Frédéric Mitterrand au ministère de la culture: encore un mauvais choix de notre président! Peu d’entre nous en comprennent la raison. Quelle peut-elle être?
L’effet incantatoire lié au nom de Mitterrand?
Les électeurs qui ont élu M. Sarkozy en 2007 ne gardaient nullement la nostalgie d’un ancien président socialiste…. Et s’il fallait afficher un grand nom du socialisme dans la composition de son ministère, il disposait dans sa propre majorité d’un député (M. Blum, député UMP des Bouches-du-Rhône). La personnalité politique qui portait ce nom avant lui figure, de façon non contestée, au panthéon socialiste en compagnie de Jaurès. Mais pourquoi cette idée saugrenue d’aller quérir ses «fruits» dans le dessous du panier de ses opposants? Pourquoi nommer tant de ministres qui n’ont jamais reçu l’onction du suffrage universel?
Le style de l’écrivain Frédéric Mitterrand?
Assurément non. La description des déambulations nocturnes de M. Mitterrand n’a pas la légèreté, l’humour, l’autodérision de celle de M. Roger Peyrefitte sur le Zappeion d’Athènes. Les remugles de «l’avant-scène et de l’arrière scène» (sic) de la prostitution masculine donnent la nausée.
Convenons-en, nous n’étions pas obligés de les lire; mais dès lors qu’il s’agit d’un ministre de la culture de la France, et que ses «bonnes feuilles» s’impriment sur nos quotidiens, nous y sommes contraints.
La stature du nouveau ministre?
En déclarant, pour tenter d’excuser sa défense outrancière de M. Polanski: «J’étais dans un moment d’émotion très, très fort», il n’a pas manqué de s’attirer cette remarque: «Lorsqu’on est ministre, peut-on réagir sur le coup de l’émotion?»
Le respect des lois françaises?
Le président, ci-devant ministre de l’intérieur, avait été l’auteur d’une loi relative à la prostitution, en créant un nouveau délit: «le fait, par tout moyen, y compris par une attitude même passive, de procéder au racolage d’autrui en vue de l’inciter à des relations sexuelles en échange d’une rémunération ou d’une promesse de rémunération est puni de 2 mois d’emprisonnement et de 3 750 euros d’amende». Un membre d’un cabinet ministériel en avait immédiatement fait les frais. Mais ce n’était pas en Thaïlande et il ne s’agissait de prostitution masculine…Dommage, il aurait été ministre.
Allez encore prétendre après cela que «ce n’est pas le titre qui honore l’homme, mais l’homme qui honore le titre» (Machiavel).
Der britisch-deutsche Journalist Alan Posener kommentiert wöchentlich das Zeitgeschehen in Politik, Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Kultur für HIRAM7 REVIEW.
Von Alan Posener Die Welt / Welt am Sonntag / HIRAM7 REVIEW
Aber darum soll es hier nicht gehen, sondern um einen Telefonanruf.
Eine junge Frau ruft bei ihrer Frauenärztin an. Sie braucht einen Termin. Die Sprechstundenhilfe, nach einigem Hin und Her, im leicht genervten Ton: „Also, ich kann Ihnen frühestens am 2. Dezember einen Termin anbieten.“ Also in SECHS WOCHEN. Die junge Frau sagt zu, die Sprechstundenhilfe klickt ein bisschen in ihrem Computer herum, und plötzlich ertönt Warteschleifenmusik. Die junge Frau wartet. Dann ist eine völlig umgewandelte Sprechstundenhilfe dran: „Aber Frau P., Sie haben ja gar nicht gesagt, dass Sie Privatpatientin sind! Da hätten wir einen Termin für Sie, am 21.“ „November?“ „Wo denken Sie hin? Oktober!“ Also in EINER WOCHE.
Man hört immer, besonders von SPD-Seite, es gehe darum, „eine Zweiklassenmedizin in Deutschland zu verhindern“. Hallo? Wir haben längst eine Zweiklassenmedizin.
Und es geht nicht nur darum, dass eine Kassenpatientin sechs Wochen, eine Privatpatientin eine Woche auf einen Termin warten muss, obwohl das schlimm genug ist und in manchen Fällen den Unterschied zwischen einer gerade noch rechtzeitig erkannten und einer zu spät erkannten Krankheit bedeuten kann. Die praktizierte Medizin ist auch verschieden für Ober- und Untermenschen.
Ein Beispiel: Meine Frau ist als Beamtin privat versichert; ich bin als Angestellter freiwillig in der gesetzlichen (ich weiß… selber schuld… lange Geschichte.). Zufällig hatten wir in der letzten Zeit kurz hintereinander die gleichen Beschwerden entwickelt (das Phänomen nennt man bei langjährigen Ehepaaren oder Hundehaltern Anähnelung), und darum empfahl mir meine Frau auch ihren Orthopäden, der tatsächlich auch exakt die gleiche Diagnose stellte. Freilich war die Therapie völlig verschieden, was die verschriebenen Medikamente, Schmerz- und Hilfsmittel betrifft. Und zwar schlicht und einfach derart, dass ich weniger oder nichts bekam.
Vielleicht gibt es Ärzte, die keinen Unterschied zwischen Kassen- und Privatpatienten machen; aber man darf annehmen, dass das die Ausnahmen sind. Die Dummen.
Noch einmal: wir haben längst eine Zweiklassenmedizin. Man kann sagen: das ist nun einmal so; alles, was über die Basisversorgung hinausgeht, muss eben privat versichert sein, und das können dann eben nur die Besserverdienenden – und dann ist jeder Besserverdienende, der wie ich in der gesetzlichen Versicherung bleibt, eben dumm.
Man kann leugnen, dass das so ist, wie die meisten Parteien, die Ärzteorganisationen und Versicherungen, die behaupten, es gehe ihnen darum, für jeden Patienten eine optimale Versorgung sicherzustellen. Wer ihnen glaubt, ist selber schuld.
Man kann wie in Großbritannien das System verstaatlichen, so dass es alle gleich schlecht haben – mit Ausnahme der ganz Reichen, die sich in Abu Dhabi behandeln lassen, wohin auch die guten Ärzte auswandern.
Oder man kann eine private Gesundheitsfürsorge für alle einführen, mit kostendeckenden Beiträgen einerseits und Versicherungszwang andererseits – und die wirklich Bedürftigen, sagen wir Arbeitslose und Rentner, durch Zuschüsse staatlicherseits instand setzen, ihre Beiträge zu zahlen. Ich befürworte den letzten Vorschlag.
Und deshalb: Weg mit dem Gesundheitsfonds und der Einteilung von Menschen in Patienten erster und zweiter Klasse. Telefongespräche wie das eingangs geschilderte sollten so schnell wie möglich der Vergangenheit angehören.
Die in HIRAM7 REVIEW veröffentlichten Essays und Kommentare geben nicht grundsätzlich den Standpunkt der Redaktion wieder.
Der britisch-deutsche Journalist Alan Posener kommentiert wöchentlich das Zeitgeschehen in Politik, Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Kultur für HIRAM7 REVIEW.
Von Alan Posener Die Welt / Welt am Sonntag / HIRAM7 REVIEW
Liberale gibt es in Deutschland nicht. Liberale würden nach dem Mord in Solln und dem Amoklauf in Ansbach darauf hinweisen, dass Deutschland eines der sichersten Länder der Welt ist und dass deutsche Jugendliche in ihrer übergroßen Mehrheit gut gesittete, höfliche, fleißige, oft beängstigend liebe Leute sind.
