distinguishes this administration's national security efforts. i also want to discuss some of the legal principles that guide and strengthen this work as well as the special role of the department of justice protecting the american people and upholding the constitution. now, before today's level of interagency cooperation was not common place. the government lacked the infrastructure as well as the imperative to share national security information quickly and effectively. domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence operated in largely independent spheres, but those who attacked us on september 11th chose military and civilian target s and it became immediately clear that no single agency could address these threats because no single agency has all of the necessary tools. to counter this enemy aggressively and intelligently, the government had to draw on all of its resources and to

radically update its ase result agencies are better postured to work together to address a range of emerging national rilawyers, analysts at the department of justice work closely with our colleagues across the national security community to detect and to disrupt terrorist plots, to prosecute suspected terrorists and to identify and implement the legal tools necessary pple . unfortunately the fact and the extent of this cooperation are often overlooked in the public debates. but it's something that this administration and the previous one -- and the previous one -- can be proud of. as part of this coordinated effort, the justice department plays a key roll in conducting oversight to ensure that the intelligence community's activities remain in compliance with the law and together with the foreign intelligence

surveillance court in authorizing surveillance to investigate suspected terrorists. we must and we will continue to use intelligence gathering capabilities that congress has provided to collect information that can save and protect american lives. at the same time, these tools must be subject to appropriate checks and oversight by congress and the courts as well as within the executive branch. to protect the privacy and the civil rights of innocent individuals. this administration is committed to making sure that our surveillance programs appropriately reflect all of these interests. let me give you an example. under section 702 of the foreign surveillance act the attorney general and the director of national intelligence may authorize annually with approval of the foreign intelligence surveillance court collection directed at identified categories of foreign intelligence targe oer for each individual subject.

this ensures that the government has the flexibility and the agility that it needs to identify and to respond to terrorists and other foreign threats to our security. but the government may not use this authority intentionally to target a u.s. person here or abroad or anyone -- anyone -- knn the law requires special procedures reviewed approved by the foreign intelligence surveillance court to make sure that these restrictions are followed and to protect the pry vas of any u.s. persons whose nonpublic information may be incidentally acquired through this program. the department of justice and the office of the director of national intelligence conduct really extensive oversight 702 activities at least once every 60 days and we report to congress on implementation and compliance twice a year. this law, therefore, establishes a really comprehensive regime of oversight all three branches

of government. but surveillance is only the first of many complex issues that we must navigate. once a suspected terrorist is captured, a decision must be made as to how to proceed with that individual in order to identify the disposition that best serves the interests of the american people and the security of this nation. now, much has been made of the distinction between our federal civilian courts and revised military commissions. the reality is that both incorporate fundamental due process and other protections that are essential to the effective administration of justice and we should not deprive ourselves of any tool in our fight against al qaeda. our criminal justice system is renowned not only for its fair process, it is respected for its results. we are not the first administration to rely on

federal courts to prosecute terrorists nor will we be the last. although far too many choose to ignore this fact, the previous administration consistently relied on criminal prosecutions in federal court to bring terrorists to justice. john walker lindh, attempted shoe bomber richard reid and 9/11 conspirators, zacarias moussaoui were among the hundreds of defendants convicted of terror-related defenses without political controversy, without political controversy, during the last administration. over the past three years, we have built a remarkable record of success in terror prostitutipros prusion prosecutions. he was sentenced last month to

life in prison without possibility of parole. while in custody he provided significant intelligence in the briefing sessions with the fbi. he described in detail how he became inspired to carry out an act of jihad and how he traveled to yemen and made contact with anwar al awlaki, a u.s. citizen and a leader of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. abdulmutallab detailed the training he received as well as al awlaki's specific instructions to wait until the airplane was over the united states before detonating his bomb. in addition to abdulmutallab, faisal shahzad, the attempted times square bomber, ahmad gilani, a conspirator in the embassy bombings in kenya and tanzania and three individuals who plotted an attack against jfk airport in 2007 have also recently begun serving life sent

