The Evacuation of an Outpost in East Jerusalem: Is It a Sign?

On Thursday, the Israeli police destroyed an outpost of seven huts in the East Jerusalem, considered illegal under the Israeli law and built without government authorization. While the inhabitants of these settlements vowed to rebuild their houses (and some did), the Israeli officials are worried about the evacuations of larger settlements if there is a broad-based dismantlement plan in the future. About 500,000 Jewish settlers live in the West Bank .

For those thinking there is a  connection between US pressure and the demolition, Defense Minister Ehud Barak publicly stated that the dismantlement of illegal outposts had nothing to do with the Obama Administration. At the same time, is this really a sign of the independent willingness & readiness of  Tel Aviv to freeze the current settlements in the West Bank? Beyond the question of whether the Netanyahu Government's strategic intentions, as opposed to its tactical manoeuvres, is any Israeli administration strong enough to face the resistance of settlers, especially with memories of the 2005 Gaza pullout still very fresh amongst the Israeli public?

Hillary Clinton on Al-Jazeera: "Stop the Settlement Construction."

On Friday, we noted the aftermath of the Obama-Netanyahu meeting in Washington, with an emerging Israeli attempt to undermine a "grand design" by the US for the Middle East. More specifically, the two countries are at odds over the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

This is the interview that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave to Al-Jazaeera on Tuesday, where her assurance that Hamas remained on the outside of the process sat alongside her denunciation of the setttlements:.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEmMQOx0Hwk[/youtube]

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thanks for your time, first of all, for talking to this program on Al-Jazeera.

The meeting yesterday between President Obama and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, after the meeting, President Obama could not have made it any clearer that he wanted a two-state solution. On the other hand, Prime Minister Netanyahu sort of danced around the issue without using the terminology, which has raised concerns in the Arab world. How concerned are you about the fact that he didn’t actually mention once “two-state solution”?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is the beginning, and we see this as an intensive period of our outreach and of our frankly laying out what we want to see happen. You rightly point out that the President underscored our commitment to a two-state solution and also called for a stop to the settlements. We have made that very clear. I reinforced that last night at a dinner that I hosted for Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Now the hard work starts. But I think it is significant that the Obama Administration is not waiting. We are starting this intensive engagement right now, very early in our Administration. We have consulted broadly already. Both George Mitchell and I have spoken with many Arab leaders, as well, of course, with the Palestinians and the Israelis. And we are determined to forge ahead on what we believe is in the best interests of the Israelis, the Palestinians, the larger region, and the world, as well as what we think is right. And the President – our President has often said, “Judge us on our actions, not our words.” But his words were very strong, and now we intend to match those words with our actions.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, when President Obama yesterday talked about the issue of settlements and he said that he wanted the Israelis to freeze the building on the West Bank, does that mean that he wants the settlements, the existing settlements, to be rolled back to the 1967 border, specifically?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, there are two pieces to that question. First, we want to see a stop to settlement construction, additions, natural growth – any kind of settlement activity. That is what the President has called for. We also are going to be pushing for a two-state solution which, by its very name, implies borders that have to be agreed to. And we expect to see two states living side by side, a state for the Palestinians that will be sovereign and within which the Palestinians will have the authorities that come with being in charge of a state with respect to such activities as settlements. So it’s really a two-step effort here. We want to see a stop now, and then, as part of this intensive engagement that Senator Mitchell is leading for us, we want to move toward a two-state solution with borders for the Palestinians.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, on the issue of the division, the split within the Palestinian body, Fatah and Hamas, can you envisage a scenario where you would be able to achieve a two-state solution without talking in some way, in some form, to Hamas?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I believe that Hamas has to comply with not only the Quartet principles but the underlying principles of the Arab Peace Initiative. You cannot expect either Fatah or the Israelis or Arabs who wish to see this matter resolved, with a two-state solution, to work with a group that does not believe in the outcome of these efforts. And in any peace negotiation that I’m aware of anywhere in the world, groups that are resistance groups, insurgent groups, guerilla groups, when they come to the peace table have to commit to peace. And we would expect Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist, to renounce violence as the way to the achievement of a homeland for the Palestinian people, and to recognize the prior agreements that have been entered into by the Palestinians either through the PLO or the PA.

