Barack Obama on Homeland Security
Democratic incumbent President; IL Senator (2004-2008)
- Sub-sections under Homeland Security:
- National Service
- Nuclear Weapons
- Terrorism
- Veterans
- Voting Record
- Other issues under Homeland Security
Lasting peace does not require perpetual war
A decade of war is now ending. We, the people, still believe that
enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our
brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are
unmatched in skill and courage.
Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well
the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice
will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm.
But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war,
who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry
those lessons into this time as well.We will defend our people and
uphold our values through strength
of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our
differences with other nations peacefully--not because we are na‹ve
about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift
suspicion and fear.
Don't give military money that they're not asking for
Q: Governor, you say you want a bigger military. Where are you going to get the money?ROMNEY: First of all, we're going to cut about 5% of the discretionary budget excluding military.Q: Can you do this without driving us deeper into debt?
OBAMA: Gov. Romney's called for $5 trillion of tax cuts that he says he's going to pay for by closing deductions. He then wants to spend another $2 trillion on military spending that our military's not asking for. Now, keep in mind that our military spending has gone up every single year that I've been in office. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined--China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, you name it, next 10. And what I did was work with our Joint Chiefs of Staff to think about what are we going to need in the future to make sure that we are safe? And that's the budget that we've put forward. But what you can't do is spend $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military is not asking for.
Take money from war budgets and fund nation-building at home
After World War II, we connected our States with a system of highways.
Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects
that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the
businesses that still use them today.
In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the
red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to
fund these projects.
Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay
down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at
home.
There's never been a better time to build, especially since the
construction industry was one of the hardest-hit when the housing bubble
burst.
Reduce defense spending 1% in 2013; add 2% per year after
According to the first details of the Obama administration's fiscal 2013
defense budget, defense spending in 2013 would be reduced 1% from this
year's initial $525 billion request before growing annually 1.8% in
2014, 2.3% in 2015, 1.9% in 2016, and
2.2% in 2017.The administration plans $82 billion in funding for the
Afghanistan and Iraq wars for 2013, according to OMB. The basic
defense-only "topline" numbers are currently projected at: $524 billion
in 2013; and $533 billion in
2014; $546 billion in 2015; $556 billion in 2016; and $568 billion in
2017. The percentage increases are expressed in "nominal growth," not
adjusted for inflation. The 2012-2021 defense plan calls for $5.652 trillion in spending. OMB calculated that the total Budget Control Act- mandated defense cut over those years is $488 billion--or about an 8.5% total decrease.
New START treaty: more secure & fewer nuclear weapons
American leadership can be seen in the effort to secure the worst
weapons of war. Because Republicans and Democrats approved the New START
treaty, far fewer nuclear weapons and launchers will be deployed.
Because we rallied the world, nuclear materials
are being locked down on every continent so they never fall into the
hands of terrorists.With our European allies, we revitalized NATO and
increased our cooperation on everything from counterterrorism to
missile defense.
OpEd: On track to spend most on military since WWII
For 2008, the US accounted for over 40% of global military expenses,
eight times as much as its nearest rival, China. The US is of course
alone in having a vast network of military bases around the world and a
global surveillance and control system, and
in regularly invading other countries (with impunity, given its power).
From 1999 to 2008, global military spending increased 45%, with the US
accounting for 58% of the total.Obama is on track to spend more on
defense, in real dollars, than any other
president in one term of office since World War II, and that's not
counting the additional $130 billion the administration is requesting to
find the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, with even more war
spending slated for future years. In January
2010, Congress passed his Pentagon budget with supplemental funding for
Afghanistan pending. The $708.3 billion budget (with another $33 billion
expected for Afghanistan) is not only a record, but also amounts to
half the deficit.
Called for space weapons ban, but with wiggle room
A crucial question is what Obama's position will be on "missile
defense"--understood on all sides to be, in effect, a first-strike
weapon--and militarization of space. On the latter, he was called for "a
world-wide ban on weapons that interfere with
military and commercial satellites," which would mean that the US
project of the weaponization of space--so far in isolation and over
global objections, spearheaded at the UN by China--would remain
undisturbed, while there would be a ban on any
interference with satellites, including those essential for the
militarization of space. He also called for a space weapons ban, a very
welcome step, but presented in a way that leaves "a lot of wiggle room."
Obama's approach may be an improvement ove
Bush, and offers prospects for popular movements that seek to rid the
earth of these threats to survival of the species. But a lot of work
will be needed.
Let gay people serve in military openly
My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again
prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We
finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate.
This year, I will work with
Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay
Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they
are. It's the right thing to do.
US has helped underwrite global security for 60 years
Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United
States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than
six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.
The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted
peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to
take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not
because we seek to impose our will.
We have done so out of enlightened self-interest--because we seek a
better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that
their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren
can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the
peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another--that no matter how
justified, war promises human tragedy.
Promises to close Guantanamo & treat prisoners as POWs
The Bush administration argued that because [prisoners at Guantanamo]
are not state-sponsored, they are not entitled to the usual protections
of the Geneva Convention, and have no rights to our time-honored (and
constitutionally guaranteed) principle of
habeas corpus. The Bush White House had been staunchly opposed to giving
detainees access to civilian courts, later arguing that military
tribunals sufficed. Constitutional lawyers argued--and the Supreme Court
agreed--that such a position was
impermissible and that habeas corpus extends to those captured in a time
of war even if they don't fit into traditional categories.President
Barack Obama will close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and
remove the "unlawful enemy combatants"
status from those detained. Both charges will accelerate resolution of
the basic questions that remain: What is the adjudication process and
what is the standard against which their actions will be measured to
justify release?
FactCheck: F-22 Raptor costs $140M and has never been used
Some claims that made our ears perk up actually checked out OK, like on
Cold War Weapons: Obama criticized "Cold War weapons we don't use."
That's a reference to the F-22 Raptor, a high-tech fighter plane that
has been operational since 2005. It costs about $140 million per plane
and has never been used in combat.
Obama Doctrine: moral interest as well as national interest
Q: What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the US would send when we don’t have national security issues at stake?OBAMA:
Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we
have moral issues at stake. If we could
have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say
that we had a moral obligation not to go in? If we could’ve stopped
Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we
would have to strongly consider and act.
So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening
somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us. And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible. But understand that there’s a lot of cruelty around the world. We’re not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That’s why it’s so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies.
Inappropriate to lie to public; just don’t answer questions
Q: Describe a situation when you think it’s appropriate to lie to the American people.A:
I don’t think it’s appropriate to lie to the American people. And I
think that one of the things I want to change about the culture of
Washington is, not just the “big lie,” but also the “soft lie.” The
fudging, the manipulation, the spin. If we can restore a sense of trust
between the
American people and their government, we’re going to go a long way to
changing the country for the better.Q: What about in a national security situation?
A: I don’t think it’s appropriate to lie. I mean, you can put together a hypothetical where there is a national security emergency that is imminent. And you don’t want to provide, for example, the location of our troops. You don’t have to lie in those situations. You simply say, “we’re not answering questions.”
We should have focused on loose nukes & Al Qaeda after 9/11
Obama's July 15 speech on national security: - Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.
- We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11.
- We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework.
- We could have invested in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.
- We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.