sentences, and convictions have been obtained in homegrown extremists as well. daniel boyd pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and conspiracy to murder, kidnap, maim, and injure persons abroad and u.s. citizen and illinois resident michael finten pleaded guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction in connection with his efforts to detonate a truck bomb outside a federal courthouse. i could go on. which is why the calls that i've heard to ban the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity are so baffling. and ultimately they are so dangerous. these calls ignore reality. and if heeded, they would significantly weaken, in fact, they would cripple our ability to incapacitate and to punish those who attempt to do us harm. simply put, since 9/11 hundreds

of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses in article three courts and are federal prison. not one has ever escaped custody. no judicial district has suffered any kind of retaliatory attacks. these are facts. they are not opinions. there are not two sides to this story. those who claim that our federal courts are incapable of handling terrorism cases are not registering a they are simply wrong. but federal courts are not our only option. military commissions are also appropriate in proper circumstances. and we can use them as well to convict terrorists and disrupt their plots. this administration's approach has been to ensure that the military commission system is as rocural e as possible, in part

protections on which the commissions are based. with the president's leadership and the bipartisan backing of congress, the military commission's act of 2009 was enacted into law and since then meaningful improvements have been implemented.'s iortant to reformed commissions draw from the same fundamental protections of a fair trial that underlie our civilian courts. they provide a presumption of innocence and require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. they afford the accused a right to counsel as well as to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. they prohibit the use of statements obtained through torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading red e right to appeal article three judges, all the way to the united states supreme court. in addition, like our federal civilian courts, reformed commissions allow for the protection ofes and intelligence gathering and

for the safety and security of participants. now, a key difference is that in military , evidentiary rules reflect the realities on the battlefield and of conducting investigations in a war zone. for example, statementmissible of miranda warnings because we cannot expect to administer warnings to an enemy capturesbattle. but instead a military judge may make other findings frijs th in instance, that the statement is reliable and made voluntary. the framework and the promise of our military commissions which is why i've sent several cases to the reformed commissions for prosecutions. there is quite simply no inherent contradiction between using military commissions in appropriate cases while still prosecuting other terrorists in civilian courts. without question there are differences between these systems that must be and will continue to be weighed carefully.

such decisions about how to prosecute suspected terrorists are core executive branch functions. in each case prosecutors and counterterrorism professionals across the government conduct an intensive review of case-specific facts designed to determine which avenue of prosecution to pursue. in several practical considerations affect the choice of forum. first of all, the commissions only have jurisdiction to prosecute individuals that are a part of al qaeda, have engaged in hostilities against the united states or its coalition partners or who have purposefully and materially supported such hostilities. this means that the there may be members of certain terrorist groups who outside this jurisdiction. because, for example, they lack ties to al qaeda and the conduct does not otherwise make them subject to prosecution in this forum. additionally by statute military

commissions cannot be used to try u.s. citizens. second, civilian courts cover a much broader offense than the military commissions which can only prosecute certain violations, other offenses traditional allally triable by military commissions. they have a wider range of tools to incapacitate suspectedthe ch that carry with a successful position provide important incentives to reacea agreements and convince defendants to cooperate with federal authorities. there is the issue of international cooperation. a number of countries have indicated that theyl united stas in certain counterterrorism efforts, for instance, in providing evidence or extraditing suspects if we intend to use the cooperation in pursuit of a military commission prosecution. although the use of military commissions in the united states can be traced back to the early

days of our nation, in their present form they are less familiar to the international community than our system and article three courts. however, it is my hope that with time and with experience the commissions will obtain similar respect in the eyes of the world. when cases are selected for prosecutions in military commissions, prosecutors and ve investigators work together to support the prostitutions. the bomber of the "uss cole" is being tried before a military commission. and we'll continue to reject the false idea that we must choose between military commissions and federal courts instead of using them both. if we were to fail to use all necessary and available tools at our disposal, we would