Nur kommt eben auch im sichersten Land der Welt gelegentlich eine solche Scheußlichkeit vor wie in Solln; nur gibt es eben auf 999 angepasste Jugendliche einen, der durchdreht. Stattdessen heißt es landauf, landab. Wie konnte das passieren? Wer ist schuld? Wie kann man das künftig verhindern? Was müssen wir verbieten, gebieten, bestrafen, präventieren?
Es klingt zynisch, wenn man angesichts solcher Tragödien „Shit happens“ sagt, aber ich bleibe dabei. Shit happens. Jetzt ist aber wieder einmal die Stunde der Illiberalen von links und rechts, die nicht zugeben wollen, dass wir nicht allmächtig sind, dass wir nicht ein für alle Male verhindern können, dass sich Menschen böse verhalten. Mehr Jugendarbeit, fordern die einen; härtere Strafen fordern die anderen, und so schaukeln sie sich hoch, obwohl doch klar ist, dass allenfalls ein totalitärer Staat mit flächendeckender Betreuung, Bespitzelung und Bewachung hoffen könnte, den gelegentlichen Ausbruch des Bösen zu verhindern. Dass also nur das totale, kollektive Böse das gelegentliche, individuelle Böse verschwinden machen kann.
Sicher ist es sinnvoll, darüber zu diskutieren, ob es mehr Kameras im öffentlichen Raum, mehr Sicherheitskräfte in den Bussen und Bahnen, mehr Prävention einerseits und andererseits auch konsequentere Ahndung von Straftaten geben soll. Aber nur, wenn man bereit ist, zuzugeben, dass auch diese Maßnahmen nicht verhindern werden, dass es gewalttätige Jugendgangs, dass es Verbrecher, dass es Ausgetickte geben wird. Wie die totale Entwaffnung der Bevölkerung aussehen müsste, sehen wir jedes Mal, wenn wir fliegen. Machbar ist das also. Wollen wir das?
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (1932-2009) has authored more than 2,500 bills throughout his career since 1962 in the United States Senate. Of those bills, several hundred have become Public Law.
Der britisch-deutsche Journalist Alan Posener startet heute eine neue Kolumne. Er wird wöchentlich das Zeitgeschehen in Politik, Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Kultur für HIRAM7 REVIEW unter die Lupe nehmen.
Von Alan Posener Die Welt / Welt am Sonntag / HIRAM7 REVIEW
Es ist schon komisch: Milliarden und Abermilliarden gibt die Regierung aus, um Banken zu retten, Firmen vor den Folgen unternehmerischer Fehlentscheidungen zu schützen oder dem Volk vor der Wahl zu neuen Autos zu verhelfen. Und worüber regt sich der Wähler auf?
Über die paar tausend Euro Steuergelder, die Ulla Schmidt verpulvert hat, um ihr Dienstauto und ihren Chauffeur in den Urlaub zu nehmen. Oder über Angela Merkels Geburtstagsessen für Josef Ackermann.
Eine solche Personalisierung der Politik ist Ausdruck einer Infantilisierung. Einer Kapitulation vor der Komplexität. Wer kann aus dem Kopf sagen, worin die Gesundheitsreform eigentlich besteht? Aber es sagt einem doch der gesunde Menschenverstand – also der Neid, dieser verlässlichste aller Sozialinstinkte, dass die Ministerin in Spanien keinen gepanzerten Dienstwagen mitsamt Chauffeur braucht. Unsereiner fährt doch auch Fiat Panda.
Aber es sagt einem doch der gesunde Bürgerneid, dass die Kanzlerin unsere Steuergelder nicht verpulvern darf, um Herrn Ackermann ein Geburtstagsessen auszurichten. Vielleicht schweigt aber auch der Neid. Denn wir mögen die Kanzlerin.
Die Gesundheitsministerin hingegen können wir nicht leiden. Neulich mussten wir für die Zahnfüllung zuzahlen, und der Zahnarzt sagte, das sei wegen der Gesundheitsreform. Und dann fährt sie auch noch mit dem Dienstauto in den Urlaub!
Zwei Drittel aller neu zugelassenen Autos in Deutschland sind Dienstwagen. Man darf annehmen, dass damit auch privat gefahren wird, und dass nicht jede private Fahrt abgerechnet wird. Und wer private Essen als Geschäftsessen abrechnen kann, tut es. Wir haben die Politiker, die wir verdienen. Und gerade das nervt uns.
Natürlich nervt auch die Patzigkeit, mit der die ehemalige Genossin des Kommunistischen Bundes Westdeutschland und heutige Sozialdemokratin Ulla Schmidt ihr Recht auf einen Dienstwagen verteidigt. Ein bisschen Zerknirschtheit wäre angebracht. Deutsche Politiker sollten wenigstens so tun, als gehörten sie zu uns.
Was man Ulla Schmidt vorwerfen kann, ja muss, ist dies: sie hat dieses Grundgesetz der deutschen Politik vergessen. Das ist eher ein intellektuelles als ein moralisches Versagen. Umso schlimmer übrigens. Wie konnte sie glauben, das käme nicht raus? Oder dass sie damit durchkäme? Es kommt immer raus.
Seventy-four nongovernmental organizations called for an end to a bloc system that they say allows countries guilty of human rights abuses to hold seats on the UN Human Rights Council.
“We call on all UN member states to bring vote trading arrangements and uncompetitive elections for the council to an end. The credibility of the council and its ability to respond to human rights violations hang in the balance,” the NGOs declared.
The statement comes a month before the Human Rights Council opens its fall session in Geneva.
Several news reports say Britain will release from a Scottish prison Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, a former Libyan secret service agent convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people. Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill denied the reports that a decision has already been made, but said he is taking into consideration whether al-Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, should be freed on compassionate grounds.
The reports that al-Megrahi would be released aroused ardent debate between family members of the Lockerbie victims. Al-Megrahi is serving a life sentence for the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. Most of the victims were U.S. citizens.
Reuters considers the implications of al-Megrahi’s release for Libya.
The Times of London looks at divisions between U.S. and British relatives of Lockerbie victims over the news that al-Megrahi may be freed, noting that many British family members have long doubted his guilt and are supporting his release.
The BBC has an audio slideshow of the Lockerbie bombing.
A paper Leadership as Practical Ethics written by Dr. Joel Rosenthal, President of the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, and presented at the US Army War College cosponsored research colloquium, Leadership and National Security Reform, is available at the Carnegie Council webseite.
“What does one need to know to be a leader in the field of public policy? I want to argue for the centrality of ethics as a basic component of leadership training for anyone pursuing a career in public and international affairs.
If you are a student, please take a moment to ask yourself what you have learned about ethics in your time in the classroom. If you are a teacher or administrator, consider what your curriculum covers in this regard. We know that medical students engage medical ethics, law students study legal ethics, business students take on business ethics, military officers study military ethics, and so on. So let’s ask ourselves, what should students and aspiring leaders in public affairs know about ethics to be considered professionals competent to practice?
By ethics, I do not mean simply compliance with law. Compliance is of course an essential part of ethics. But it is only a beginning. Compliance is a floor, a minimum upon which to build. Many actions in government, business, or private life comply with the law but are not optimal from an ethical perspective.
Examples are all around us. British members of parliament may not have broken laws when they used expense accounts to bill tax payers for lifestyle enhancements such as moat cleaning, the upkeep of expensive second homes, or the rental of adult movies. But surely this kind of behavior was wrong. In more serious policy matters, it may well be that most of our major banks and financial institutions were in full compliance with the law when it came to the management of credit default swaps and derivative trading. Yet something went very wrong in the area of risk and responsibility. There are many things we can do and still be in compliance with law—but some of them are wrong. Ethical reasoning helps us make these distinctions.”
