President Obama's Speech: Close The Guantanamo Bay Center
On 21 May 2009, President Obama delivered a speech at the National Archives in response to stiff resistance from Congress concerning his intention to close the Guantanamo Bay centre. During his speech, Obama, who strongly defended his counterterrorism policies, made it clear: “rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security.” Keeping the detention centre open was “a rallying cry” for terrorists, making it easier for them to recruit more fighters, hence increasing the threat against the United States. Obama laid out his plan to transfer some detainees from Guantanamo to highly secure prisons inside the United States. On the other hand, he suggested “prolonged detention” for terrorist suspects detained
…show more content…
at GITMO (Guantanamo Bay), who couldn't be tried in federal courts, as evidence had been obtained from the so-called “enhanced interrogation” programme, thus couldn’t be use against suspects in federal courts. Obama called this problem “the toughest issue we face”, as evidence is considered unconstitutional, but they know that the detainee represents a significant threat, and therefore can't be released. When raising the Guantanamo issue, Obama also attacked George W. Bush, by accusing his predecessor to have embarked on “a misguided experiment” that resulted in “a mess”.
It is worth mentioning as well that the setting of Obama's address was meaningful. The National Archives is where the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are kept. There is no doubt that the setting of his speech was aimed at underscoring his main message to the American people: as Commander-in-chief, his responsibility is to uphold American values to protect the Nation's security. “I believe with every fiber of my being”, Obama declared, “that in the long rung we cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values.”
6.Remarks by the President on Osama Bin Laden
On 1 May 2011, Osama Bin Laden was killed by US Navy SEALS in Abbottabad, Pakistan in a compound where he was hiding with some members of his family. Obama addressed the Nation on the same day from the East Room in the White House about the death of Osama Bin Laden. The East Room is usually used for public speeches, press conferences and events. The speech took place in this room not without reason, as it was a public statement meant to announce to the entire nation the death of a “mass murderer”, as described by Obama, who had terrorised the United States during ten years on. His death was being celebrated all over the USA. After announcing Bin Laden’s death, Obama adopted a powerful narrative while referring to the images of horror on 9/11 and focusing on the losses. “The empty seat at the dinner table. Children forced to grow up without mother or father”, deplored Obama. During his speech, he also emphasised on the cooperation between the US and Pakistani intelligence services that helped locating Bin Laden. Nonetheless, Obama insisted that the terrorist threat was still a reality: “Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that Al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us.”
7.Statement on ISIL
On 10 September 2014, Obama delivered a speech televised from the State Floor of the White House. In his 14- minute address, he outlined a four-step plan to defeat the Islamic State he named by the acronym “ISIL”. Barack Obama also dispelled fears of Americans to embark on a repeat of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He thereby made clear that the expansion of the military campaign against ISIL he ordered would be different from the wars begun by his predecessor, George W. Bush. Instead of involving combat troops on foreign soil, his strategy would rely on the launching of airstrikes both in Iraq and Syria, and on military cooperation with local forces, including the deployment of 475 more military advisers in Iraq . The president also claimed he had the legal authority to conduct military operations without a new congressional approval, though he asked Congress support to “show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.” More importantly, Obama announced that the United States was recruiting a global, “broad coalition” that would “degrade and ultimately destroy” the terrorist threat posed by the Islamic State.
8.Keeping the American People Safe
On 6 December 2015, President Obama delivered a televised speech from the Oval Office of the White House to underscore the government’s fight against the Islamic State.
His address took place one week after a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, and three weeks after the terrorist attacks in Paris on 13 November, masterminded by ISIS. During his speech, Barack Obama promised to intensify airstrikes against ISIS. Nonetheless, his speech wasn’t intended to make part of a new policy or a strengthening of the counterterrorism strategy to the American nation, but rather urged Americans to not give in to fear, nor to marginalise the Muslim community. Interestingly enough, this speech was the third speech Obama had delivered from the Oval office, “a setting meant to highlight the gravity of a subject.” Barack Obama also laid out security measures that were taken at home and abroad to keep the country safe. Among them, he suggested tougher screening of travellers coming to the United States without visas and called Congress to ban gun sales to people whose name lies on the government’s no-fly list, but also to limit the sales of assault …show more content…
weapons.
3. Historical context
3.1.
The U.S. foreign policy
In the course of history, many Presidents of the United States have defined their own foreign policy according to their view, ideology and the way they considered the rest of the world. Enjoying of the executive power, US presidents have a great impact on the policy making process. Most of them have designed during their presidency a doctrine, corresponding to their views, and consequently differ from each other. George W. Bush Junior and his successor Barack Obama have both restructured the political landscape of the world in the past years.