- We could have done that. Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats--all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
Grandfather served in Patton's tank corps in WWII
With the onset of World War II, [Obama's grandfather] Stanley Dunham
enlisted in the army and ended up slogging through Europe with General
George Patton's tank corps without ever seeing real combat. [His wife,
Obama's grandmother] Madelyn worked as a
riveter at the Boeing Company's B-29 plant in Wichita. In Nov. 1942,
their daughter, Ann Dunham, was born.Stanley Dunham has been described as a kind of Willy Loman, the tragic, broken character in Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman.
There are
similarities. Returning from war and grasping the promise of the GI
Bill, Stanley moved his young family to California, where he enrolled at
the University of California-Berkeley. Obama would later recount kindly
of his grandfather that "the classroom
couldn't contain his ambitions, his restlessness, and so the family
moved on." It was the pattern of a lifetime. There was first a return to
Kansas and then years of one small Texas town after another, one dusty
furniture store after another.
Colleges must allow military recruiters for ROTC on campus
Q: Will you vigorously enforce a statute which says colleges must allow
military recruiters on campus and provide ROTC programs? A: Yes.
Human rights and national security are complementary
Q: Is human rights more important than American national security?A:
The concepts are not contradictory, but complementary. Pakistan is a
great example. We paid $10 billion over the last seven years & we
had two goals: deal with terrorism and restore
democracy. We’ve gotten neither. Pakistan’s democracy would strengthen
our battle against extremists. The more we see repression, the more
there are no outlets for how people can express themselves and their
aspirations, the worse off we’re going to be,
and the more anti-American sentiment there’s going to be in the Middle
East. We keep on making this mistake. As president, I will make sure
that nuclear weapons don’t fall into the hands of extremists, especially
Al Qaida.
If we simply prop up anti-democratic practices that feeds the sense that
the US is only concerned about us and that our fates are not tied to
these other folks. That’s going to make us less safe. That’s something I
intend to change.
Judgment is as important as experience
The conservative magazine the Economist said, “Mr. Obama has already
shown that he possesses something more important than
expertise--judgment. His prediction about the Iraq war back in 2002 has
proved strikingly prescient.”
In 2002, Obama said: “I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear
rationale and without strong international support will only fan the
flames of the
Middle East and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of
the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.“
Everything Obama said five years ago has come true. As columnist
Margaret Carlson noted, Obama ”was dead-on correct about the seminal
issue of our time.“
Repeal Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell
Obama believes we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in
consultation with military commanders. The key test for military service
should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve.
Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and
ensure we accomplish our national defense goals.
America must practice the patriotism it preaches
I think it is unconscionable for us to stand by our troops and hoist the
flag and suggest how patriotic we are at the same time as the veterans’
budget is being effectively cut.I’m going to monitor very closely
how we are treating 100,000+ veterans wh
are coming home, to make sure the VA has the capacity to provide
transition services for veterans who are leaving the service and
reentering civilian life--particularly the National Guardsman and
Reservists who did not expect to be fighting in Iraq.
Get first responders the healthcare and equipment they need
It is a noble calling what you do [as firefighters]. You know that. I
know that. This country knows that. But sometimes Washington forgets.
They praise your work. But when it’s time for you to get health care or
buy the radios and equipment you need,
those supporters disappear like a puff of smoke. Instead of making
your job easier, they tried to cut funding so that you couldn’t buy the
masks and suits you need. They wanted to stop the hiring of 75,000 new
firefighters. They wanted to hide the
US Fire Administration under layers of bureaucracy at Homeland Security.
And 5 years after September 11th, they still won’t give our first
responders the health care they earned that day. What keeps Washington from doing all that it needs to do to better protect our firefighters, police officers, and EMT’s--it’s not a lack of ideas and solutions that’s holding us back. It is the smallness of our politics.
Need to be both strong and smart on national defense
Obama takes an unexceptional position on defense spending, i.e., we need
to be strong but we need to be smart about it. However, some papers
reported the story as “Obama chides other Democrats on defense.” Of
course, it is not true.
The rumor got started that way, in the lead of an AP article on Obama’s
Sept. 18 speech to Iowa Democrats. Six other articles reporting on the
same event failed to mention the mythical attack on other Democrats.
Grow size of military to maintain rotation schedules
Our most complex military challenge will involve putting boots on the
ground in the ungoverned or hostile regions where terrorists thrive.
That requires a smarter balance between what we spend on fancy hardware
and what we spend on our men and women in
uniform. That should mean growing the size of our armed forces to
maintain reasonable rotation schedules, keeping our troops properly
equipped, and training them in the skills they’ll need to succeed in
increasingly complex and difficult missions.
We are currently inspecting 3% of all incoming cargo
Q: Name a key vulnerability or weakness that you see in homeland security.A:
Our inspections of ports. We are currently inspecting 3% of all
incoming cargo. Terrorists could load up a cargo container and drive it
straight into the middle of the Loop
without significant risk of them being inspected. Our chemical and
nuclear plants are still unsecured, despite how vulnerable they are.
There are a whole host of domestic priorities that have been neglected
by the Bush administration.
Give our soldiers the best equipment and training available
[The US should] prepare our military to meet the new threats of the 21st
century. We must prepare our military to meet the new threats of the
21st century by making sure that we have sufficient forces and by giving
our soldiers the best equipment
and training available. We must also ensure that members of our National
Guard and reservists have access to affordable, quality health care.
Barack Obama on National Service
Serving America doesn’t mean going out shopping
Q: As president, what sacrifices will you ask every American to make, to get out of the economic morass that we’re now in?OBAMA:
A lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11 and how all of the country
was ready to come together and make enormous changes
to make us not only safer, but to make us a better country and a more
unified country. And President Bush did some smart things at the outset,
but one of the opportunities that was missed was, when he spoke to the
American people, he said, “Go out and
shop.“ That wasn’t the kind of call to service that I think the American
people were looking for.I think the young people of America are especially interested in how they can serve, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m interested in doubling the Peac Corps, making sure that we are creating a volunteer corps all across this country that can be involved in their community, involved in military service, so that our troops are not the only ones bearing the burden of renewing America.
$4,000 tuition tax credit in exchange for community service
Our commitment to education cannot end with a high school degree. The
chance to get a college education must not be a privilege of the few--it
should be a birthright of every single American.
Senator McCain is campaigning on a plan to give more tax breaks to
corporations. I want to give tax breaks to young people, in the form of
an annual $4,000 tax credit that will cover two-thirds of the tuition at
an average public college,
and make community college completely free. In return, I will ask
students to serve, whether it’s by teaching, joining the Peace Corps, or
working in your community. And for those who serve in our military,
we’ll cover all of your tuition with an even more generous 21st Century
GI Bill. The idea is simple--America invests in you, and you invest in
America. That’s how we’re going to ensure that America succeeds in this
century.
Expand Peace Corps and AmeriCorps to 266,000 slots
THE PROBLEM- Americans Not Asked to Serve After 9/11: President Bush squandered an opportunity to mobilize the American people following 9/11 when asked Americans only to go shopping.
- Insufficient Federal Support for Service : While more than 500,000 people have served in AmeriCorps, the program turns away applicants a year because of limited funding.