The disgraced New York financier Bernard Lawrence “Bernie” Madoff has been sentenced to 150 years in prison by a court after pleading guilty to a massive Ponzi scheme, which severely impacted, among others, many philanthropies and individuals.
The sentence means that the 71-year-old, once a highly-respected Wall Street figure, will spend the rest of his life in jail.
He took billions of dollars from investors who trusted his reputation for providing spectacular returns and most of it has not been traced. The money was never invested but was put in banks and used to shore up the illusion that his business was trading successfully, as well as financing his luxury lifestyle.
Applause erupted in the courtroom when the sentence was announced, and despite a pubic apology by Madoff, Judge Denny Chin showed no leniency. “I don’t get a sense that Mr. Madoff has done all he could, or told all that he knows,” the judge said.
U.S. Representatives Adam Schiff (Democrats – California) and Mike Pence (Republicans – Indiana), recently introduced legislation in the U.S. Congress to highlight and promote freedom of the press worldwide.
The legislation will establish an annual State Department report on the status of press freedom in every country in the world and create a grant program aimed at broadening and strengthening the independence of journalists and media organizations.
“I can think of no better way to honor the memory of Daniel Pearl,” Pence said. “This legislation takes valuable steps in highlighting and supporting the critical work of investigative journalism, while putting on notice those countries who choose to ignore the freedom of the press…”
Five years after photos initially surfaced of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib detention center in Iraq, the photos taken at the camp are again at issue after a former U.S. army major general alleged to the British paper the Telegraph that additional, unreleased photos show U.S. soldiers raping inmates.
President Barack Obama has reversed his initial position that he would release all remaining photos, saying that the photos are graphic and would put U.S. and British troops in danger.
Editor of The Paris Review and former staff writer of The New YorkerPhilip Gourevitch, writing in the New York Times, argues that Obama’s decision not to release the photos should be viewed differently from the George W. Bush administration’s initial denials of torture at Abu Ghraib.
U.S. President Barack Obama announces his nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, in a video message to Organizing for America.
I am proud to announce my nominee for the next Justice of the United States Supreme Court: Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
This decision affects us all – and so it must involve us all. I’ve recorded a special message to personally introduce Judge Sotomayor and explain why I’m so confident she will make an excellent Justice.
Judge Sotomayor has lived the America Dream. Born and raised in a South Bronx housing project, she distinguished herself in academia and then as a hard-charging New York District Attorney.
Judge Sotomayor has gone on to earn bipartisan acclaim as one of America’s finest legal minds. As a Supreme Court Justice, she would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any Justice in 100 years. Judge Sotomayor would show fidelity to our Constitution and draw on a common-sense understanding of how the law affects our day-to-day lives.
A nomination for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land is one of the most important decisions a President can make. And the discussions that follow will be among the most important we have as a nation.
Yesterday the political battles in Washington D.C. over the closure of Guantanamo detention center heated up. President Barack Obama has reinforced his call to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, saying its flaws have weakened national security. But opponents say the camp has made the United States safer and predict legislative obstacles on transferring detainees.
President Barack Obama delivered a speech laying out in general terms his plan to close Guantanamo and his argument for balancing transparency with national security. Former Vice President Richard B. Cheney immediately followed up in a speech at the neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), suggesting one aspect of Obama’s plan – bringing Guantanamo prisoners to U.S. soil – may never pass congressional muster. The speeches came in the wake of a recent decision by Senate Democrats refusing to release funds for the closure of Guantanamo.
***
Here is President Barack Obama’s speech.
THE WHITE HOUSE – Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 21, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON NATIONAL SECURITY
National Archives, Washington D.C., 10:28 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. Please be seated. Thank you all for being here. Let me just acknowledge the presence of some of my outstanding Cabinet members and advisors. 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 Department of Homeland Security; Attorney General Eric Holder; my National Security Advisor Jim Jones. And I want to especially thank our Acting Archivist of the United States, Adrienne 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. The – it’s a good bill. The engines of our economy are slowly 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 and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy. We have re-energized a global non-proliferation 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.
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 fundamental 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 expedience 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 times 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 benefitted 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 of 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 try 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; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our 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. And 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 who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach – one that rejected torture and one that recognized the imperative of 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.
I know some have argued that brutal methods like waterboarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As 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. 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.
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 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.
The second decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.
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 at 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 is 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 prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs 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 review 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 who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this 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 constant, almost daily basis, and it 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 order to release 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.
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 the 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 face: Nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal, supermax prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Republican Lindsey Graham said, the idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United 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 dealing 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 battlefield. That’s why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past. Instead we are treating these cases 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 makes that clear. 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. Zacarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker. He was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can 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-Marri, 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 on 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, and that is what we intend to do.
The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are therefore best tried through military commissions. 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 battlefield 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 accused 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 were 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’s 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 to 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 be 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. 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 have 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 that the 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 so that our efforts are consistent with our 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 any vote on this issue – designed to frighten the population. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. And if we 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. One 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 whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong. Nothing has 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 serving 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’s 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 over-used. 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.
And 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.
On all these matters related to the 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 of 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.
Now, in all the areas that I’ve discussed today, the policies that I’ve proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. To protect the American people and our values, we’ve 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 a 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 to actions of the last eight years, passions are high. Some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight 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 a fuller accounting, perhaps through an independent commission.
I’ve 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 our 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 is 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 lead to a good fight and good copy. But nothing will contribute more than that than a 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 sends people into opposite and absolutist ends. On the one side of the spectrum, there are 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.
Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us 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 forging 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.
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 over the long haul the American people have resisted that temptation. And 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 be the case a year from now, five years from now, and – in all probability – 10 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 defeat al Qaeda. Because the terrorists can only succeed if they swell their ranks and alienate America from our allies, and 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 believe 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 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.
END at 11:17 A.M. EDT
***
Here is former Vice President Richard B. Cheney’s speech.
***
REMARKS BY RICHARD B. CHENEY
by former Vice President Richard B. Cheney
American Enterprise Institute, Washington D.C., May 21, 2009
Thank you all very much, and Arthur, thank you for that introduction. It’s good to be back at AEI, where we have many friends. Lynne is one of your longtime scholars, and I’m looking forward to spending more time here myself as a returning trustee. What happened was, they were looking for a new member of the board of trustees, and they asked me to head up the search committee.
I first came to AEI after serving at the Pentagon, and departed only after a very interesting job offer came along. I had no expectation of returning to public life, but my career worked out a little differently. Those eight years as vice president were quite a journey, and during a time of big events and great decisions, I don’t think I missed much.
Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I’m an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen – a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.
The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I’m not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. We understand the complexities of national security decisions. We understand the pressures that confront a president and his advisers. Above all, we know what is at stake. And though administrations and policies have changed, the stakes for America have not changed.
Right now there is considerable debate in this city about the measures our administration took to defend the American people. Today I want to set forth the strategic thinking behind our policies. I do so as one who was there every day of the Bush administration who supported the policies when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.
When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.
Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11, 2001 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America . . . and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.
That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, hoping to bring down the towers with a blast from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.
9/11 caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact–crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.
That’s how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least – but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat – what the Congress called “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.
We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We’d just been hit by a foreign enemy – leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.
Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn’t know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.