I think that’s an incredibly reasonable request. Now, it is truly up to Hamas. The unity efforts that Egypt has been leading have been difficult because, clearly, there are very strongly divergent opinions that are being expressed. My hope is that I will see, you will see Palestinian children in their own state having a chance to lead normal lives, being given the opportunity to fulfill their own God-given potential, to get an education, to get the healthcare they need, to have good jobs and pursue their dreams. I don’t want to see them consigned to years more of conflict that just destroys that future.
And I think we have an opportunity now. We have a President of the United States who has already reached out and said here is what I’m committed to doing. I am committed. We have a team in this Administration, and we are looking for partners. We think that the Palestinian Authority is ready to be a partner. We believe through our efforts we will get the Israelis to make the kind of commitment to a two-state solution that is absolutely necessary. We know that many leaders in the Arab world see this in a different way, as the Arab Peace Initiative suggests. So let’s try to bring people to that recognition, and that includes Hamas.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thanks for the time, and I hope we can have you again on Al Jazeera.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much. Nice to talk to you.

QUESTION: Great to see you. Thank you very much.

Video and Analysis: The Obama Speech on National Security, 48 Hours Later

Much of the immediate comment in the US media was insipid or misleading or silly. On occasions, it was all three. The initial battle amongst observers to out-do each other for a Barack Obama v. Dick Cheney image --- "Mr Spock v. Jack Bauer", "Grandpa Vigilant Vs. Kid Nuance" --- was followed by attempts to set up Obama between "Right" and "Left" and, even worse, gleeful pronouncements by Bush Administration supporters that Obama was now just like Dubya.

Amongst the reactions, however, one set of commentaries stood out. Reinforcing our concern that Obama, while well-meaning, had put forth proposals which would not close Guantanamo but compound the legal difficulties of the detention regime, Peter Finn offered a penetrating analysis in The Washington Post "on indefinite detention without trial". This was accompanied by the excellent video critique of MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and, reprinted below that video, a thorough critique by Glenn Greenwald:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY[/youtube]

Facts and myths about Obama's preventive detention proposal

In the wake of Obama's speech yesterday, there are vast numbers of new converts who now support indefinite "preventive detention."  It thus seems constructive to have as dispassionate and fact-based discussion as possible of the implications of "preventive detention" and Obama's related detention proposals (military commissions).  I'll have a podcast discussion on this topic a little bit later today with the ACLU's Ben Wizner, which I'll add below, but until then, here are some facts and other points worth noting:

(1) What does "preventive detention" allow?

It's important to be clear about what "preventive detention" authorizes.  It does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding.  That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain.  Far more significant, "preventive detention" allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally "dangerous" by the Government for various reasons (such as, as Obama put it yesterday, they "expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden" or "otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans").  That's what "preventive" means:  imprisoning people because the Government claims they are likely to engage in violent acts in the future because they are alleged to be "combatants."

Once known, the details of the proposal could -- and likely will -- make this even more extreme by extending the "preventive detention" power beyond a handful of Guantanamo detainees to anyone, anywhere in the world, alleged to be a "combatant."  After all, once you accept the rationale on which this proposal is based -- namely, that the U.S. Government must, in order to keep us safe, preventively detain "dangerous" people even when they can't prove they violated any laws -- there's no coherent reason whatsoever to limit that power to people already at Guantanamo, as opposed to indefinitely imprisoning with no trials all allegedly "dangerous" combatants, whether located in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Western countries and even the U.S.


(2) Are defenders of Obama's proposals being consistent?

During the Bush years, it was common for Democrats to try to convince conservatives to oppose Bush's executive power expansions by asking them:  "Do you really want these powers to be exercised by Hillary Clinton or some liberal President?"

Following that logic, for any Democrat/progressive/liberal/Obama supporter who wants to defend Obama's proposal of "preventive detention," shouldn't you first ask yourself three simple questions:

(a) what would I have said if George Bush and Dick Cheney advocated a law vesting them with the power to preventively imprison people indefinitely and with no charges?;

(b) when Bush and Cheney did preventively imprison large numbers of people, was I in favor of that or did I oppose it, and when right-wing groups such as Heritage Foundation were alone in urging a preventive detention law in 2004, did I support them?; and

(c) even if I'm comfortable with Obama having this new power because I trust him not to abuse it, am I comfortable with future Presidents -- including Republicans -- having the power of indefinite "preventive detention"?