- Expand National Service: Obama will expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 slots today to 250,000 and he will focus this expansion on addressing the great challenges facing the nation. He will establish a Classroom Corps; a Health Corps; a Clean Energy Corps; a Veterans Corps; and a Homeland Security Corpss.
- Expand the Peace Corps: Obama will double the Peace Corps to 16,000 by 2011. He will work with the leaders of other countries to build an international network of overseas volunteers so that Americans work side-by-side with volunteers from other countries.
Put forward a national service program
The volunteer Army is a way for us to maintain excellence. If we are
deploying our military wisely, then a voluntary army is sufficient,
although I would call for an increase in our force structure,
particularly around the Army and the
Marines, because we’ve got to put an end to people going on three, four,
five tours of duty and the strain on families is enormous. The
obligation to serve exists for everybody. That’s why I’ve put forward a
national service program that is tied to my
tuition credit for students who want to go to college. You get $4000
every year to help you go to college. In return, you have to engage in
some form of national service. Military service has to be an option. We
have to have civilian options as well.
Not just the Peace Corps, but one of the things that we need desperately
are people in our foreign service speaking foreign languages in a lot
of work that may not be hand-to-hand combat but just as critical in
ensuring our long-term safety & security.
Give 18-year-old women opportunity to serve
Q: Teenage boys must register for selective service at age 18, but not
girls. I’m wondering whether this sends the right message about national
service?DODD: I don’t see a need for the draft. I don’t believe that is necessary.
But if you are going to have one I think it ought to be gender neutral.Q: If it did not necessarily mean military service, should the country examine registering women at 18?
CLINTON: Yes.
EDWARDS: Yes. But it’s absolutely crucial that we ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war. As with John Kennedy’s call to action, I think we need a president who asks Americans to sacrifice.
KUCINICH: We have to say no to a draft.
BIDEN: Yes ,and there should be universal service.
OBAMA: Yes. Every young person should have that opportunity to serve and do something that is bigger than themselves.
RICHARDSON: Yes. And I outlined a plan two years of college tuition paid off by the government, one year of national service
Register women for draft, but not for combat
Q: Do you think women should register for selective service when they turn 18 like men do currently?A:
You know, a while back we had a celebration in the Capitol for the
Tuskegee Airmen, and it was extraordinarily powerful because it reminded
us,
there was a time when African-Americans weren’t allowed to serve in
combat. And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly,
but what also happened is they helped to change
America, and they helped to underscore that we’re equal. And I think
that if women are registered for service--not necessarily in combat
roles, and I don’t agree with the draft--
I think it will help to send a message to my two daughters that they’ve
got obligations to this great country as well as boys do.
Barack Obama on Nuclear Weapons
Strengthen NPT to have automatic sanctions on Iran
[On Iran, Obama called for tough diplomacy "to pressure Iran directly to
change their troubling behavior," namely pursuing a nuclear program and
supporting terrorism. If Iran abandons its troubling behavior, the
US might move toward normal diplomatic and economic relations, Obama
proposed, but "if Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up
our economic pressure and political isolation."Furthermore, Obama
proceeded, he will strengthen the
NPT "so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules
will automatically face strong international sanctions." He made no
mention of the conclusion of US intelligence that Iran had not had a
weapons program for five years, unlike
US allies in Israel, Pakistan, and India, the three countries that all
maintain extensive nuclear weapons programs (with direct US support),
all unmentioned as well.
OpEd: walked away from missile defense of Eastern Europe
Russia's burgeoning relationship with Venezuela has purpose beyond
energy: anything that diminishes America pleases Putin, both because it
weakens a competing power and because it gratifies his personal animus
for the US. Russia's resistance to severe
sanctioning of North Korea and Iran as they have pursued their nuclear
programs are a stick in the eye for the US. So, too, is Russia's
insistence that the world replace the dollar as the reserve currency.
Putin also bitterly opposes any development that
would strengthen the US such as missile defense, particularly in Eastern
Europe, and admission of the former Soviet satellites into NATO. Pres.
Obama's decision to walk way from our missile defense program in Poland
and the Czech Republic was a huge
concession to Putin, as is the stalling on admission of Georgia and the
Ukraine into NATO. Russia welcomes concessions, and these, like their
predecessors, were not repaid in kind. Russia takes, Pres. Obama gives,
and Russia demands more.
Secure all world's nuclear materials by international treaty
Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the
greatest danger to the American people--the threat of nuclear weapons.
I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and
Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these
weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and
launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and
Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control
treaty in nearly two decades. And at April's Nuclear Security Summit,
we will bring 44 nations together here in
Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear
materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into
the hands of terrorists.
Reduce US nuclear stockpile & prevent spread of nukes
One urgent example [of alternatives to violence] is the effort to
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them.
In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a
treaty whose bargain is clear: all will have
access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will
forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward
disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a
centerpiece of my foreign policy.
And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's
nuclear stockpiles.But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist
that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system.
Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes
when those laws are flouted. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by
as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
Goal is a world without nuclear weapons
Without any introduction, Obama begins, "I am the only major candidate
to oppose this war from the beginning and, as president, I will end it."Second,"
he continues, "I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful
spending.
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not
weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems
and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure
that the quadrennial defense review is not
used to justify unnecessary spending."Third," he says, without pausing, "I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a ban on the production of fissile materials. And I will negotiate with Russia to take ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."
A New Beginning: seek world with no nuclear weapons
On Oct. 2, 2007, Obama declared, "A New Beginning," announcing, "America
seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons." Obama made clear
he did not intend to pursue unilateral disarmament. He promised to work
with Russia "to take US & Russian
ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert.""We'll start by seeking a
global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons." Obama
stated we would set a goal to expand the US-Russian ban on
intermediate-range missiles so the agreement is global
Obama argued, "We'll be in a better position to lead the world in enforcing the rules of the road if we firmly abide by those rules." This is truly the crux of Obama's argument: because we do not demonstrate moral leadership, other nations have no choice but to proliferate nuclear weapons. At the base of the argument, Obama is saying a world with nuclear weapons is our fault. "It's time to stop giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse," he said. "It's time for America to lead."
Seek the peace of a world without nuclear weapons
This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without
nuclear weapons. The Cold War superpowers came too close too often to
destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone,
we need not stand idly by and watch the furthe
spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear
materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the
arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of
seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.
2007: With Hagel, introduced nuclear nonproliferation bill
We must once again convince the world that America has the clear
intention of fulfilling the nuclear disarmament commitments that we have
made. Building a new global nuclear consensus is the only way to
achieve lasting solutions to challenges such as
Iran's nuclear ambition.Last summer, Senator Barack Obama and I
introduced comprehensive nuclear nonproliferation legislation. Among
other things, our bill would provide funding for an international fuel
bank that would be administered by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. This fuel bank has the potential to
be a critical mechanism to help reduce the demand for sensitive nuclear
technologies that could be used to produce nuclear weapons-grade uranium
and plutonium. Our bill would also
provide funding to enable the United States to work with other countries
to develop the technology to identify sources of nuclear material. If
Iran's nuclear intentions prove to be peaceful, as its leaders claim,
this bill can put that to the test.
Pursue goal of a world without nuclear weapons
Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it.
Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear
weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward
eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop th
development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take ballistic
missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in stockpiles
of nuclear weapons and material; and expand globally the US-Russian ban
on intermediate-range missiles.
Rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy
I’ve worked on nuclear proliferation in the Senate, to improve
interdiction of potentially nuclear materials. It is important for us to
rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy, something that this
administration has ignored, and has made us
less safe as a consequence. It would not cost us that much, for example,
and would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear
weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job.
2006: Obama-Lugar bill restricted conventional weapons
Obama worked with Richard Lugar (R-IN) to pass legislation to help
secure dangerous conventional weapons, especially from the former Soviet
Union. In Dec. 2006, the Senate passed the Lugar-Obama bill to restrict
the global spread of conventional weapons.
Obama noted, “The Lugar-Obama initiative will help other nations find
and eliminate the type of conventional weapons that have been used
against our own soldiers in Iraq and sought by terrorists all over the
world.”
2005: Passed bill to reduce conventional weapon stockpiles
Obama’s greatest legislative success was teaming with Republican Senator
Richard Lugar of Indiana on a bill that expanded US cooperation to
reduce stockpiles of conventional weapons and expanded the
State Department’s ability to interdict weapons and materials of mass
destruction. In the spring of 2005, Obama had traveled to Russia with
Lugar to inspect nuclear weapons stockpiles.
Protecting nuclear power plants is of utmost importance
We have utterly failed to deal with what may be one of the most
significant potential terror threats to this country, and that is how we
protect our chemical plants across the nation.
These plants are stationary weapons of mass destruction spread across
the country. Their security is light, their facilities are easily
entered, and their contents are deadly.
Rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
We would obviously have to retaliate against anybody who struck American
soil, whether it was nuclear or not. It would be a much more profound
issue if it were nuclear weapons. That’s why it’s so important for us to
rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty that has fallen apart under this administration. We have not made
a commitment to work with the Russians to reduce our own nuclear
stockpiles. That has weakened our capacity to pressure other countries
to give up nuclear technology.
We have not locked down the loose nuclear weapons that are out there
right now. These are all things that we should be taking leadership on.
Part of what we need to do in changing our foreign policy is not just
end the war in
Iraq; we have to change the mindset that ignores long-term threats and
engages in the sorts of actions that are not making us safe over the
long term.
Increase funding to decommission Russian nukes
More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia still has
more nearly 20,000 nuclear weapons and enough nuclear material to
produce 50,000 more. At the current rate of spending, it will take 13
years to secure all the potential bomb
material from the old Soviet Republic. We should increase funding to do
it in four years. We must also strengthen the existing Non-Proliferation
Treaty, and lead in the efforts to prevent countries with the proven
capability to build WMDs from doing so.
Barack Obama on Terrorism
We have brought 9-11 planners to justice
ROMNEY: I don't see our influence growing around the world. I see our
influence receding, in part because of the failure of the president.OBAMA:
Governor, the problem is, on a whole range of issues, you've been all
over the map.
When it comes to going after Osama bin Laden, you said, "well, any
president would make that call." But when you were a candidate in
2008--as I was--I said, "if I got bin Laden in our sights, I would take
that shot;" you said "we shouldn't move heaven
and earth to get one man," and you said we should ask Pakistan for
permission. And if we had asked Pakistan for permission, we would not
have gotten it. And it was worth moving heaven and earth to get him. You
know, after we killed bin Laden, I was at
Ground Zero for a memorial. By finally getting bin Laden, that brought
some closure to me. And when we do things like that, when we bring those
who have harmed us to justice, that sends a message to the world.
Remain vigilant & focus forcefully on groups like al Qaeda
Q: The White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist
attack. Was Iran, or al Qaeda behind organizing the protests [which led
to the American embassy attacks]?A: Well, we're still doing an
investigation. The natural protests that
arose were used as an excuse by extremists to harm US interests. We have
to remain vigilant. Look, when I came into office I said I would end
the war in Iraq--and I did. I said that we would begin transitioning in
Afghanistan. But what I also said was
we're going to have to focus narrowly and forcefully on groups like al
Qaeda. Those forces have not gone away. We've decimated al Qaeda's top
leadership in the border regions around Pakistan, but in Yemen, in
Libya--increasingly in places like Syria--
what you see is these elements that don't have the same capacity that a
bin Laden or core al Qaeda had, but can still cause a lot of damage, and
we've got to make sure that we remain vigilant and are focused on
preventing them from doing us any harm.
OpEd: Failed promise to close Guantanamo loses left votes
Obama won a lot of the Left votes by promising to close Guantanamo and
by claiming to be the anti-war candidate. But Guantanamo still operates
and the American involvement in wars has escalated in Afghanistan and
Libya. Some on the Left are so upset that
they want someone with Left credibility to run against Obama in the
primaries. If many on the Left abandon Obama, he will lose a lot of
fundraising sources. And he might lose enough votes in the swing states
and lose the general election.
OpEd: torture ban just repositions torture to outside US
What the Obama [ban on torture] ostensibly knocks off is that small
percentage of torture now done by Americans while retaining the
overwhelming bulk of the system's torture, which is done by foreigners
under US patronage.
Obama could stop backing foreign forces that torture, but he has chosen
not to do so. Obama did not shut down the practice of torture, but
merely repositioned it, restoring it to the norm, a matter of
indifference to the victims. Since Vietnam, the
US has mainly seen its torture done for it by proxy--paying, arming,
training and guiding foreigners doing it, but usually being careful to
keep Americas at least one discreet step removed. Obama's band doesn't
even prohibit direct torture by
Americans outside environments of 'armed conflict,' which is where much
torture happens anyway since many repressive regimes aren't in armed
conflict. His is a return to the status quo ante, the torture regime of
Ford through Clinton.
No habeas right for detainees outside of US
The Boumediene ruling [concluded in 2008] that prisoners in Guantanamo
are entitled to the right of habeas corpus. The Bush administration
decided to ship prisoners in Guantanamo to Bagram, in Afghanistan, as
though it was some sort of a silly game--fly
your abducted prisoners to Guantanamo and they have constitutional
rights, but fly them instead to Bagram and you can disappear them
forever with no judicial process." Obama adopted the Bush position,
"filing a brief in federal court that, in two
sentences, declared that it embraced the most extremist Bush theory on
this issue." Obama's argument amounts to saying that prisoners flown to
Bagram from anywhere in the world--in the case in question, Yemenis and
Tunisians captured in Thailand and
UAE--"can be imprisoned indefinitely with no rights of any kind--as long
as they are kept in Bagram rather than Guantanamo.". [This was] in
radical violation of Obama's campaign promises and earlier stands."
Moving Gitmo to Illinois was logistically & legally complex
The real issue [with closing Gitmo] was the difference between a
political perspective and a legal one. Why couldn't the legal counsel's
office figure out some way to keep those pesky resettlement questions
out of Obama's face?The backdrop was the
administration's failure to fulfill one of Obama's most widely
publicized promises: closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay by Jan. 1,
2010. Early in the transition a group of lawyers wrote a report for
Obama explaining how legally and logistically complex
shutting the prison would be. After the Inauguration the Pentagon
reported that finding a site in the US for the prisoners was difficult.
When the government finally settled on an underused federal prison in
Thomson, Illinois, planners learned that it
would take many months to renovate.Without sustained presidential attention and someone assigned exclusively to Gitmo, closing the prison would be tough. For months, Obama simply let one of his signature campaign promises slip between the cracks.