These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass – a 9/11 with nuclear weapons.
For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.
There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day – word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I’ve heard occasional speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that. But I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.
To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.
We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations: the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network and the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear program. It’s required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.
So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.
The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.
Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.
In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations.
In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.
Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.
By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.
Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.
Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they’re after would be heard before a so-called “Truth Commission.” Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It’s hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.
Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.
One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see – including the enemy – let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.
It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You’ve heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed – the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.
We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn’t know about al-Qaeda’s plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.
Maybe you’ve heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.
In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America’s cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.
Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.
Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.
I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.” Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.
Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.
The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned, one lead that goes unpursued, can bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.
Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term “war” where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we’re advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, “Overseas contingency operations.” In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, “man-made disaster” – never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.
And when you hear that there are no more, quote, “enemy combatants,” as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn’t change what they are – or what they would do if we let them loose.
On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Now the President says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system. Others, he says, will be shipped to third countries. But so far, the United States has had little luck getting other countries to take hardened terrorists. So what happens then? Attorney General Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept a number of the terrorists here, in the homeland, and it has even been suggested US taxpayer dollars will be used to support them. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President’s own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.
The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.
In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.
It’s one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we’re no longer engaged in a war. These are just words, and in the end it’s the policies that matter most. You don’t want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you want–just don’t bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war? Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.
Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.”
It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.
Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.
As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion, our belief in equal rights for women, our support for Israel, our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the nineteen recruits who boarded those planes on September 11, 2001.
The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world–for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences–and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.
What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.
This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.
Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.
As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.
I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations–and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration–the missing twenty-six words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.”
If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it’ll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs – on the continuing threat of terrorist violence, and on stopping the men who are planning it.
For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history – not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them. And when I think about all that was to come during our administration and afterward–the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of “hubris”–my mind always goes back to that moment.
To put things in perspective, suppose that on the evening of 9/11, President Bush and I had promised that for as long as we held office–which was to be another 2,689 days–there would never be another terrorist attack inside this country. Talk about hubris – it would have seemed a rash and irresponsible thing to say. People would have doubted that we even understood the enormity of what had just happened. Everyone had a very bad feeling about all of this, and felt certain that the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville were only the beginning of the violence.
Of course, we made no such promise. Instead, we promised an all-out effort to protect this country. We said we would marshal all elements of our nation’s power to fight this war and to win it. We said we would never forget what had happened on 9/11, even if the day came when many others did forget. We spoke of a war that would “include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.” We followed through on all of this, and we stayed true to our word.
To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.
Along the way there were some hard calls. No decision of national security was ever made lightly, and certainly never made in haste. As in all warfare, there have been costs – none higher than the sacrifices of those killed and wounded in our country’s service. And even the most decisive victories can never take away the sorrow of losing so many of our own – all those innocent victims of 9/11, and the heroic souls who died trying to save them.
For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.
Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted.
Daniel Taub, Jurist und Berater für internationales Recht des israelischen Außenministeriums, setzt sich in einem Artikel erschienen in der amerikanischen Tageszeitung The Boston Globe mit der weltweit verbreiteten Kritik am Vorgehen der israelischen Armee während der Militäroperation Gegossenes Blei im Gaza-Streifen auseinander.
“In starkem Kontrast zu dem komplexen und sogar schmerzvollen Balanceakt, den das internationale Recht von Soldaten und Rechtsberatern gleichermaßen verlangt, weigert sich eine lautstarke Gruppe von ‚Rechtsexperten’ nach wie vor, die Ärmel hochzukrempeln und die harten Komplexitäten von Konfliktsituationen wie Gaza anzupacken. Es mag tatsächlich Anreize dafür geben, das reine Ideal des internationalen Rechts aufrecht zu erhalten. In der Praxis jedoch stellt es ein nicht anwendbares Rechtsmodell dar, das absurderweise postuliert, dass ein Staat desto weniger reagieren darf, je unverantwortlicher, illegaler und moralisch verwerflicher das Vorgehen von Terroristen ist. Am Ende wird das internationale Recht selbst das größte Opfer eines solchen Ansatzes sein.”
The U.S. Department of Justice dismissed charges of espionage against the two former top officials of the American think tank American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Steve J. Rosen and Keith Weissman.
HIRAM7 REVIEW welcomes the decision, this case should never have been brought before the courts.
Ilan Halimi war ein 23-jähriger französischer Jude marokkanischer Herkunft, der am 21. Januar 2006 von einer Gang muslimischer Einwanderer, genannt die “Barbaren”, entführt und anschließend über einen Zeitraum von 24 Tagen zu Tode gefoltert wurde. Hauptmotiv des Verbrechens war Antisemitismus.
An op-ed on Durban II by Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Egyptian dissident and Harvard scholar
The Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2009
In 1948, the United Nations recognized the “inherent dignity” and “the equal and inalienable rights” of all human beings when it ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Though this week’s U.N. conference in Geneva claimed to stand for these noble values, the world’s dictators were the real winners.
Too many official country delegates didn’t come to Geneva to stand up for the oppressed. They came to condemn the “colonial powers” of the West and Israel. In so doing, they sought to guard against exposing their own regimes’ human-rights records. While the delegates met in the official conference hall, the true defenders of human rights – civil society organizations and dissidents – gathered at their own conference where they examined today’s most pressing human-rights issues.
The deep divide between those who seek to expose human-rights abuses and those who only use the language of human rights as a shield is not new. It started during Rio’s Earth Summit in 1992, where, for the first time, the U.N. agreed to host two forums: one for government representatives and one for NGOs. The divide between government and NGOs, and between the Third World and the West, reached an apex in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. The central wedge issue was the treatment of the state of Israel.
Eight years ago, the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action (DDPA) singled out Israel for the harshest rebuke of any country. It was not that Israel was totally innocent of charges about its continued occupation of the Palestinians. But the vehemence with which the delegates issued this condemnation, and their manner of voting on it – the delegates cheered “Down With Israel” – led many to conclude that the DPPA bordered on anti-Semitism.
What compounded this sentiment is that most of the governments that pile on to condemn Israel and the so-called “neocolonial” West have terrible human-rights records. These include tyrannical regimes such as Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Libya, Iran, Syria and Egypt (my home country). Their atrocious violations have been widely reported by organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
But members of like-minded voting blocs – such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Organization of African Unity and the League of Arab States – comprise more than two-thirds of the U.N. membership votes. Together, they can railroad through any resolution, no matter how absurd. It was this Afro-Islamic-Arab bloc that made sure Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be the keynote speaker in the opening session of this year’s U.N. World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance.
Rightly anticipating that the Geneva conference would be a forum for anti-Western and anti-Israel propaganda, the U.S. and a score of Western democracies boycotted the conference entirely. More countries – such as Britain, Germany and Holland – walked out of the conference when Mr. Ahmadinejad delivered his usual anti-Israel tirade, calling the Jewish state a “most cruel and racist regime.”
Unfortunately, lost in this circus were the real victims who suffer at the hands of autocratic and theocratic regimes. The most vulnerable groups – the poor, women, children, migrant and stateless people – were ignored this week in Geneva.
Though the decision to boycott the conference was understandable, I believe it was a mistake. The U.S. and other democracies should have attended and fought back. An overwhelming majority of mankind would have applauded their moral courage.
I spent three years alone in an Egyptian prison for the crime of “tarnishing Egypt’s reputation.” Today, prisoners like Roxana Saberi in Iran languish in jails for crimes they did not commit. It is the job of true human-rights advocates to strengthen such victims by standing up to dictators.