(3) Questions for defenders of Obama's proposal:

There are many claims being made by defenders of Obama's proposals which seem quite contradictory and/or without any apparent basis, and I've been searching for a defender of those proposals to address these questions:

Bush supporters have long claimed -- and many Obama supporters are now insisting as well -- that there are hard-core terrorists who cannot be convicted in our civilian courts.  For anyone making that claim, what is the basis for believing that? In the Bush era, the Government has repeatedly been able to convict alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban members in civilian courts, including several (Ali al-Marri, Jose Padilla, John Walker Lindh) who were tortured and others (Zacharais Moussaoui, Padilla) where evidence against them was obtained by extreme coercion.  What convinced you to believe that genuine terrorists can't be convicted in our justice system?

For those asserting that there are dangerous people who have not yet been given any trial and who Obama can't possibly release, how do you know they are "dangerous" if they haven't been tried? Is the Government's accusation enough for you to assume it's true?

Above all:  for those justifying Obama's use of military commissions by arguing that some terrorists can't be convicted in civilian courts because the evidence against them is "tainted" because it was obtained by Bush's torture, Obama himself claimed just yesterday that his military commissions also won't allow such evidence ("We will no longer permit the use of evidence -- as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods").  How does our civilian court's refusal to consider evidence obtained by torture demonstrate the need for Obama's military commissions if, as Obama himself claims, Obama's military commissions also won't consider evidence obtained by torture?

Finally, don't virtually all progressives and Democrats argue that torture produces unreliable evidence?  If it's really true (as Obama defenders claim) that the evidence we have against these detainees was obtained by torture and is therefore inadmissible in real courts, do you really think such unreliable evidence -- evidence we obtained by torture -- should be the basis for concluding that someone is so "dangerous" that they belong in prison indefinitely with no trial?  If you don't trust evidence obtained by torture, why do you trust it to justify holding someone forever, with no trial, as "dangerous"?

(4) Do other countries have indefinite preventive detention?

Obama yesterday suggested that other countries have turned to "preventive detention" and that his proposal therefore isn't radical ("other countries have grappled with this question; now, so must we").  Is that true?

In June of last year, there was a tumultuous political debate in Britain that sheds ample light on this question.  In the era of IRA bombings, the British Parliament passed a law allowing the Government to preventively detain terrorist suspects for 14 days -- and then either have to charge them or release them.  In 2006, Prime Minister Tony Blair -- citing the London subway attacks and the need to "intervene early before a terrorist cell has the opportunity to achieve its goals" -- wanted to increase the preventive detention period to 90 days, but MPs from his own party and across the political spectrum overwhelmingly opposed this, and ultimately increased it only to 28 days.

In June of last year, Prime Minister Gordon Brown sought an expansion of this preventive detention authority to 42 days -- a mere two weeks more. Reacting to that extremely modest increase, a major political rebellion erupted, with large numbers of Brown's own Labour Party joining with Tories to vehemently oppose it as a major threat to liberty.  Ultimately, Brown's 42-day scheme barely passed the House of Commons. As former Prime Minister John Major put it in opposing the expansion to 42 days:

It is hard to justify: pre-charge detention in Canada is 24 hours; South Africa, Germany, New Zealand and America 48 hours; Russia 5 days; and Turkey 7½ days.

By rather stark and extreme contrast, Obama is seeking preventive detention powers that are indefinite -- meaning without any end, potentially permanent.  There's no time limit on the "preventive detention."  Compare that power to the proposal that caused such a political storm in Britain and what these other governments are empowered to do.  The suggestion that indefinite preventive detention without charges is some sort of common or traditional scheme is clearly false.

(5) Is this comparable to traditional POW detentions?

When Bush supporters used to justify Bush/Cheney detention policies by arguing that it's normal for "Prisoners of War" to be held without trials, that argument was deeply misleading.  And it's no less misleading when made now by Obama supporters.  That comparison is patently inappropriate for two reasons:  (a) the circumstances of the apprehension, and (b) the fact that, by all accounts, this "war" will not be over for decades, if ever, which means -- unlike for traditional POWs, who are released once the war is over -- these prisoners are going to be in a cage not for a few years, but for decades, if not life.