undoubtedly fail in our fundamental duty to protect the nation and its people. that is simply not an outcome that we can accept. this administration has worked in other areas as well to ensure that counterterrorism experts have the flexibility they need to fulfill their critical responsibilities without diverging from our laws and from our values. last week brought the most recent step when the president issued procedures under the national defense authorization act. now, this legislation which congress passed in december mandating that a narrow category of al qaeda terrorist suspects be placed in temporary military custody. last tuesday, the president exercised his authority under the statute to issue procedures to make sure that military custody will not disrupt ongoing law enforcement and intelligence operations. and that an individual will be transferred from civilian to military custody only after a thorough evaluation of his case

based on the considered judgment of the president's senior national security team. as authorized by that statute, the president waived the requirements for several categories of individuals where he found that the waivers were in our national security interests. these procedures implement not only the language of the statute but also the expressed intent of the lead sponsors of this legislation and they address the concern the president expressed when he signed this bill into law at the end of last year. now, i realize i've gone into considerable detail about tools we use to identify suspected terrorists and to bring captured terrorists to justice. it is preferable -- it is preferable -- to capture suspected terrorists where feasible. among other reasons so that we can gather valuable intelligence from them. but we must also recognize that there are instances where our government has the clear authority, and i would argue the

responsibility, to defend the united states with the appropriate and lawful use of lethal force. this principle has long been established under both u.s. and international law. in response to the perpetrated and the continuing threats posed by al qaeda, taliban, and associated forces, congress has authorized the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those groups. because the united states is in an armed conflict, we are authorized to take action against enemy belligerence under international law. the constitution empowers the president to protect the nation from any imminent threat of violent attack, and international law recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. none of this has changed the fact that we are not in a conventional war. our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields of afghanistan.

indeed, neither congress or our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force. the current conflict in afghanistan. we are at war with a stateless enemy. prone to shifting operations from country to country. over the last three years alone al qaeda and its associates have directed several attacks, fortunately unsuccessful, against us from countries other than afghanistan. our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats. now, this does not mean that we can use military force whenever or wherever we want. international legal principles including respect for another nation's sovereignty constrain our ability to act unilaterally. but the use of force in foreign territory would be consistent with these international legal principles if conducted, for example, with the consent of the nation involved or after a

determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with the threat to the united states. furthermore, it is entirely lawful under both united states law and applicable law of war principles to target -- to targ target -- to specific senior operational leaders of al qaeda and associated forces. this is not a novel concept. in fact, during world war ii the united states tapped the plane of the commander of japanese forces on the attack of pearl harbor and the battle of midway and shot it down specifically because he was on board that plane. as i explained to the senate judiciary committee following the operation that killed osama bin laden, the same rules apply today. now, some have called such operations assassinations. they are not. and the use of that loaded term is misplaced.

assassinations are unlawful killings. here for the reasons that i have given, the u.s. government's use of lethal force in self-defense against the leader of al qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful, and therefore would not violate the executive order banning assassinations or criminal statutes. now, it is an unfortunate but undenial fact that some of the threats we face come from a small number of united states citizens who have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad. based on generations-old legal principles and supreme court decisions handed down during world war ii as well as during this current conflict, it's clear that united states citizenship alone does not make -- does not make -- such individuals immune from being targeted. what it does mean is the

government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations with respect to united states citizens, even those who are leading efforts to kill innocent americans. and of these, the americans. of these the most relevant is the fifth amendment's due process clause which say that is the government may not deprive a citizen of his or her life without due process of law. the supreme court has made clear that the due process clause does not impose one size fits all requirement, but instead mandates procedural safeguards that depend on specific circumstances. in cases under a due process law including the case of a u.s. citizen captured in the conflict against al qaeda, the court applied a balancing approach, weighing the private interest that will be effected against the interest the government is trying to protect and the burdens the government would face in providing additional

process. where national security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat. here are the interests on both sides of the scale are extraordinarily weighty. an individual's interest in making sure a that the government does not target him erroneously could not be more significant, yet it is imperative for the government to counter threats posed by senior operational leaders of al qaeda and to protect the innocent people whose lives could be lost in their attacks. any decision to use lethal force against a unit states citizen, even one intnt on murdering americans and who has become an operational leader of al qaeda in a foreign land is among the gravest that government leaders can face. the american people can be and deserve to be assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws. so although i cannot discuss or