Rather than letting Mr. Ahmadinejad steal the headlines, I would have liked to have seen the universally popular President Barack Obama take on the hypocrites who speak in the name of Islam and want to sacrifice such basic rights as freedom of speech by outlawing “Islamophobia.” Mr. Obama could have rescued the human-rights agenda from those who have hijacked it.
Though it didn’t happen in Geneva, I look forward to a campaign, led by Mr. Obama, to return the cause of human rights to its rightful owners.
Mr. Ibrahim was incarcerated by the Mubarak regime from 2000 to 2003. He is now a visiting professor at Harvard.
It is highly disappointing, but not surprising, that more than 100 nations attending the Durban II Racism Conference in Geneva overwhelmingly voted to approve a final declaration that is biased. In a replay of the 2001 original United Nations World Conference against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Israel is again the only nation singled out.
The conference, which is a follow-up to the 2001 United Nations World Conference against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, was meant to address those human rights issues and their violators. However, both the Durban Review Conference and its predecessor degenerated into anti-Israel summits. The 2009 declaration reaffirms the conclusions from the original Durban conference. That document asserted that Palestinians are subject to Israeli “racism.”
The expectation that this anti-Israel declaration would again be the outcome prompted Israel, Canada, the United States of America, Italy, Germany, Australia, Holland, New Zealand, Czech Republic, and Poland to withdraw.
Libya helped to seal the negative outcome of the conference. Chosen as the chair of the conference, despite a long history of supporting terrorism and violating human rights, Libya yesterday engineered the swift movement of the declaration from the drafting committee and adoption of the preparatory document of last week.
Any hope for a better outcome document was dashed with an address to the conference by one who calls for the destruction of and supports terrorism against the State of Israel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Many nations walked out in protest on April 20, 2009, in the face of his hateful, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel tirade.
The 23 European Union nations delegates walked out during Ahmadinejad speech, in which he said that the foundation of the State of Israel rendered “an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering” in order “to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine.”
***
Quotes from Ahmadinejad’s speech in Geneva
“The victorious powers [of the world wars] call themselves the conquerors of the world, while ignoring or down-treading the rights of other nations by the imposition of oppressive laws and international arrangements.”
“Following World War II, they resorted to making an entire nation homeless on the pretext of Jewish suffering. They sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine. In compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.”
“It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defending those racist perpetrators of genocide, whilst the awakened consciences and free-minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutality and the bombardment of civilians of Gaza.”
“[Conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were] a clear example of egocentrism, racism, discrimination or infringement upon the dignity and independence of nations. Today, the human community is facing a kind of racism which has tarnished the image of humanity. In the beginning of the third millennium, the word Zionism personifies racism. [It] falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide hatred.”
“Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their supporters of political and international means…Governments must be encouraged and supported in the fight aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism and moving towards reforming the current international mechanisms.”
“You are all aware of the conspiracy of some powers and Zionist circles against the goals and objectives of this conference… It should be recognized that boycotting such a session is a true indication of supporting the blatant example of racism.”
A statement by Anne Bayefsky at the Third Substantive Preparatory Meeting of the Durban Review Conference.
April 17, 2009
United Nations, Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland
The eyes of millions of victims of racism, xenophobia and intolerance are upon YOU, the representatives of states and the United Nations. And instead of hope you have given them despair. Instead of truth you have handed them diplomatic double-talk. Instead of combating anti-Semitism you have handed them a reason for Jews to fear UN-driven hatemongering on a global scale.
The Durban conference – allegedly dedicated to combating racism, anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance – will open April 20th on the anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler without agreement on even so much as remembering the Holocaust and the war against the Jews. Your draft words on the Holocaust – the very foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – have been narrowed to the barest mention from previous versions. And if the minor reference survives at all – it will be a testament to your interest in Jews that died 60 years ago, while tolerating and encouraging the murder of Jews in the here and now.
Furthermore, the draft before you demonizes the Jewish state of Israel and then has the audacity to pretend to care about anti-Semitism in a single word buried among 17 pages. Anti-Semitism means discrimination against the Jewish people. Since it is evident that almost none of you have the courage to say it, the face of modern anti-Semitism IS the UN – your – discrimination against Israel, the embodiment of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination.
Over and over again we have heard a massive misinformation campaign about the content of these proceedings and the draft before you. We have heard the tale that this draft does not single out Israel, that the hate has been removed, that the fault of the anti-Semitism at Durban I was that of NGOs while states and the UN were blameless.
Perhaps you think that journalists and victims will not bother to read for themselves the Durban Declaration adopted by some governments. There is only one state mentioned in it – Israel. There is only one state associated with racist practices in it – Israel. And yet the very first thing that this draft before you does is to reaffirm that abomination, abomination for Jews and Arabs living in Israel’s free and democratic society, and for all the victims of racism ignored therein. Lawyers call it incorporation by reference when they hope nobody reads the small print. The propaganda stops here. We have read it. We understand the game. And we decry the ugly effort to repeat the Durban agenda to isolate and defeat Israel politically, as every effort to do so militarily for decades has failed.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Chair of this Preparatory Committee also told us this week that the Durban Declaration in all its aspects is a consensus text. Perhaps they are unfamiliar with the Canadian reservations made in Durban in 2001 which state categorically that the Middle East language was outside the conference’s jurisdiction and not agreed. Perhaps they failed to notice that one of the world’s greatest democracies, the United States, voted with its feet and walked out of the Durban I hatefest. The Durban Declaration has never represented a global consensus among free and democratic nations. When the head of the Islamic conference treats Durban as a bible, in their words, it is more accurately a defamation of religions.
This week you decided which states ought to serve in a leadership role at next week’s conference. Among them are some of the world’s leading practitioners of racism, not those interested in ending it. You have also decided to hand a global megaphone to the President of a state which advocates genocide and denies the Holocaust.
So in a state of shock and dismay we address ourselves not to the human rights abusers that glorify the Durban Declaration or its next incarnation, but to democracies – and we ask: Will Germany sit on Hitler’s birthday and listen to the speech of an advocate of genocide against the Jewish people and grant legitimacy to the forum which tolerates his presence? What about the United Kingdom, the birthplace of the Magna Carta? Or France that helped to ship last generation’s Jews to crematoriums?
You could have fought racism. You chose instead to fight Jews. You could have promoted the universal standards against racism already in existence. You chose instead to diminish their importance in the name of alleged cultural preferences. You could have protected freedom of expression. You chose instead to undermine it by twisted concepts of incitement. You could have brought victims of racism together in a common cause. You chose instead to pit victims against each other in an ugly struggle for meager recognition.
For those democracies that remain under these circumstances you are ultimately responsible for what can only be called an appalling disservice to real victims of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance around the world.
About the author: AnneBayefsky holds a B.A., M.A. and LL.B. from the University of Toronto and an M.Litt. from Oxford University. She is a barrister and solicitor of the Ontario Bar, and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute as well as professor at Columbia University Law School in New York, where her areas of expertise include international human rights law, equality rights, and constitutional human rights law. Visit her website here.
10th session of the Human Rights Council (Geneva, March 2009)
Thank you, Mr. President.
Racism is evil. How can we truly fight it?
For starters, by clearing up three myths about next month’s conference.
Myth Number One: that the new draft removes all pernicious provisions.
The truth is that many were removed – thanks only to the credible threat of an E.U. walk-out – but red lines continue to be breached:
Articles 10, 30 and 132 encourage the Islamic states’ campaign to ban any criticism of religion.