The foreign policy making in the United States is determined by two main bodies: The President and Congress, i.e. the executive and legislative branches.
The President plays the role of Commander-in-chief of the military and of the Nation’s chief diplomat (Journal U.S. DOS, 2000: 19). Nonetheless, he shares his powers with the Senate that approves the nomination of ambassadors and the ratification of treaties (Peterson, 1994: 220).
Congress also holds some of the executive powers relative to the foreign policy making. It has the power to declare war, to allocate budgets for the military, to call in the militia, it can reject the nominations of foreign policy functionaries and makes the laws (Slantchev, 2009:
6-7).
However, the Constitution and other precedents have in the course of the US History involved other institutions and players in the process of foreign policy making (Slantchev, 2009: 6). Among them, the National Security Council (NSC) that advises the President on foreign policy. The NSC is composed of the President, Vice-President, Secretaries of State and Defense, and the President’s National Security Advisor (Slantchev, 2009: 7). Another key institution is the Department of State, the diplomatic wing of the government. A third player is the US Department of Defense, the Pentagon, in charge of executing the defence policy, which implies the planning and organising of military operations, the military strategy, the defence budgets and the provision of weaponry (Slantchev, 2009: 8). Among key players: The Secretary of State, who is in charge of the foreign affairs, and the Intelligence Community. This latter is made of several independent agencies, and the best known of them are probably the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the NSA, the National Security Agency (Slantchev, 2009: 8-9).
All players and institutions mentioned above constitute the legal powers, whose responsibilities have been defined by the Constitution and precedents. However, there are other four main external players who exercise a considerable influence on the foreign policy making. They are composed of interest groups such as business leaders and organisations, networks of knowledge-based experts (think tanks, academics, etc.), and in a lesser extent of labour leaders and the public opinion (Jacobs & Page, 2005: 107).
Although the executive power plays a primary role in foreign policy making, the legislative branch has a significant influence, due to the U.S. system of check and balances, the separation of powers. In fact, since the failure of the Vietnam War, Congress constitutes an increasingly strong political force in the field of foreign policy (Peterson, 1994: 217). The President has therefore the obligation to respect Congressional views (Journal U.S. DOS, 2000: 19). Nevertheless, as a consequence of the external threats and constraints the U.S. must face, the President and his administration continue to master foreign policy making (Peterson, 1994: 232). In fact, as a consequence of the terrorist threat, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have dominated the foreign policy making during their presidency.
at GITMO (Guantanamo Bay), who couldn't be tried in federal courts, as evidence had been obtained from the so-called “enhanced interrogation” programme, thus couldn’t be use against suspects in federal courts. Obama called this problem “the toughest issue we face”, as evidence is considered unconstitutional, but they know that the detainee represents a significant threat, and therefore can't be released. When raising the Guantanamo issue, Obama also attacked George W. Bush, by accusing his predecessor to have embarked on “a misguided experiment” that resulted in “a mess”.
It is worth mentioning as well that the setting of Obama's address was meaningful. The National Archives is where the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are kept. There is no doubt that the setting of his speech was aimed at underscoring his main message to the American people: as Commander-in-chief, his responsibility is to uphold American values to protect the Nation's security. “I believe with every fiber of my being”, Obama declared, “that in the long rung we cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values.”
6.Remarks by the President on Osama Bin Laden
On 1 May 2011, Osama Bin Laden was killed by US Navy SEALS in Abbottabad, Pakistan in a compound where he was hiding with some members of his family. Obama addressed the Nation on the same day from the East Room in the White House about the death of Osama Bin Laden. The East Room is usually used for public speeches, press conferences and events. The speech took place in this room not without reason, as it was a public statement meant to announce to the entire nation the death of a “mass murderer”, as described by Obama, who had terrorised the United States during ten years on. His death was being celebrated all over the USA. After announcing Bin Laden’s death, Obama adopted a powerful narrative while referring to the images of horror on 9/11 and focusing on the losses. “The empty seat at the dinner table. Children forced to grow up without mother or father”, deplored Obama. During his speech, he also emphasised on the cooperation between the US and Pakistani intelligence services that helped locating Bin Laden. Nonetheless, Obama insisted that the terrorist threat was still a reality: “Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that Al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us.”