OpEd: Promised to close Guantanamo but it's still open
- The litany of broken Obama promises is amazing:
- He promised to get us out of Iraq. But we're still there.
- He promised cap and trade. But he hasn't produced.
- He said he'd end Don't Ask, Don't Tell and allow gays in the military. But he hasn't.
- He promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. But he has.
- He said he'd bring down the deficit. But he's tripled it.
- He promised to close Guantanamo. But it's still open for business.
- He said he'd fix Social Security. But he hasn't touched it.
- He promised to preserve Medicare. But he cut it by $500 billion.
- He said he'd reform immigration law. But it's the same as when he took office.
- He told Big Labor he'd make it possible to organize new unions without a secret ballot. But that bill died.
Hundreds of al Qaeda have been captured last year
We've renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've
made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted
plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling
unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed
Christmas attack. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships
[abroad].. And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters and
affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or
killed--far more than in 2008.
OpEd: accused of palling around with terrorist Bill Ayers
I spoke on the trail about Obama's associations with questionable
characters, including Obama's long association with Bill Ayers. A
student radical and member of the Weather Underground, Ayers had helped
bomb New York City police headquarters in 1970, th
Capitol Building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. When Ayer's memoir,
"Fugitive Days" was published in 2001, he said, "I don't regret setting
bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." In a horrible irony, that interview
with Ayers hit newsstands on the
morning of September 11, 2001. Disgustingly, Ayers posed in the article
stomping on our American flag.In relation to the breaking news about
the friendship between Obama and the unrepentant domestic terrorist,
headquarters issued an approved sound
bite about Obama "palling around with terrorists," and I was happy to be
the one to deliver it. Obama had kicked off his political career in
Ayers's living room; that sound bite was written into a rally speech.
Strategic issue is where to send & how to fund our troops
McCAIN: Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic & a
strategy. Obama, who after promising not to vote to cut off funds for
the troops, did the incredible thing of voting to cut off the funds for
the troops.OBAMA: McCain opposed funding
for troops in legislation that had a timetable, because he didn’t
believe in a timetable. I opposed funding a mission that had no
timetable, and was open- ended, giving a blank check to George Bush. I
understand the difference between tactics & strategy.
And the strategic question that the president has to ask is not whether
or not we are employing a particular approach in the country once we
have made the decision to be there. The question is, was this wise? We
have seen Afghanistan deteriorate.
We need more troops there. We should end [the Iraq] war responsibly. We
should do it in phases. In 16 months we should be able to reduce our
combat troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can
capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda
Disrupting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan prevented another 9/11
Q: Why do you think there has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11? A:
Well, I think that the initial invasion into Afghanistan disrupted al
Qaeda. And that was the right thing to do. I mean, we had to knock out
those safe havens.
And that, I think, weakened them. We did some work in strengthening our
homeland security apparatus here. Obviously, the average person knows
that when they go to the airport, because they are goin’ through taking
off their shoes & all that.Q: As president, how would you prevent another 9/11 from happening?
A: The problem is when we got distracted by Iraq. We gave al Qaeda time to reconstitute itself. My hope obviously is that we continue to prevent them from being able to move at all out of those safe havens. But our intelligence indicates the likelihood of a potential attack is significantly higher now. And that has been an enormous mistake that I intend to correct when I’m president.
Islam in 1970s was not opposed to West & rule of law
Q: Do you believe that Islamic extremism is the transcendent challenge of the 21st century?A:
I think the problems of terrorism and groups that are resisting
modernity, whether because of their ethnic identities or religious
identities, and the fact
that they can be driven into extremist ideologies, is one of the severe
threats that we face. I don’t think it’s the only threat that we face.Q: But how do you view the problem within Islam? As somebody who saw it in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world?
A: When I lived in Indonesia, in the late ‘60s & early ‘70s, Indonesia was never the same culture as the Arab Middle East. The brand of Islam was always different.But around the world, there was not the sense that Islam was inherently opposed to the West, or inherently opposed to modern life, or inherently opposed to universal traditions like rule of law. And now in Indonesia, you see some of those extremist elements.
Go after al Qaeda but also shrink pool of potential recruits
The way we have to approach the problem of Islamic extremism, is we have
to hunt down those who would resort to violence to move their ideology
forward. We should be going after al Qaeda and those networks fiercely
and effectively.
But what we also want to do is to shrink the pool of potential recruits.
And that involves engaging the Islamic world rather than vilifying it,
and making sure that we understand that not only are those in
Islam who would resort to violence a tiny fraction of the Islamic world,
but that also, the Islamic world itself is diverse.And that lumping together Shia extremists with Sunni extremists, assuming that Persian culture is the same as Arab culture, that those kinds of errors in lumping Islam together result in us not only being less effective in hunting down and isolating terrorists, but also in alienating what need to be our long-term allies on a whole host of issues.
No torture; no renditions; no operating out of fear
Q: A disturbing Justice Department memo emerged saying that not even
interrogation methods that “shock the conscience” would be considered
torture nor would they be considered illegal if they had been authorized
by the president. Comments?A:
We have to be clear and unequivocal. We do not torture, period. Our
government does not torture. That should be our position. That will be
my position as president. That includes renditions. We don’t farm out
torture. We don’t subcontract torture.
Torture does not end up yielding good information--most intelligence
officers agree with that--but it is also important for our long-term
security to send a message to the world that we will lead not just with
our military might but we are going to lead
with our values and our ideals. That we are not a nation that gives away
our civil liberties simply because we’re scared. We’re always at our
worst when we’re fearful. Fear is a bad counsel and I want to operate
out of hope and out of faith.
Al Qaida is stronger now than in 2001 as Iraq distracted us
We are seeing Al Qaida stronger now than at any time since 2001. That is
a significant threat that has to be dealt with. Because we have been
distracted, we have ended up seeing a more dangerous situation, and so
we are not--this is not just a matter of
who is right and who is wrong about having gone to war or the surge.
It’s also, how do we deal with the future threats? And as long as we’re
bogged down in Iraq, we are not going to be able to deal with those
future threats.
No presidential power for secret surveillance
Q: Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to
conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial
warrants, regardless of federal statutes?A: The Supreme Court has
never held that the president has such powers.
As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S.
citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national
security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.
No holding US citizens as unlawful enemy combatants
Q: Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?A:
No.
I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary
authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges
as unlawful enemy combatants.
Congress decides what constitutes torture, not president
Q: If Congress prohibits a specific interrogation technique, can the
president instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the
statute?A: No. The President is not above the law, and not entitled
to use techniques that Congress
has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world
that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against
torture. As President I will abide by statutory prohibitions for all US
Government personnel and contractors.
No torture; defiance of FISA; no military commissions
Q: Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional?A:
I reject the view that the President may do whatever he deems necessary
to protect national security, and that he may torture people
in defiance of congressional enactments. I reject the use of signing
statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential
authority. Some further points:- The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.
- Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.
- The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
- The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
Restore habeas corpus to reach Muslims abroad
If you were a Muslim overseas listening to Rudy Giuliani say “they are
coming here to try to kill you,” which is the tenor of many of the
speeches that are delivered by Republicans, you would get an impression
that they are not interested in talking and
resolving issues peacefully. Now, what we need to do [to reach Muslims]
is we need to close Guantanamo. We need to restore habeas corpus. We
need to send a strong signal that we are going to talk directly to not
just our friends but also to our enemies.