Articles 60 to 62 demonize the West, addressing only its sins of slavery, yet saying nothing of the massive Arab trade in African slaves, thereby politicizing that which should never be politicized.
Article 1 breaches President Obama’s red line by reaffirming what his government called the quote, “flawed 2001 Durban Declaration”, a text that stigmatized Israel with false accusations.
Myth Number Two: that going to the conference means dialogue.
In truth, we’ve been negotiating non-stop since August 2007. Going to the conference means endorsing a particular text, and risks legitimizing the greatest perpetrators of racism.
Ironically, many who now claim to support dialogue, are Mideast states belonging to the Arab Boycott Office in Damascus, or radical left campaigners who call for equally bigoted boycotts in the West.
Myth Number Three: that Durban 2 will help millions of victims.
But can anyone name a single victim of racism who was helped by the 2001 conference and countless follow-up committees?
Did Durban help a single victim of Sudan’s racist campaign of mass killing, rape and displacement against millions in Darfur?
Did it help the women of Saudi Arabia subjected to systematic discrimination?
Did it help gays executed by Iran, even as President Ahmadinejad says there are no gays in Iran?
Did it help the 2 million black African migrants in Libya, who, as we read in last week’s International Herald Tribune, say they are treated like slaves and animals?
To truly fight racism, we need to hold perpetrators to account. Tragically, Durban 2 does the opposite.
Leon Edward Panetta, the new director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, said yesterday in a message to CIA employees that the agency would shut down its remaining secret prisons overseas, The New York Times reports.
Statement to Employees by Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Leon E. Panetta on the CIA’s Interrogation Policy and Contracts
April 9, 2009
As you know, there is continuing media and congressional interest in reviewing past rendition, detention, and interrogation activities that took place dating back to 2002. I have also been asked about contract interrogators and detention facilities. Today, I sent a letter to our Congressional oversight committees outlining the Agency’s current policy regarding interrogation of captured terrorists, including the policy on the use of contractors in the process.
CIA’s aggressive global pursuit of al-Qaida and its affiliates continues undiminished. Agency officers are working tirelessly – and successfully – to disrupt operations in strict accord with the President’s Executive Order of January 22, 2009, concerning detention and interrogation.
CIA officers, whose knowledge of terrorist organizations is second to none, will continue to conduct debriefings using a dialog style of questioning that is fully consistent with the interrogation approaches authorized and listed in the Army Field Manual. CIA officers do not tolerate, and will continue to promptly report, any inappropriate behavior or allegations of abuse. That holds true whether a suspect is in the custody of an American partner or a foreign liaison service.
Under the Executive Order, the CIA does not employ any of the enhanced interrogation techniques that were authorized by the Department of Justice from 2002 to 2009.
No CIA contractors will conduct interrogations.
CIA no longer operates detention facilities or black sites and has proposed a plan to decommission the remaining sites. I have directed our Agency personnel to take charge of the decommissioning process and have further directed that the contracts for site security be promptly terminated. It is estimated that our taking over site security will result in savings of up to $4 million.
CIA retains the authority to detain individuals on a short-term transitory basis. None have occurred since I have become Director. We anticipate that we would quickly turn over any person in our custody to U.S. military authorities or to their country of jurisdiction, depending on the situation.
CIA’s focus will remain where the American people expect it to be-on the mission of protecting the country today and into the future. We will do that even as we cooperate with Congressional reviews of past interrogation practices. Officers who act on guidance from the Department of Justice – or acted on such guidance previously – should not be investigated, let alone punished. This is what fairness and wisdom require.
CIA will continue to honor the law as we defend the United States as we have done since the beginning of this program. That is what the men and women of this Agency demand. Together, we can, and will, do no less. Thank you for your service and dedication to protecting this nation.
Finally, let me take this opportunity to wish you and your families a Happy Easter and Passover.
The U.N. Human Rights Council is wholly owned and operated by Islamic states that legitimize Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism, supported by an automatic majority from China, Cuba, and other repressive regimes. Canada, now the true America, is the only country in the world that has been willing to stand up and resist Orwellian resolutions that are destroying the true principles of human rights.
The resolutions of the U.N. Human Rights Council failed to address human rights violations of Muslim countries, notably Iran’s persecution of Baha’is, Saudi Arabia’s banning of all religious practice aside from Islam, and the persecution of Christian communities in Egypt, Pakistan and Iraq. Instead of this, the U.N. Human Rights Council recommended to criminalize the defamation of Islam.
Ethische Dilemmata während der Operation Gegossenes Blei
Als Staat hat Israel seit seiner Gründung gegen die Herausforderung des Terrors zu kämpfen gehabt. Trotz der großen Erfahrung, die die Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte (ZAHAL) gesammelt haben, sind die täglichen Herausforderungen, denen sie begegnen, weiterhin kompliziert und schaffen komplexe ethische Dilemmata.
Das internationale Recht basiert auf dem ‚klassischen’ Modell des Krieges zwischen zwei Armeen. Infolgedessen ist es eine große Herausforderung, existierende internationale Rechtsgrundsätze auf Konflikte mit Terrororganisationen anzuwenden. Sie können keine befriedigende Antwort auf die zahlreichen ethischen Dilemmata geben, die bei solchen Konflikten erwachsen.
Im Bemühen, ihre militärische Unterlegenheit wettzumachen, haben die Terrororganisationen systematische Strategien entwickelt, die das Unvermögen des internationalen Rechts in Bezug auf diese Fragen ausschlachten.
Dem Terrorismus sind der Wert des menschlichen Lebens und der Humanismus gleichgültig, sowohl was die eigene Nation angeht als auch seine Feinde. Aufgrund der fehlenden Verpflichtung gegenüber dem internationalen Recht fühlen sich die Terroristen frei von jeglichen ethischen oder moralischen Beschränkungen und operieren ohne jegliche internationale Überwachung.
Terrororganisationen versuchen, das Vorgehen der Feindstaaten zu delegitimieren. Sie erreichen dies, indem sie sich selbst als Opfer stilisieren. Dieses Bestreben wird dadurch gefördert, dass das Schlachtfeld in dicht bevölkerte Gebiete verlegt wird, wobei mit dem Endziel der Medienaufmerksamkeit eine Wirklichkeit von Tod und Elend erzeugt wird.
Die Operation Gegossenes Blei ist ein klassisches Beispiel für asymmetrische Kriegsführung. Die Hamas hat hierbei terroristische Verhaltensmuster mit zynischen Resultaten an den Tag gelegt.
Im Laufe der vergangenen zwei Jahre hat die Hamas ihre terroristische Infrastruktur mutwillig als inhärenten Teil der zivilen Infrastruktur aufgebaut (bspw. waren mehr als ein Drittel der 122 Häuser im Viertel Al-Attra mit Bomben bestückt). Während der Kämpfe wurden die Bewohner Gazas auf die Straßen gebracht, und die Hamas versteckte sich zwischen ihnen, in ziviler Kleidung, und machte sie dadurch zu menschlichen Schutzschilden. Alan Dershowitz hat dies als die „Tote-Baby-Strategie” der Hamas bezeichnet.
Der Terrorismus der Hamas wurde die gesamte Operation hindurch aufrechterhalten. Als die Übergänge für den Transfer humanitärer Hilfe geöffnet wurden, hat die Hamas sie absichtlich bombardiert. Als Hilfsgüter transferiert wurden, hat die Hamas sie erbeutet und nicht an die lokale Bevölkerung weitergegeben. Als die Kamphandlungen eingestellt wurden, um humanitäre Zeitfenster zu schaffen, hat die Hamas weiter geschossen und Zivilisten gefährdet, die sich nach draußen gewagt hatten. Und als Israel anbot, sich um die Verwundeten zu kümmern, hat die Hamas sich geweigert, sie zu überführen.
