reinventing the war on terror a bomb prepares a major security rebranding taking in the hunger strike hit guantanamo bay and the white house's drone wars the speech itself and reaction coming up this hour here on l.t. . suspects arrested over the machete murder of a twenty five year old soldier in london which was thought to be inspired by radical islam. reporting that smoke police stations and dozens of cars a set ablaze as scripts. fanning out across the swedish capital our top stories this hour.

on screen online international news and comment live from a studio center here in moscow this is. president barack obama is now giving a speech justifying and outlining changes to the national defense policies of the united states the address is being seen as an opening up of america's security policies the white house says a bomber will discuss the legality of drone strikes let's listen to president obama live now here on. our compass through every type of change matters of war and peace are no different americans are deeply ambivalent about war but having fought for our independence we know a price must be paid for freedom from the civil war to our struggle against fascism on through the long twilight struggle of the cold war. battlefields have changed

and technology has evolved but our commitment to constitutional principles as weathered every war and every war has come to an end and with the collapse of the berlin wall a new dawn of democracy took hold abroad and a decade of peace and prosperity arrived here at home and for a moment it seemed the twenty first century would be a two tranquil time and then on september eleventh two thousand and one we were shaken out of complacency thousands were taken from us as clouds of fire and metal and ash descended upon a sun filled morning this was a different kind of war nor armies came to our shores and our military was not the principal target instead a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could and so our

nation went to war we have now been at war for well over a decade i won't review the full history what is clear is that we quickly drove al qaeda out of afghanistan but then shifted our focus and began a new war in iraq and this carried significant consequences for our fight against al qaeda our standing in the world and to this day our interests in the vital region meanwhile we strengthened our defenses hardening targets tightening transportation security giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror most of these changes were sound some cause inconvenience but some like expanded surveillance braze difficult questions about the balance that we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy and in some

cases i believe we compromised our basic values by using torture to terror get our enemies and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law. so after i took office we stepped up the war against al qaeda but we also sought to change its course we relentlessly targeted al qaeda leadership we ended the war in iraq and brought nearly one hundred fifty thousand troops home we pursued a new strategy in afghanistan and increased our training of afghan forces we had to quickly banned torture affirmed our commitment to civilian courts worked to align our policies with the rule of law and expanded our consultations with congress today osama bin laden is dead and so are most of his top lieutenants there have been no large scale attacks on the united states and our homeland is more secure

few of our troops are in harm's way and over the next nineteen months they will continue to come home our alliances are strong and so is our standing in the world in some we are safer because of our efforts and make no mistake our nation is still threatened by terrorists from benghazi to boston we have been tragically reminded of that truth we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on nine eleven with a decade of experience now to draw from this is the moment to ask ourselves hard questions about the nature of today's threats and how we should confront them and these questions matter to every american for over the last decade our nation

has spent well over a trillion dollars on war helping to explode our deficits and constraining our ability to nation build here at home our service members and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf nearly seven thousand americans have made the ultimate sacrifice many more of left a part of themselves on the battlefield or brought the shadows of battle back home . from our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects the decisions that we are making now will define the type of nation and world that we leave to our children so america is at a crossroads we must define the nature and scope of this struggle or else it will define us we have to be mindful of james

madison's warning that no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare neither i nor any president can promise the total defeat of terror we will never a race the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings nor stamp out every danger to our open society but what we can do what we must do is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold all the while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend and to define that strategy we have to make decisions based not on fear but on harder and wisdom and that begins with understanding

the current threat that we face today the core of al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan is on the path to defeat their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us they did not direct the attacks in benghazi or boston they have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since nine eleven instead what we've seen is the emergence of various al qaeda affiliates from yemen to iraq from somalia to north africa the threat today is more diffuse with al qaeda affiliates in the arabian peninsula a q a p the most active in plotting against our homeland. and while none of these efforts approach the scale of nine eleven they have continued to plot acts of terror like the attempt to blow up an airplane on christmas day in two thousand and nine. unrest in the arab world is also