Don’t allow our politics to be driven by fear of terrorism
A statement most Democrats will make only in progressive precincts, the
one he couldn’t quite get out when asked what he would do if
American cities were attacked: “The threat that we face now is nowhere
near as dire as it was in the Cold War. We shouldn’t allow our politics
to be driven by the fear of terrorism.”
If attacked, first help victims then prevent further attacks
At the First Democratic debate on April 26, 2007, the moderator asked
how would you change the US military stance overseas if we learned that
two US cities were hit by al-Qaeda terrorists.Obama responded, “Well,
first thing we’d have to do is make
sure that we’ve got an effective emergency response. The second thing is
to make sure we’ve got good intelligence, A, to find out that we don’t
have other threats and attacks potentially out there, and B, to find out
do we have any intelligence on who
might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to
dismantle that network.“Later in the debate, Obama added, ”We have genuine enemies out there that have to be hunted down; networks have to be dismantled. There is no contradiction between us intelligently using our military and, in some cases, lethal force to take out terrorists and, at the same time, building the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been lacking over the last six years.“
America cannot sanction torture; no loopholes or exceptions
America cannot sanction torture. It’s a very straightforward principle,
and one that we should abide by. Now, I will do whatever it takes to
keep America safe. And there are going to be all sorts of hypotheticals
& emergency situations & I will make that
judgment at that time. But what we cannot do is have the president
state, as a matter of policy, that there is a loophole or an exception
where we would sanction torture. I think that diminishes us and it sends
the wrong message to the world.
We are no safer now than we were after 9/11
Q: What do you think we’re not prepared for?A: I don’t believe that
we are safer now than we were after 9/11 because we have made a series
of terrible decisions in our foreign policy. We went into Iraq, a war
that we should have never authorized and
should not have been waged. It has fanned the flames of anti-American
sentiment. It has, more importantly, allowed us to neglect the situation
in Afghanistan. We know right now that al Qaeda is hiding in the hills
between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus
Why don’t we close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus,
because that’s how we lead, not with the might of our military, but the
power of our ideals and the power of our values. It’s time to show the
world we’re not a country that ships
prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries.
We’re not a country that runs prisons which locks people away without
ever telling them why they’re there or what they’re charged with. We’re
not a country which preaches compassion to
others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of major American
cities. That’s not who we are.We’re America. We’re a nation that
liberated a continent from a mad man, that lifted ourselves from the
depths of depression,
that won civil rights and women’s rights and voting rights for all our
people. We’re the beacon that has led generations of weary travelers to
find opportunity and liberty and hope on our doorstep. That’s who we
are.
Homeland security must protect citizens, not intrude on them
Every democracy is tested when it is faced with a serious threat. As a
nation we have to find the right balance between privacy and security,
between executive authority to face threats and uncontrolled power.
What protects us are the procedures we put in place to protect that
balance, namely judicial warrants and congressional review. These are
concrete safeguards to make sure surveillance hasn’t gone too far.
Personal privacy must be protected even in terrorism age
Americans fought a revolution in part over the right to be free from
unreasonable searches, to ensure that our government couldn’t come
knocking in the middle of the night for no reason.
We need to find a way forward to make sure that we [stop] terrorists
while protecting the privacy and liberty of innocent Americans.
Battling terrorism must go beyond belligerence vs. isolation
We know that the battle against terrorism is at once an armed struggle
and a contest of ideas, that our long-term security depends on a
judicious projection of military power and increased cooperation with
other nations, and that addressing the problems
of global poverty and failed states is vital to our nation’s interests
rather than just a matter of charity. But follow most of our foreign
policy debates, and you might believe that we have only two
choices--belligerence or isolationism.
Going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan is not Bush-style invasion
Q: You stand by your statement that you would go into western Pakistan
if you had actionable intelligence to go after al Qaeda, whether or not
the Pakistani government agreed. Isn’t that essentially the Bush
doctrine?
We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the
Pakistanis?A: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a
situation where Al Qaida, a sworn enemy of the
United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to
do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And this is
not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible
threat in the future.
And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike
anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence
do to that.
Balance domestic intelligence reform with civil liberty risk
[The US should] strengthen and improve intelligence capabilities. We
must reform our domestic intelligence capabilities in a manner that
balances the risks of impeding on the civil liberties
of our citizens and increase international cooperation on all fronts. We
should also give the Director of Intelligence the authority he or she
needs over budget and personnel to be effective and accountable.
Barack Obama on Veterans
Unacceptable to have veterans drive 250 miles to a hospital
The incredible burden that has been placed on the American people,
starting with military families, and the fact that we still are not
doing right by our veterans, that we still don’t honor their service,
that there are still homeless veterans, that we
still don’t screen properly for post-traumatic stress disorder and make
sure that they’re getting mental services that they need, that we are
still having veterans in south Texas have to drive 250 miles to access a
veterans hospital. That’s unacceptable.
Improve veterans’ mental health treatment & PTSD benefits
AT A GLANCE- Improved Mental Health Treatment: Obama will improve mental health treatment for troops and veterans suffering from combat-related psychological injuries.
- There is a Shortage of Care for PTSD: Veterans are coming home with record levels of combat stress, but we are not adequately providing for them.
- Improve Mental Health Treatment: Obama will improve mental health care at every stage of military service. He will recruit more health professionals, improve screening, offer more support to families and make PTSD benefits claims fairer.
- Obama led a bipartisan effort in the Senate to try to halt the military’s unfair practice of discharging service members for having a service-connected psychological injury.
- Obama passed legislation to stop a VA review of closed PTSD cases that could have led to a reduction in veterans’ benefits.
Support veterans via the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act
Following reports of neglect at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Obama
introduced the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act. The bill improves the
condition of troop housing, streamlines the process for seeking care,
provides greater information to recovering
servicemembers, requires the hiring of more caseworkers, and provides
more support to family members who care for injured troops:- Sheltering and Rehabilitating Homeless Veterans
One in three homeless males is a veteran. -
Fighting for Disability Benefits
Obama forced the VA to notify veterans about their right to review past claims. - Treating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) & Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
- Easing the Transition of
Veterans into Civilian Life
Obama’s legislation would require that the military provide new veterans with electronic medical and service records & monitor health trends.
Address the deficiencies in the VA system
We don’t have a full-service VA system, so a lot of troops that have
been injured are having to travel elsewhere, and that’s something that
we have to address. There are important efficiencies that we can obtain
by having a VA hospital system; for
example, prescription drugs. But we have to have a VA that serves
everybody. In some rural communities that the veterans don’t have access
to the services needed, we’ve got to make sure that they do have the
option for a private hospital that is close by
The cost of the Iraq war should not shortchange VA benefits
We tried to tell the Bush administration you need an additional $2
billion to provide services to troops who are coming home. They said no.
Everything’s covered. Six months through, they had to come back and
say, it turns out we did need it after all.
Part of the reason is because they have been trying to keep the costs
down of this war and have not fully factored in the sacred obligation
that we have to make sure that every single veteran has the services
that they need.