Als Staat hat Israel seit seiner Gründung gegen die Herausforderung des Terrors zu kämpfen gehabt. Trotz der großen Erfahrung, die die Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte (ZAHAL) gesammelt haben, sind die täglichen Herausforderungen, denen sie begegnen, weiterhin kompliziert und schaffen komplexe ethische Dilemmata.
Im Feld steht der Kommandant komplexen ethischen Dilemmata gegenüber, die sein persönliches Urteil dazu erfordern, ob er den Anti-Terror-Einsatz, der die lokale Bevölkerung gefährden könnte, fortsetzen oder ob er seine eigenen Soldaten und die Zivilisten, die zu beschützen er ausgesandt wurde, gefährden soll.
Um den ethischen Dilemmata des Krieges, vor allem solchen, die während der Terrorismusbekämpfung auftreten, begegnen zu können, haben die Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte (ZAHAL) einen moralischen Code entwickelt („Der Geist von ZAHAL”). Dieser Code setzt sich aus den Werten zusammen, die der Gründung des Staates Israel innewohnten, den Werten der westlichen Demokratie und der Verpflichtung gegenüber dem internationalen Recht.
Der „Geist von ZAHAL” ist tief in die Grundausbildung jedes einzelnen Soldaten und Kommandanten der Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte eingebaut. Die ethische Verantwortung unserer Soldaten widerspricht nicht der Notwendigkeit persönlicher Sicherheit – sie setzt einen hohen Standard für das persönliche Urteil beim Zielen auf Terroristen, die unter Zivilisten Schutz suchen.
Die Rechtsexperten der Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte haben jeden Aspekt der Operation begleitet, von der Planung bis zur Durchführung. Dies reflektiert die Anerkennung der Bedeutung der Einhaltung des internationalen Rechts als dem Entscheidungsprozess inhärenter Aspekt.
Vorbereitungen für potentielle ethische Dilemmata begannen bereits in der Planungsphase der Operation. Während der Operation wurden unzählige Maßnahmen ergriffen, um den Kollateralschaden an den Bewohnern des Gaza-Streifens zu minimieren: Mehr als 1 250 000 Flugblätter wurden verteilt, mehr als 165 000 Bewohner des Gaza-Streifens wurden vorab telefonisch gewarnt, und die „Anklopftechnik” wurde breitflächig angewandt.
Trotz des häufigen Kampfes in dicht bevölkerten Gebieten und des Missbrauchs von lokalen Bewohnern als menschliche Schutzschilde durch die Hamas verdeutlichen die Einschätzungen der Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte, dass der Großteil der Opfer bewaffnete Kämpfer waren (709 bewaffnete Kämpfer, 295 Zivilisten und 162 Personen, deren Grad der Involvierung noch geprüft wird).
Das Schlachtfeld ist ein Schauplatz, der für Fehler anfällig ist. Für die Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte ist jeder Kollateralschaden an Zivilisten problematisch und wird untersucht, um aus den eigenen Fehlern zu lernen und die Kampfdoktrin für die Zukunft zu verbessern. Für die Hamas ist der Kollateralschaden sowohl an israelischen als auch palästinensischen Zivilisten ein Mittel zum Erreichen ihres Ziels.
Bis ein effektiver moralischer Code zur Regulierung des Kriegs gegen den Terror geschaffen sein wird, gibt es keine einzige und eindeutige Lösung für ethische Dilemmata. Die Dilemmata stellten eine Herausforderung dar, die von allen westlichen Armeen geteilt wird, eine Herausforderung, der man begegnen muss, um die demokratischen Kernwerte zu bewahren, die unsere Staaten prägen.
Es scheint so, als ob der Einsatz von menschlichen Schutzschilden durch Terror- und Guerillaorganisationen infolge der steigenden Verstädterung, der operationellen Vorteile einer solchen Umgebung und der internationalen Verurteilung von Anti-Terror-Aktivitäten in bewohnten Gebieten noch wachsen wird. Das schiere Ausmaß dieser Dilemmata wird noch zunehmen und nicht nur Israel und den Nahen Osten, sondern die internationale Gemeinschaft als Ganze betreffen. Insofern ist die globale Acht- und Aufmerksamkeit gegenüber dieser Angelegenheit unerlässlich.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said that the Obama administration will move forward with an overhaul of financial regulation, less than a year after an abortive blueprint for financial regulation from the previous administration. A massive financial crisis and hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts for financial firms were interposed between these two attempts, fundamentally altering the terms of discussion.
Some observers claim that companies like AIG and Citigroup became too big to fail – that is, “systemically significant” – and thus require special regulation. The Obama administration’s plan will include a keystone role for the U.S. Federal Reserve in monitoring and addressing broad or systemic economic risks.
In a op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan argues that state capitalism is not the right prescription to the current financial crisis: “However, the appropriate policy response is not to bridle financial intermediation with heavy regulation. That would stifle important advances in finance that enhance standards of living. Remember, prior to the crisis, the U.S. economy exhibited an impressive degree of productivity advance. To achieve that with a modest level of combined domestic and borrowed foreign savings (our current account deficit) was a measure of our financial system’s precrisis success. The solutions for the financial-market failures revealed by the crisis are higher capital requirements and a wider prosecution of fraud – not increased micromanagement by government entities.”
TESTIMONY OF JASON F. ISAACSON
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICY AND TRADE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 1327, THE IRAN SANCTIONS ENABLING ACT OF 2009
WASHINGTON D.C., MARCH 12, 2009
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee,
I am honored to testify on behalf of the American Jewish Committee in support of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act. AJC is grateful to Chairman Frank and to you, Chairman Meeks, and to the other sponsors of this important legislation for developing early in the new Congress this well-crafted tool to address the grave threats posed by Iran’s regime.
My testimony will highlight two key points:
First, stopping Iran’s nuclear program is a matter of the greatest urgency – because Iran is so close to achieving nuclear capability, and because a nuclear Iran would alter the world as we know it in terrible ways.
Second, this legislation – clarifying the authority of state and local governments, and investment companies, to divest from entities that invest heavily in Iran’s energy sector – can significantly assist the overall effort to halt Iran’s nuclear program.
Iran is on the doorstep of nuclear arms capability. It has already crossed a significant threshold – amassing enough enriched uranium to make, with further enrichment, its first nuclear bomb. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, discussed this conclusion last week, and the International Atomic Energy Agency documented it in its February 19 report.
Iran’s installation of thousands of new centrifuges, including next-generation units, increases its ability rapidly to enrich to bomb grade – and thus “break out” of its Non-Proliferation Treaty constraints. Iran could probably conceal its breakout even if IAEA inspectors remain in the country, because Iran routinely refuses to provide critical information and access to inspectors. Once Iran decides to break out, it may be too late for the international community to stop it from producing a bomb. That gives us breathtakingly little time to act. And Iran could marry a nuclear warhead with advanced missiles it already possesses that could strike the Middle East and beyond, including much of Europe.
President Obama and Congress recognize America’s strong interest in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Some observers may see a nuclear Iran primarily as an existential peril to Israel, a country it has repeatedly threatened and has used proxy forces to attack. I do not want to minimize that very real danger – nor the need for bold international action to prevent it. But I want to highlight that a nuclear Iran would pose an even broader threat – throughout the Arab Gulf, to the entire region and, indeed, to global peace and security.