allowed extremist to gain a foothold in countries like libya and syria but here too there are differences from nine eleven in some cases we continue to confront state sponsored networks like hezbollah that engage in acts of terror to achieve political goals other of these groups are simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory and while we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based and that means will face more localized threats like the what we saw in benghazi or the b.p. oil facility in algeria in which local operatives perhaps and loose affiliation with regional networks launch periodic attacks against western diplomats companies

and other soft targets or resort to kidnapping and other criminal enterprises to fund their operations and finally we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the united states whether it's a shooter at a sikh temple in wisconsin a plane flying into a building in texas or the extremists who killed one hundred sixty eight people at the federal building in oklahoma city america is confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history the range or alienated individuals often u.s. citizens or legal residents can do enormous damage particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad and that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at fort hood and the bombing of the boston marathon

so that's the current threat. lethal yet less capable al qaeda affiliates threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad home grown extremists this is the future of terrorism. we have to take these threats seriously and do all that we can to confront them but as we shape our response we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before nine eleven in the one nine hundred eighty s. we lost americans to terrorism at our embassy in beirut and our marine barracks in lebanon on a cruise ship at sea at a disco in berlin and on a pan am flight flight one hundred three over lockerbie in the one nine hundred ninety s. we lost americans to terrorism at the world trade center and our military facilities

in saudi arabia and at our embassy in kenya these attacks were all brutal they were all deadly and we learned that left unchecked these threats can grow but if dealt with smartly and proportionally these threats may not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of nine eleven moreover we have to recognize that these threats don't arise in a vacuum most though not all of the terrorism we faced is fueled by a common ideology a belief by some extremists that islam is in conflict with the united states and the west and that violence against western targets including civilians is justified in pursuit of a larger cause of course this ideology is based on a lie for the united states is not at war with islam and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of muslims who are the most frequent

victims of terrorist attacks nevertheless this ideology persists and in an age when ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant our response to terrorism can't. depend on military or law enforcement alone we need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills the battle of ideas so what i want to discuss here today is the components of such a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy first we must finish the work of defeating al qaeda and its associated forces in afghanistan we will complete our transition to afghan responsibility for that country's security our troops will come home our combat mission will come to an end

and we will work with the afghan government to train security forces and sustain a counterterrorism force which ensures that al qaeda can never again establish a safe haven to launch attacks against us or our allies and beyond afghanistan we must define our effort not as a boundless global war on terror but rather as a series of persistent targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten america in many cases this will involve partnerships with other countries already thousands of pakistani soldiers have lost their lives fighting extremists in yemen we are supporting security forces that have reclaimed territory from a q a p. in somalia we helped

a coalition of african nations push al-shabaab out of its strongholds in mali we're providing military aid to french led intervention to push back al qaeda in the moderate and help the people of mali reclaim their future much of our best counterterrorism cooperation results in the gathering and sharing of intelligence the arrest and prosecution of terrorists that's how a somali terrorist apprehended off the coast of yemen is now in a prison in new york and how we work with european allies to disrupt plots from denmark to germany to the united kingdom. that's how intelligence collected with saudi arabia help to stop a cargo plane from being blown up over the atlantic these partnerships work but despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists

sometimes this approach is more closed. al qaeda and its affiliates try to gain foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on earth they take refuge in remote tribal regions they hide in caves and walled compounds they train in empty deserts and rugged mountains in some of these places such as parts of somalia and yemen the state only has the most tenuous reach into the territory in other cases the state lacks the capacity or will to take action and it's also not possible for america to simply deploy a team of special forces to capture every terrorist even

when such an approach may be possible there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities for example that pose no threat to us times one putting u.s. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis to put it another way our operation in pakistan against osama bin laden cannot be the norm the risks in that case were immense the likelihood of capture although that was our preference was remote given the certainty that our folks would confront resistance the fact that we did not find ourselves confronted with civilian casualties or embroider in a extended firefight was

a testament to the meticulous planning and professionalism of our special forces but it also depended on some walk and it was supported by. massive infrastructure in afghanistan and even then the cost to our relationship with pakistan and the backlash among the pakistani public over. encroachments on their territory was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership so it is in this context that the united states has taken lethal targeted action against al-qaeda and its associated forces including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones as was true in previous armed conflicts this new technology raises profound questions about who is targeted and