confirm any particular program or operation, i believe it is important to explain these legal principles public. now, let me be clear. an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a u.s. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al qaeda or associated forces and who is actively engaged in planning to kill americans would be lawful at least in the following circumstances. first, the u.s. government has determined after a thorough and careful review that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the united states. second, capture is not feasible. and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles. the evaluation of whether an individual presents an imminent threat incorporates considerations of the relevant

window of opportunity to act, the possible harm thatould caus civilians and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the united states. as we learned on 9/11, al qaeda has demonstrated the ability to strike with little our noleers planning attacks against the united states and they do not behave like ary, aring uniforms carrying arms openly or mask forces in preparation for an attack. given these facts, the constitution does not require the president to delay action until some theoretical end stage of planning on the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear. such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk that our efforts would fail and that americans would be killed. whether the capture of a u.s. citizen terrorist is feasible is

a fact-specific and potentially time sensitive question. it may depend, among other things, on whether capture can be accomplished in the window o attack and without undue risk to civilians or u.s. personnel. given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a united states citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack. in that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the united states with lethal force. of course, lethal force by the united states will comply with the four fundamental law of war prpl force. the principle of necessityt hav definite military value. the principle of distinction requires that only lawful targets such as combatants, civilians directly participating in hostilities and military

objectives may be targeted intentionally. under the principle of anticipated collateral damage must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. finally, the principle of humanity requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering. these principles do not forbid the use of stealth or technologically advanced weapons. in fact, the use of advanced weapons may help to ensure that the best intelligence is available for planning and carrying out operations, that the risk of civilian casualties can be minimized or avoided altogether. some have argued ha the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a united states citizen who is a senior operational leader of al qaeda or associated forces. this is simply not accurate.

due process and judicial process are not one in the same, particularly when it comes to national security. the constitution guarantees due process. it does not guarantee judicial process. the conduct and management of national security operations are core functions of the executive branch, as courts have recognized throughout our history. military and civilian officials must often make realtime decisions that balance the need to act, the existence of alternative options, the possibility of collateral damage and other judgments, all of which depend on expertise and immediate access to information that only the executive branch may possession in realtime. the constitution's guarantee of due process is ironclad and it is essential, but as a recent court decision makes clear, it does not require judicial approval before the president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a

foreign terrorist organization with which the united states is at war. even if that individual happens to be a u.s. citizen. now, that is not to say that the executive branch has or should ever have the ability to target any such individuals without robust oversight which is why keeping with the law and our constitutional system of checks and balances the executive branch regularly informs the appropriate members of congress about our counterterrorism activities including the legal framework and would of course follow the same practice where lethal force is used against united states citizens. these circumstances are sufficient under the constitution for the united states to use lethal force against a u.s. citizen abroad. but it is important to note that the legal requirements i have described may not apply in every situation. such as operations that take place on traditional battlefields. the unfortunate reality is that our nation will likely continue

to face terrorist threats that at times originate with our own citizens when such individuals take up arms against this country and join al qaeda in plotting attacks designed to kill their fellow americans, there may be only one realistic and appropriate response. we must take steps to stop them in full accordance w constitution. in this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out, and we will not. this is an indicator of our times, but it is not a departure from our laws and our values. for this administration and for this nation, our values are clear. we must always look to them for answers when we face difficult questions like the ones i have discussed today. as president obama reminded us at the national archives, and i

quote again, our constitution has endured through cessation 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, unquote. our most sacred principles and values of security, justice and liberty for all citizens must continue to unite us, to guide us forward and to help us build a future that honors our founding documents and advances our on going uniquely american pursuit of a safer, more just and more perfect union. in the continuing effort to keep our people secure, this administration will remain true to those values that inspired our nation's founding, and over the course of two centuries have made america an example of strength and a beacon of justice for all