees who we don't have good prosecutable evidence on who we believe would plot against the country if released.
We are moments away, as you can see from hearing from the former vice president.