why about civilian casualties in the risk of creating new enemies about the legality of such strikes under u.s. and international law about accountability and morality so let me address these questions to begin with our actions are effective don't take my word for it in the intelligence gathered at bin laden's compound we found that he wrote we could lose the reserves to enemies air strikes we cannot fight air strikes with explosives other communications from al qaeda operatives confirm this as well dozens of highly skilled al qaeda commanders trainers bomb makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield plots have been disrupted

that would have targeted international aviation u.s. transit systems european cities and our troops in afghanistan simply put these strikes have saved lives moreover america's actions are legal we were attacked on nine eleven within a week congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force under domestic law and international law the united states is at war with al qaeda the taliban and their associated forces. we are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many americans as they could if we did not stop them first so this is a just war a war waged proportionally in last resort and in self-defense

and yet as our fight enters a new phase america's legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion to say military tactic is legal or even effective is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance for the same progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power or risk abusing it and that's why over the last four years my administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists insisting upon clear guidelines oversight and accountability that is now codified in presidential policy guidance that i signed yesterday in the afghan war theater

we must and will continue to support our troops until the transition is complete at the end of two thousand and fourteen and that means we will continue to take strikes against high value all kinds of targets but also against forces that are massing to support attacks on coalition forces but by the end of two thousand and fourteen we will no longer have the same need for force protection in the progress we've made against core al qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes beyond the afghan theater we only target al qaeda and its associated forces and even then the use of drones is heavily constrained america does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists our preference is always to detain interrogate and prosecute. america cannot take strikes wherever we choose our

actions are bound by consultations with partners and respect for state sovereignty america does not take strikes to punish individuals we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the american people and when there are no other governments capable of affectively addressing the threat and before any strike is taken there must be near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured the highest standard we can set and this last point is critical because much of the criticism about drone strikes both here at home and abroad understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties there's a wide gap between u.s. assessments of such casualties and non governmental reports nevertheless it is

a hard fact that u.s. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties a risk that exists in every war and for the families of those civilians no words or legal construct can justify their loss for me and those in my chain of command those deaths will haunt us as long as we live just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred throughout conventional fighting in afghanistan and iraq but as commander in chief i must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives to do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties not just in our cities at home and our

facilities abroad but also in the very places like sanaa and kabul and mogadishu where terrorists seek a foothold remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against muslim wharfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes. so doing nothing is not an option where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory the primary alternative to targeted lethal action would be the use of conventional military options as i've already said even small special operations carry enormous risks conventional airpower missiles are far

less precise than drones and are likely to cause more civilian casualties and more local outrage and invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies unleashed a torrent of unintended consequences are difficult to contain result in large numbers of civilian casualties and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict so it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths or less likely to create enemies in the muslim world the results would be more u.s. deaths more blackouts down more confrontations with local populations and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids they could easily escalate in the

new wars yes the conflict with al qaeda like all armed conflict invites tragedy but by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us and not the people they hide among we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life our efforts must be measured against the history of putting american troops in distant lands among hostile populations. in vietnam hundreds of thousands of civilians died in a war where the boundaries of battle were blurred in iraq and afghanistan despite the extraordinary courage and discipline of our troops thousands of civilians have been killed. so neither conventional military action

nor waiting for attacks to occur offers moral safe harbor and neither does a sole reliance on law enforcement in territories that had no functioning police or security services and indeed have no functioning law. and this is not to say that the risks are not real. any u.s. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies. and impacts public opinion overseas. moreover our laws constrain the power of the president even during wartime and i've taken an oath to defend the constitution of the united states the very precision of drone strikes and the

necessary secrecy often involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites it can also lead the president and his team to view drone strikes as a cure all for terrorism and for this reason i've insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action after i took office my administration began briefing all strikes outside of iraq and afghanistan to the appropriate committees of congress let me repeat that not only did congress authorize the use of force it is briefed on every strike that america takes every strike that includes the one instance where we targeted targeted an american citizen anwar alok the