Make sure the outpatient facilities work for veterans
I visited Walter Reed repeatedly. Typically what would happen is we
would go to visit troops in the medical facility, and people will
acknowledge that the medical facility at Walter Reed does great work.
Unfortunately, it turned out that the outpatient
facilities were disastrous. That’s why we now have legislation to make
sure not only that we’re just painting over some of the mold in there,
but also making it easier for families & veterans to negotiate the
system once they’re outpatients.
Comprehensive plan for our veterans healthcare
Washington says that they support the troops. They give long speeches
about valor and sacrifice. But when it comes time to sending our troops
into battle with the proper equipment and ensure that veterans have what
they need when they get home, they
don’t do anything except slap a yellow ribbon on the back of their SUV.
That’s how come our men and women have to use scrap metal to protect
their Humvees.Our veterans end up living among mice and mold. They stare at stacks of paperwork. They thought
they left the frontline in Iraq but they came home to a new frontline of red tape and bureaucracy. This is unacceptable. When our veterans come home, I don’t want them crawling around a dumpster for a meal or a box for shelter. I don’t want them drowning in whiskey to silence the PTSD. I don’t want that for our veterans. We know they deserve more.
So let’s make a promise today--and say that, right here and right now, is when we begin to put together a comprehensive plan for our veterans.
Barack Obama on Voting Record
FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it
Clinton took direct aim at Obama and connects fairly solidly: “You said
you would vote against the Patriot Act; you came to the Senate, you
voted for it.” Clinton is correct to say that Obama opposed the Patriot
Act during his run for the Senate. She’s
relying on a 2003 Illinois National Organization for Women questionnaire
in which Obama wrote that he would vote to “repeal the Patriot Act” or
replace it with a “new, carefully crafted proposal.” When it came time
to reauthorize the law in 2005, though,
Obama voted in favor of it. He started out opposing it: In Dec. 2005,
Obama voted against ending debate--a position equivalent to declaring a
lack of support for the measure. Then in February of that year, Obama
said on the floor that he would support the
Patriot Act’s reauthorization. In March 2006, Obama both voted for
cloture and for the Patriot Act reauthorization conference report.Clinton, by the way, followed exactly the same path on the 2005 bill, from speaking in opposition to voting for it.
Wrote law to secure & destroy world’s deadliest weapons
I’ve worked with GOP Sen. Dick Lugar to pass a law that will secure and
destroy some of the world’s deadliest, unguarded weapons. We can work
together to track terrorists down with a stronger military, we can
tighten the net around their finances, and w
can improve our intelligence capabilities. But let us also understand
that ultimate victory against our enemies will come only by rebuilding
our alliances and exporting those ideals that bring hope and opportunity
to millions around the globe.
Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad.
Vote on passage of S.1927, the Protect America Act: Amends the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to state that nothing under its
definition of "electronic surveillance" should encompass surveillance
directed at any person reasonably believed to be located outside the US.A
modified version, S.2011, failed; it called for amending FISA to
provide that a court order is not required for the electronic
surveillance of communication between foreign persons who are not
located within the US for collecting foreign intelligence information,
without respect to whether the communication passes through the US or
the surveillance device is located within the US.Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. LEVIN: Both bills cure the problem that exists: Our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities who are physically located in foreign countries. Now, what are the major differences? Our bill (S2011) is limited to foreign targets limited overseas, unlike the Bond bill (S1927), which does not have that key limitation and which very clearly applies to US citizens overseas. Our bill does not. Now, if there is an incidental access to US citizens, we obviously will permit that. But the Bond bill goes beyond that, citing "any person." It does not say a "foreign person." We avoid getting to the communications of Americans. There you have to go for a warrant.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. LIEBERMAN: I will vote for the Bond proposal (S1927) because we are at war, & there is increased terrorist activity. We have a crisis. This proposal will allow us to gather intelligence information on that enemy we otherwise would not gather. This is not the time for striving for legislative perfection. Let us not strive for perfection. Let us put national security first. We are going to have 6 months to reason together to find something better.
Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months.
Vote on an amendment, SA2032, which amends HR1585, the Defense
Authorization bill: To limit the deployment of a unit or individual of
the Armed Forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom to no more than 12
consecutive months; and to limit Marine Corps deployment to no more than
7 consecutive months; except in time of national emergency.Proponents support voting YES because:Sen. HAGEL: The war in Iraq has pushed the US Army to the breaking point. When we deploy our military, we have an obligation to ensure that our troops are rested, ready, prepared, fully trained, and fully equipped. Today's Armed Forces are being deployed repeatedly for increasing periods of time. This is quickly wearing down the troops and their families, impacting the mental and physical health of our troops. Further, these deployments are affecting the recruiting and retention rates of the military. For example, the Army reached only a little over 80% of its recruiting goal for June. This is the second month in a row that the Army has failed to recruit the number of new soldiers needed to fill the ranks. And this is with $1 billion in large cash bonus incentives.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. KYL: Time in theater and dwell times should be a goal, rather than an absolute fixed requirement that becomes the policy of the US military determined by congressional action. By mandating a certain policy for deployment time or dwell time, the Congress is engaged in the most explicit micromanaging of what is obviously a function for the Commander in Chief and military commanders to perform. This is not something Members of Congress are knowledgeable about or would have the ability to dictate in any responsible fashion. It also would be unconstitutional. Clearly, the dwell times of troops or the amount of time in theater is an obligation of the Commander in Chief, not something for the Congress to determine.
Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report.
Vote on passage of a bill to implement unfinished recommendations of the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11
Commission) to fight the war on terror more effectively:- I: Improving Intelligence and Information Sharing within the Federal Government and with State, Local, and Tribal Governments
- II: Homeland Security Grants
- III: Communications Operability and Interoperability
- IV: Emergency Management Performance Grants Program
- V: Enhancing Security of International Travel
- VI: Privacy and Civil Liberties Matters
- VII: Enhanced Defenses Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
- VIII: Private Sector Preparedness
- IX: Transportation Security Planning and Information Sharing
- X: Incident Command System
- XI: Critical Infrastructure Protection
- XII: Congressional Oversight of Intelligence
- XIII: International Cooperation on Antiterrorism Technologies
- XIV: Transportation and Interoperable Communication
- XV: Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention
- XVII: 911 Modernization
- XIX: Advancement of Democratic Values
One of the authors of the 9/11 Commission report said, the President's announced strategy should be given a chance to succeed. That is what I think we should do, give this plan a chance to succeed. Our troops in theater, our commanders, and the Iraqi leaders all believe they can see early signs of success in this program, even though it has just begun, and they are cautiously optimistic that it can succeed. I think it would be unconscionable for the Congress, seeing the beginnings of success here, to then act in any way that would pull the rug out from under our troops and make it impossible for them to achieve their mission.
Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
Sen. Specter's amendment would strike the provision regarding habeas
review. The underlying bill authorizes trial by military commission for
violations of the law of war. Excerpts from the Senate floor debate:Sen.
GRAHAM [recommending NO]: The fundamental question for the Senate to
answer when it comes to determining enemy combatant status is, Who
should make that determination? Should that be a military decision or
should it be a judicial decision? That is something our military should
do.Sen. SPECTER [recommending YES]: My amendment would retain the constitutional right of habeas corpus for people detained at Guantanamo. The right of habeas corpus was established in the Magna Carta in 1215 when, in England, there was action taken against King John to establish a procedure to prevent illegal detention. What the bill seeks to do is to set back basic rights by some 900 years. This amendment would strike that provision and make certain that the constitutional right of habeas corpus is maintained.