Already, Iran projects its power throughout the Middle East. Nuclear arms would embolden Tehran to pursue its expansionist agenda even more aggressively. And the international community’s options for vigorous response would be constrained, for fear of provoking nuclear retaliation. I will give you a few examples of what may lie ahead:
A nuclear Iran could dominate the world’s most abundant sources of energy – the Gulf and the Caspian Basin. Challenged, Iran could attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz – through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil production passes. Or it might seek to realize its expansionist vision by taking territory from one or more of the smaller Gulf States.
Over the last 15 years, AJC has paid periodic visits to the Gulf, conferring with governments allied with the United States in the struggle against terrorism and extremism, and supportive of efforts to advance regional peace. We regularly hear on these visits the concerns of Gulf leaders about Iran’s assertion of regional power, and its attempts to radicalize their societies. It isn’t only Israel that perceives the perils of a nuclear Iran. From North Africa to the Levant to the Gulf, pragmatic Arab governments and civil society leaders recognize the danger of a further empowered Iran; many look to the United States for assurance that this nightmare can be averted, and that America will safeguard their security. Unless the United States and other powers act boldly and promptly, these governments may feel compelled to accommodate Iran, procure their own nuclear weapons, or both. These developments would assuredly destabilize the region, challenge U.S. power, and imperil the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime.
Iran already has a potent presence in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon – through its active support of Hezbollah and Hamas. The Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Jordan, and others – not to mention Israel – are deeply concerned about Iran’s activity. The threat would be magnified, and prospects for regional peace and the protection of human rights severely complicated, were Iran to possess nuclear capability.
The shadow cast by a nuclear-capable Iran, which Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi, director of the Brussels-based Transatlantic Institute, affiliated with AJC, outlines in his just-published book “Under a Mushroom Cloud,” clearly pales in comparison with the dangers of Iran actually launching a nuclear weapon, or transferring a nuclear device to a terrorist proxy. These prospects cannot be discounted – because the consequences are too dire to discount. A dirty bomb in the center of Chicago, London, or Tel Aviv is, horrifyingly, in the realm of possibility. If Iran’s leaders wished to make good on their oft-repeated promise to wipe Israel off the map, we could not necessarily rely on deterrence to dissuade them – not in a country whose rulers have demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice millions of their citizens to achieve their vision.
What can be done to stop Iran’s nuclear drive? The best answer is to offer the regime incentives for ending its defiance of international law – and powerful disincentives to pursue its current course. The United States has played a crucial leadership role in trying to mobilize the world’s economic powers to impose tough sanctions. The urgency of the threat and the severe consequences of failing to end it compel the United States to intensify these efforts.
First, our government should make abundantly clear that we will not allow a nuclear Iran – and that the UN Security Council demand that Iran verifiably suspend enrichment is not negotiable.
Second, we should offer Iran incentives – as EU and U.S. negotiators have previously tabled – for ending its nuclear enrichment and meeting its non-proliferation obligations.
Third, we should make it unbearably costly for Iran’s regime to continue its defiance – even as we make it clear to Iran’s people, against whom we hold no brief, that the choice lies with their regime.
The United States has been a leader in mobilizing international support for addressing the Iranian threat. As Iran closes in on nuclear capability, we must continually ratchet up the price of its defiance.
If our Administration pursues engagement with Iran, simultaneously intensifying sanctions is critical. Only tough sanctions would prevent Iran’s rulers from seeing our overtures as a sign of weakness and motivate them to be forthcoming in negotiations. Firm goalposts and deadlines also are crucial to prevent Iran’s regime from hiding behind negotiations as it completes its quest for nuclear arms.
Congress, as in the past, has a critical role to play in maintaining the necessary focus on this urgent issue, and in providing the Administration – and now, with the legislation before you, providing state and local authorities across the country – the proper tools to address it.
In addition to existing U.S. efforts and repeated UN Security Council sanctions measures, it is imperative that further, targeted U.S. sanctions be implemented – including ones that Congress has passed but that still have not been implemented. Such further sanctions will discourage large new investments and contracts that help maintain Iran’s regime. This is where the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act will make a significant contribution.
Iran’s strained economy is the regime’s Achilles’ heel, and provides our most effective leverage – especially now, with oil prices sharply depressed. Oil and gas exports account for some 80 percent of Iran’s export revenue and about half the government’s budget. The regime relies on foreign companies to develop its energy industry, and even to provide it with gasoline for domestic use – because it doesn’t have refining capacity to meet its own needs. Foreign energy companies essentially sustain Iran’s economy and its regime.
Billions of dollars of U.S. public employee pension funds and other public funds are invested in the foreign corporations that most heavily engage in Iran’s oil sector – accounting for a significant portion of investment in these companies. A movement of concerned citizens is sweeping America to curb investment of public funds in these companies. Ten states have enacted laws – including California, with the largest plans in the country, by far – and others have instituted policies divesting from Iran. Members of the armed forces and first responders – who know first-hand the damage that Iran’s activity inflicts – are among those who have advocated for divestment most strongly.
Taken together, the divestment mandates already on the books at the state and local level affect more than half a trillion dollars in assets – a sum that is growing as grassroots concern spreads. As Senator Deutch knows – in fact, in large part because of Senator Deutch’s efforts – the State of Florida alone already has directed its pension funds to divest nearly $1.3 billion from these companies, unless the companies change their ways.
Divestment, and the attendant negative publicity, impels companies to reassess their investment in Iran – especially because most of the laws give companies an opportunity to avoid divestment by halting such investments. Many companies already have chosen to do just that. Divestment also discourages companies from beginning new business in Iran.
Thus, divestment discourages the heavy international investment in Iran’s oil and gas infrastructure that Iran’s regime desperately needs, and thereby significantly adds to the economic pressure on the regime.
Iran is a highly risky investment environment, for numerous reasons. The volatile government and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard own and control much of the economy, especially the energy sector. Corruption is rife, and the business environment opaque. Credit and credit guarantees have become less available, especially with the designation of large Iranian banks for their involvement in proliferation and/or terrorism. Available credit often costs more or comes from less reputable institutions – or both. Iran’s deep economic crisis heightens the risk of doing business there. Companies investing heavily in Iran’s energy sector also risk U.S., EU, and international sanctions.
For all these reasons, and more, companies that engage heavily in Iran’s energy sector are subject to extraordinary risk. Investing in these companies could subject a pension or other fund to undue risk. State and local governments – or investment fund managers – that choose to divest from these companies are acting with prudence and exercising their legitimate authority to protect the assets under their stewardship.
The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act would protect only divestment from companies that invest more than $20 million in Iran’s energy sector. These are the very companies that are subject to U.S. sanctions for their activity in Iran – activity that U.S. companies are forbidden from doing.
The American Jewish Committee strongly supports this legislation, and wishes to express our appreciation for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on this critical matter. I would also be remiss if I did not thank my colleague Debra Feuer for her exceptional work on this issue.
A naval dispute between China and the United States escalated today as Beijing rebuffed Washington’s claims that Chinese ships “harassed” an unarmed U.S. ocean surveillance ship in the South China Sea on Sunday.
China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu said today that “the U.S. claim is totally inaccurate and wrong” and that the American ship was breaking international law.
Posted by HIRAM7 REVIEW 
Posted by HIRAM7 REVIEW 
Posted by HIRAM7 REVIEW 