chief of external operations for a.q. a.p. this week i authorized the declassification of this action and the deaths of three other americans in drone strikes to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims that have been made. for the record i do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any u.s. citizen with a drone or with a shotgun without due process nor should any president deploy armed drones over u.s. soil but when a u.s. citizen goes abroad to wage war against america and is actively plotting to kill u.s. citizens and when neither the united states nor our partners are in

a position to capture him before he carries out a plot his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team that's who on where a lot he was he was continuously trying to kill people he helped oversee that the two thousand and ten plot to detonate explosive devices on two u.s. bound cargo planes he was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in two thousand and nine when. the christmas day bomber went to yemen in two thousand and nine alok he hosted him approved his suicide operation helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack and his last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over american soil i would have detained and prosecuted a lockie if we captured him before he carried out

a plot but we couldn't and as president i would have been derelict in my duty had i not authorized the strike that took him out of course the targeting of any american raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes which is why my administration submitted information about a lockie to the department of justice months before a lockie was killed and briefed the congress before the strike as well but the high threshold that we've set for taking legal lethal action applies to all potential terrorist targets regardless of whether or not they are american citizens . this threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human life alongside the decision to put our men and women in uniform in harm's way the

decision to use force against individuals or groups even against a sworn enemy of the united states is the hardest thing i do as president but these decisions must be made given my responsibility to protect the american people and going forward i've asked my administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of war zones that go beyond our reporting to congress each option has virtues in theory but poses difficulties in practice for example the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority another idea of it's been

suggested the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch avoids those problems but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy in a national security decision making without inspiring additional public confidence in the process but despite these challenges i look forward to actively engaging congress to explore these and other options for increased oversight i believe however that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion we need to have about a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy because for all the focus on the use of force force alone cannot make us say. we cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the wellspring of extremism

a perpetual war through drones or special forces or troop deployments will prove self-defeating and alter our country in troubling ways. so the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism from north africa to south asia as we've learned this past decade this is a bass and complex undertaking we must be humble in our expectation that we can quickly resolve deep rooted problems like poverty and sectarian hatred moreover no two countries are alike and some will undergo chaotic change before things get better but our security and our values demand that we make the effort this means patiently supporting transitions to

democracy in places like egypt and tunisia and libya because the peaceful realisation of individual aspirations will serve as a rebuke to violent extremism we must strengthen the opposition in syria while isolating extremist elements because the end of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism we are actively working to promote peace between israelis and palestinians because it is right and because such a peace could help reshape attitudes in the region and we must help countries modernize economies upgrade education and encourage entrepreneurship because an american leadership has always been elevated by our ability to connect with people's hopes and not simply their fears and success on all these fronts requires sustained engagement but it will also require resources

i know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures that there is that's true for democrats and republicans i've seen the poll even though it amounts to less than one percent of the federal budget in fact a lot of folks think it's twenty five percent of yes people on the streets less than one percent still wildly unpopular but foreign assistance cannot be viewed as charity it is fundamental to our national security. and it's fundamental to any sensible long term strategy to battle extremism moreover foreign assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance might ultimately prevent for what we spent in

a month in iraq at the height of the war we could be training security forces in libya maintaining peace agreements between israel and its neighbors feeding the hungry in yemen building schools in pakistan and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists and that has to be part of our strategy moreover america cannot carry out this work if we don't have diplomats serving in some very dangerous places over the past decade we have strengthened security at our embassies and i am implementing every recommendation of the accountability review board which found unacceptable failures in benghazi i called on congress to fully fund these efforts to bolster security and harden facilities improve intelligence and facilitate a quicker response time from our military if

a crisis emerges but even after we take these steps some irreducible risks to our diplomats will remain this is the price of being the world's most powerful nation particularly as a wave of change washes over the arab world and in balancing the tradeoffs between security and active diplomacy i firmly believe that any retreat from challenging regions will only increase the dangers that we face in the long run and that's why we should be grateful to those diplomats who are willing to serve a targeted action against terrorists effective partnerships diplomatic engagement and assistance through such a comprehensive strategy we can significantly reduce the chances of large scale attacks