GRAHAM: Do we really want enemy prisoners to bring every lawsuit known to man against the people fighting the war and protecting us? No enemy prisoner should have access to Federal courts--a noncitizen, enemy combatant terrorist--to bring a lawsuit against those fighting on our behalf. No judge should have the ability to make a decision that has been historically reserved to the military. That does not make us safer.
SPECTER: The US Constitution states that "Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." We do not have either rebellion or invasion, so it is a little hard for me to see, as a basic principle of constitutional law, how the Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
GRAHAM: If the Supreme Court does say in the next round of legal appeals there is a constitutional right to habeas corpus by those detained at Guantanamo Bay, then Sen. Specter is absolutely right.
Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods.
Amendment to provide for congressional oversight of certain Central
Intelligence Agency programs. The underlying bill S. 3930 authorizes
trial by military commission for violations of the law of war. The
amendment requires quarterly reports describing all CIA detention
facilities; the name of each detainee; their suspected activities; &
each interrogation technique authorized for use and guidelines on the
use of each such technique.Opponents recommend voting NO because:I question the need for a very lengthy, detailed report every 3 months. We will probably see those reports leaked to the press.
This amendment would spread out for the world--and especially for al-Qaida and its related organizations--precisely what interrogation techniques are going to be used.
If we lay out, in an unclassified version, a description of the techniques by the Attorney General, that description will be in al-Qaida and Hezbollah and all of the other terrorist organizations' playbook. They will train their assets that: This is what you must be expected to do, and Allah wants you to resist these techniques.
We are passing this bill so that we can detain people. If we catch someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, we have no way to hold him, no way to ask him the questions and get the information we need, because the uncertainty has brought the program to a close. It is vitally important to our security, and unfortunately this amendment would imperil it.
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications
(amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would
phase it out. The official summary of the bill is: A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.
- Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
- Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
- The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
- We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
- Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act.
Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.
Vote to invoke cloture on a conference report that extends the authority
of the FBI to conduct "roving wiretaps" and access business records.
Voting YES would recommend, in effect, that the PATRIOT Act be extended
through December 31, 2009, and would makes the provisions of the PATRIOT
Act permanent. Voting NO would extend debate further, which would have
the effect of NOT extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.
Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism.
Vote to adopt an amendment that makes US businesses and their
subsidiaries liable to prosecution for dealing with foreign businesses
which have links to terrorism or whose parent country supports
terrorism. Voting YES would:- Empower the President under the Trading with the Enemy Act to prohibit US businesses and their subsidiaries from transacting with foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism.
- Forbid US businesses and their subsidiaries from engaging in transactions with any foreign business whose parent country has been identified as a supporter of international terrorism.
- Require the President to publish a list of foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism, and bans US ownership or control of foreign businesses engaged in transactions with such businesses.
- Call for US businesses to disclose in their annual reports any ownership stake of at least 10% in a foreign business that is itself engaging in transactions with a proscribed foreign business.
Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders.
Amendment intended to protect the American people from terrorist attacks
by restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder programs in
the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Homeland
Security Grant program, by providing $150 million for port security
grants and by providing $140 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents.
Sponsored bill for Iraq budget to be part of defense budget.
Obama introduced requiring Iraq War budget be part of regular defense budget
OnTheIssues.org Explanation: Since the start of both the
Afghanistan war and the Iraq war, expenditures for those war have been
voted for in "emergency supplemental spending bills," instead of in the
normal defense spending bill. That implies that the expenditures are
unexpectedly high, which may have been true in the early years of the
war. This amendment requires regular budgeting for the Afghanistan &
Iraq wars. OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require regular budgeting for ongoing military operations.
EXCERPTS OF BILL:
- The President's budget for each fiscal year after 2007 shall include--
- a request for funds for such fiscal year for ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq;
- an estimate of all funds expected to be required in that fiscal year for such operations; and
- a detailed justification of the funds requested.
Improve mental health care benefits for returning veterans.
Obama co-sponsored improving mental health care benefits for returning veterans
Honoring Our Nation's Obligation to Returning Warriors Act (HONOR
Warriors Act): House version is H.R.6268; Senate versions are S.2963 and
S.3008. Legislative Summary:- To improve and enhance the mental health care benefits available to members of the Armed Forces and veterans, to enhance counseling and other benefits available to survivors of members of the Armed Forces and veterans, and for other purposes.
- Scholarship program for education and training of behavioral health care specialists for vet centers.
- Eligibility of members of the armed forces who serve in operation Iraqi freedom or operation enduring freedom for counseling and services through vets centers.
- Restoration of authority of vets centers to provide referral and other assistance upon request to former members of the armed forces not authorized counseling.
- Treatment of suicides of certain former members of the armed forces as deaths in line of duty for purposes of eligibility of survivors for certain benefits.
- Grants for non-profit organizations for the provision of emotional support services to survivors of members of the armed forces and veterans.
- Pilot programs on awareness enhancement for members of the army regarding post traumatic stress disorder.
Study & address suicides among veterans.
Obama co-sponsored studying & addressing suicides among veterans
Veterans Suicide Study Act - Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
conduct a study to determine the number of veterans who have committed
suicide between January 1, 1997, and the date of the enactment of this
Act. Congress makes the following findings:- Suicide among the veteran population is a serious problem.
- There is lack of information on the number of veterans who commit suicide each year.
- Study Required- The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall conduct a study to determine the number of veterans who have committed suicide between January 1, 1997 and the date of the enactment of this Act.
- Coordination- In carrying out the study, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall coordinate with the Secretary of Defense; Veterans Service Organizations; and States' public health offices and veterans agencies.
- Report to Congress- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to Congress a report on the study and the findings of the Secretary.
Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror.
Obama co-sponsored restoring habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror
A bill to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sen. SPECTER. "I introduce this legislation, denominated the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act. Last year, in the Military Commissions Act, the constitutional right of habeas corpus was attempted to be abrogated. I say "attempted to be abrogated" because, in my legal judgment, that provision in the Act is unconstitutional.
"It is hard to see how there can be legislation to eliminate the constitutional right to habeas corpus when the Constitution is explicit that habeas corpus may not be suspended except in time of invasion or rebellion, and we do not have either of those circumstances present, as was conceded by the advocates of the legislation last year to take away the right of habeas corpus.
"We have had Supreme Court decisions which have made it plain that habeas corpus is available to non-citizens and that habeas corpus applies to territory controlled by the US, specifically, including Guantanamo. More recently, however, we had a decision in the US District Court applying the habeas corpus jurisdiction stripping provision of the Military Commissions Act, but I believe we will see the appellate courts strike down this legislative provision.
"The New York Times had an extensive article on this subject, starting on the front page, last Sunday, and continuing on a full page on the back page about what is happening at Guantanamo. It is hard to see how in America, or in a jurisdiction controlled by the United States, these proceedings could substitute for even rudimentary due process of law."
Paperback: Rick Santorum
vs. Newt Gingrich
On The Issues
No comments:
Post a Comment