7.Statement on ISIL
On 10 September 2014, Obama delivered a speech televised from the State Floor of the White House. In his 14- minute address, he outlined a four-step plan to defeat the Islamic State he named by the acronym “ISIL”. Barack Obama also dispelled fears of Americans to embark on a repeat of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He thereby made clear that the expansion of the military campaign against ISIL he ordered would be different from the wars begun by his predecessor, George W. Bush. Instead of involving combat troops on foreign soil, his strategy would rely on the launching of airstrikes both in Iraq and Syria, and on military cooperation with local forces, including the deployment of 475 more military advisers in Iraq . The president also claimed he had the legal authority to conduct military operations without a new congressional approval, though he asked Congress support to “show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.” More importantly, Obama announced that the United States was recruiting a global, “broad coalition” that would “degrade and ultimately destroy” the terrorist threat posed by the Islamic State.
8.Keeping the American People Safe
On 6 December 2015, President Obama delivered a televised speech from the Oval Office of the White House to underscore the government’s fight against the Islamic State.
His address took place one week after a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, and three weeks after the terrorist attacks in Paris on 13 November, masterminded by ISIS. During his speech, Barack Obama promised to intensify airstrikes against ISIS. Nonetheless, his speech wasn’t intended to make part of a new policy or a strengthening of the counterterrorism strategy to the American nation, but rather urged Americans to not give in to fear, nor to marginalise the Muslim community. Interestingly enough, this speech was the third speech Obama had delivered from the Oval office, “a setting meant to highlight the gravity of a subject.” Barack Obama also laid out security measures that were taken at home and abroad to keep the country safe. Among them, he suggested tougher screening of travellers coming to the United States without visas and called Congress to ban gun sales to people whose name lies on the government’s no-fly list, but also to limit the sales of assault …show more content…
weapons.
3. Historical context
3.1.
The U.S. foreign policy
In the course of history, many Presidents of the United States have defined their own foreign policy according to their view, ideology and the way they considered the rest of the world. Enjoying of the executive power, US presidents have a great impact on the policy making process. Most of them have designed during their presidency a doctrine, corresponding to their views, and consequently differ from each other. George W. Bush Junior and his successor Barack Obama have both restructured the political landscape of the world in the past years.
The foreign policy making in the United States is determined by two main bodies: The President and Congress, i.e. the executive and legislative branches.
The President plays the role of Commander-in-chief of the military and of the Nation’s chief diplomat (Journal U.S. DOS, 2000: 19). Nonetheless, he shares his powers with the Senate that approves the nomination of ambassadors and the ratification of treaties (Peterson, 1994: 220).
Congress also holds some of the executive powers relative to the foreign policy making. It has the power to declare war, to allocate budgets for the military, to call in the militia, it can reject the nominations of foreign policy functionaries and makes the laws (Slantchev, 2009:
6-7).
However, the Constitution and other precedents have in the course of the US History involved other institutions and players in the process of foreign policy making (Slantchev, 2009: 6). Among them, the National Security Council (NSC) that advises the President on foreign policy. The NSC is composed of the President, Vice-President, Secretaries of State and Defense, and the President’s National Security Advisor (Slantchev, 2009: 7). Another key institution is the Department of State, the diplomatic wing of the government. A third player is the US Department of Defense, the Pentagon, in charge of executing the defence policy, which implies the planning and organising of military operations, the military strategy, the defence budgets and the provision of weaponry (Slantchev, 2009: 8). Among key players: The Secretary of State, who is in charge of the foreign affairs, and the Intelligence Community. This latter is made of several independent agencies, and the best known of them are probably the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the NSA, the National Security Agency (Slantchev, 2009: 8-9).
All players and institutions mentioned above constitute the legal powers, whose responsibilities have been defined by the Constitution and precedents. However, there are other four main external players who exercise a considerable influence on the foreign policy making. They are composed of interest groups such as business leaders and organisations, networks of knowledge-based experts (think tanks, academics, etc.), and in a lesser extent of labour leaders and the public opinion (Jacobs & Page, 2005: 107).
Although the executive power plays a primary role in foreign policy making, the legislative branch has a significant influence, due to the U.S. system of check and balances, the separation of powers. In fact, since the failure of the Vietnam War, Congress constitutes an increasingly strong political force in the field of foreign policy (Peterson, 1994: 217). The President has therefore the obligation to respect Congressional views (Journal U.S. DOS, 2000: 19). Nevertheless, as a consequence of the external threats and constraints the U.S. must face, the President and his administration continue to master foreign policy making (Peterson, 1994: 232). In fact, as a consequence of the terrorist threat, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have dominated the foreign policy making during their presidency.