on the homeland and mitigate threats to americans overseas. but as we guard against dangers from abroad we cannot neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our borders as i said earlier this threat is not new but technology and the internet increases frequency and in some cases it's lethality today a person can consume hateful propaganda commit themselves to a violent agenda and learn how to kill without leaving their home to address this threat two years ago my administration did a comprehensive review and engaged with law enforcement and the best way to prevent bio extremism inspired by biology hottest is to work with the muslim

american community which has consistently rejected terrorism to identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence and these partnerships can only work when we recognize that muslims are a fundamental part of the american family in fact the success of american muslims and our determination to guard against any encroachments on their civil liberties is the ultimate rebuke to those who say the word war with islam thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call america home that's why in the years to come we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms

that make us who we are that means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement so we can intercept new types of communication but also build in privacy protections to prevent abuse that means that even after boston we do not to deport someone or throw somebody in prison in the absence of evidence. that means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information such as the state secrets. and that means finally having a strong privacy and civil liberties board to review those issues where our counterterrorism efforts and our values may come into tension you know the justice department's investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between

our security and our open society as commander in chief i believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field to do so we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information but a free press is also essential for our democracy that's who we are and i'm troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs our focus must be on those who break the law and that's why i've called on congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government overreach and i've raised these issues with the attorney general who shares my concerns so he's agreed to review

existing department of justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters and he'll convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review and i've directed the attorney general to report back to me by july twelfth all these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact and sometimes unintended ways the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends and that is why i intending gauge congress about the existing authorization to use military force or a u.m.s. to determine how we can continue to fight terrorism. without keeping america on a perpetual wartime footing the i.m.f. is now nearly twelve years old the afghan war is coming to an end core al qaeda is

a shell of its former self groups like a.q. a.p. must be dealt with but in the years to come not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al qaeda will pose a credible threat to the united states unless we discipline our thinking our definitions our actions we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight or continue to grant president's unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states so i look forward to engaging congress and the american people in efforts to refine and ultimately repeal they were a mess mandate and i will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue but this war like all wars will stand that's what history advises

it's what our democracy demands and that brings me to my final topic the detention of terrorist suspects i'm going to repeat one more time as a matter of policy the preference of the united states is to capture terrorist suspects when we do detain a suspect we interrogate them and if the suspect can be prosecuted we decide whether to try him in a civilian court or a military commission during the past decade the vast majority of those detained by our military were captured on the battlefield in iraq we turned over thousands of prisoners as we ended the war in afghanistan we have transition detention facilities to the afghans as part of the process of restoring afghan sovereignty so we bring

a law of war detention to an end and we are committed to prosecuting terrorists wherever we can. the glaring exception to this time tested approach is the detention center at guantanamo bay the original premise for opening goodwill that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention was found unconstitutional five years ago in the meantime good. old for an america that flouts the rule of law. our allies won't cooperate with us if they think a terrorist will end up a get more. during a time of budget cuts we spend one hundred fifty million dollars each year to imprison one hundred sixty six people almost

a million dollars per prisoner and the department defense estimates that we must spend another two hundred million to keep good maltman at a time when we're cutting investments in education and research here at home and when the pentagon is struggling with sequester and budget cuts. as president i have tried to close gitmo i transferred sixty seven detainees to other countries before congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries or imprisoning them here in the united states. these restrictions make no sense. after all under president bush some five hundred thirty detainees were transferred from good mo with congress to support when i ran for president the first time john mccain supported closing gitmo this was

a bipartisan issue no person has ever escaped one of our supermax or military prisons here in the united states ever our courts have convicted hundreds of people for terrorism or terrorism related offenses including some folks who are more dangerous than most get mowed attaining . they're in our prisons. and given my administration's relentless pursuit of al qaeda leadership there is no justification beyond politics for congress to prevent us from closing a facility that it should should have never been opened. to date. of the cell phone time i so i want to finish them this

guy so they guy so today once again to today. i'm about to address a man by you guys you gotta let me speak i'm about to address it. let me address it why don't you let me address it. why don't you sit down and i will tell you exactly what i'm going to do thank you ma'am thank you. thank you ma'am thank you should let me finish my sentence today i once again call on congress to lift the restrictions on detainees transfers from get money i have asked the of i have asked the department of defense to designate a site in the united states where we can hold military commissions i'm appointing

a new senior envoy at the state department and defense department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries i am lifting the moratorium on detaining transfers to yemen so we can review them on a case by case basis to the greatest extent possible we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. where we. where appropriate we will bring the terrorists to justice in our courts and our military justice system and we will insist the judicial review be available for every detainees now ma'am let me let me let me finish let let let me finish my life. now this is this is part of free speech is you being able to speak but also you listening and me being able to speak

thanh guy even after we take these steps one issue will remain just how to deal with those good motive chaney's who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks but who cannot be prosecuted for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law but once we commit to a process of closing get more i am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved consistent with our commitment to the rule of law and i know the politics are hard but history will cast a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism and those of us who fail to end imagine

a future ten years from now or twenty years from them when the united states of america is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not part of our country or the current situation or we are force feeding detainees who are whole being held on hunger strike i'm willing to cut the young lady who interrupted me some slack because it's worth being passionate about is this who we are is that something our founders foresaw is that the america we want to leave our children. our sense of justice is stronger than that we have prosecuted scores of terrorists in our courts that includes omar faruq of the matola who

tried to blow up an airplane over detroit and faisal shazad who put a car bomb in times square it's in a court of law that we will try the dots are john f. who is accused of bombing the boston marathon richard reid the shoe bomber is as we speak serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison here in the united states incensing reid judge william young told him the way we treat you is the measure of our own liberty . when. when we we went. he he we went on to pay. we went on. about.

them. we're addressing them or. oh. the. you know i think that the and i'm going off script as you might expect here. on the on the on. the voice of a woman. is worth paying attention to. obvious obviously.

obviously i do not agree. with much of what she said and obviously she wasn't listening to me in much of what i said but these are tough issues and the suggestion that we can gloss over them is wrong and when that judge. sentence mr reid the shoe bomber he want to point to the american flag that flew in the courtroom that flag he said will fly there long after this is all forgotten that flag still stands for freedom so america we face down dangers far greater than al qaeda

by saying true to the values of our founding and by using our constitutional compass we have overcome slavery and civil war and fascism and communism in just these last few years as president i've watched the american people bounce back from painful recession mass shootings natural disasters like the recent tornadoes that devastated oklahoma these events were heartbreaking they shook our communities to the core but because of the resilience of the american people these events could not come close to breaking us i think of lorne manning the nine eleven survivor who had severe burns over eighty percent of her body who said that's my reality i put

a band-aid on it literally and i moved on i think of the new yorkers who filled times square the day after an attempted car bomb as if nothing had happened i think of the proud pakistani parents who after their daughter was invited to the white house wrote to us we have raised an american muslim daughter to dream big and never give up because it does pay off. i think of all the wounded warriors rebuilding their lives and helping other vets to find jobs i think of the runner planning to do the two thousand and fourteen boston marathon who said next year you're going to have more people than ever determination is not something to be messed with that's who the american people are

determined and not to be messed with and now we need a strategy and a politics that reflects this was illian spirit our victory against terrorism won't be measured in a surrender ceremony at a battleship or a statue being pulled to the ground victory will be measured in parents taking their kids to school immigrants coming to our shores fans taking in a ball game a veteran starting a business a bustling city street a citizen shouting your concerns at a president. the quiet determination that strength of character and bond of fellowship that refutation of fear

that is both our sword and our shield and long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world's memory alongside the brutal death spots and deranged madman and ruthless demagogues who litter history the flag of the united states will still wave from small town cemeteries to national monuments to distant outposts abroad and that flag will still stand for freedom. thank you very much everybody god bless you thank you thank you thank you. we he's address on national security we thought the president outline what he had to say about the current state of the u.s. is defense strategy what plans all for the future.