Traditional "POWs" are ones picked up during an actual military battle, on a real battlefield, wearing a uniform, while engaged in fighting.  The potential for error and abuse in deciding who was a "combatant" was thus minimal.  By contrast, many of the people we accuse in the "war on terror" of being "combatants" aren't anywhere near a "battlefield," aren't part of any army, aren't wearing any uniforms, etc.  Instead, many of them are picked up from their homes, at work, off the streets. In most cases, then, we thus have little more than the say-so of the U.S. Government that they are guilty, which is why actual judicial proceedings before imprisoning them is so much more vital than in the standard POW situation.

Anyone who doubts that should just look at how many Guantanamo detainees were accused of being "the worst of the worst" yet ended up being released because they did absolutely nothing wrong.  Can anyone point to any traditional POW situation where so many people were falsely accused and where the risk of false accusations was so high?  For obvious reasons, this is not and has never been a traditional POW detention scheme.

During the Bush era, that was a standard argument among Democrats, so why should that change now?  Here is what Anne-Marie Slaughter -- now Obama's Director of Policy Planning for the State Department -- said about Bush's "POW" comparison on Fox News in, November 21, 2001:

Military commissions have been around since the Revolutionary War. But they've always been used to try spies that we find behind enemy lines. It's normally a situation, you're on the battlefield, you find an enemy spy behind your lines. You can't ship them to national court, so you provide a kind of rough battlefield justice in a commission. You give them the best process you can, and then you execute the sentence on the spot, which generally means executing the defendant.

That's not this situation. It's not remotely like it.

As for duration, the U.S. government has repeatedly said that this "war" is so different from standard wars because it will last for decades, if not generations. Obama himself yesterday said that "unlike the Civil War or World War II, we can't count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end" and that we'll still be fighting this "war" "a year from now, five years from now, and -- in all probability -- 10 years from now."  No rational person can compare POW detentions of a finite and usually short (2-5 years) duration to decades or life in a cage.  That's why, yesterday, Law Professor Diane Marie Amann, in The New York Times, said this:

[Obama] signaled a plan by which [Guantanamo detainees] — and perhaps other detainees yet to be arrested? — could remain in custody forever without charge. There is no precedent in the American legal tradition for this kind of preventive detention. That is not quite right: precedents do exist, among them the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and the Japanese internment of the 1940s, but they are widely seen as low points in America’s history under the Constitution.

There are many things that can be said about indefinitely imprisoning people with no charges who were not captured on any battlefield, but the claim that this is some sort of standard or well-established practice in American history is patently false.

(6) Is it "due process" when the Government can guarantee it always wins?

If you really think about the argument Obama made yesterday -- when he described the five categories of detainees and the procedures to which each will be subjected -- it becomes manifest just how profound a violation of Western conceptions of justice this is.  What Obama is saying is this:  we'll give real trials only to those detainees we know in advance we will convict. For those we don't think we can convict in a real court, we'll get convictions in the military commissions I'm creating.  For those we can't convict even in my military commissions, we'll just imprison them anyway with no charges ("preventively detain" them).

Giving trials to people only when you know for sure, in advance, that you'll get convictions is not due process.  Those are called "show trials."  In a healthy system of justice, the Government gives everyone it wants to imprison a trial and then imprisons only those whom it can convict.  The process is constant (trials), and the outcome varies (convictions or acquittals).

Obama is saying the opposite:  in his scheme, it is the outcome that is constant (everyone ends up imprisoned), while the process varies and is determined by the Government (trials for some; military commissions for others; indefinite detention for the rest).  The Government picks and chooses which process you get in order to ensure that it always wins. A more warped "system of justice" is hard to imagine.

(7) Can we "be safe" by locking up all the Terrorists with no charges?

Obama stressed yesterday that the "preventive detention" system should be created only through an act of Congress with "a process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified." That's certainly better than what Bush did:  namely, preventively detain people with no oversight and no Congressional authorization -- in violation of the law.  But as we learned with the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Protect America Act of 2007, the mere fact that Congress approves of a radical policy may mean that it is no longer lawless but it doesn't make it justified.  As Professor Amann put it:  "no amount of procedures can justify deprivations that, because of their very nature violate the Constitution’s core guarantee of liberty."  Dan Froomkin said that no matter how many procedures are created, that's "a dangerously extreme policy proposal."

Regarding Obama's "process" justification -- and regarding Obama's primary argument that we need to preventively detain allegedly dangerous people in order to keep us safe -- Digby said it best:

We are still in a "war" against a method of violence, which means there is no possible end and which means that the government can capture and imprison anyone they determine to be "the enemy" forever.  The only thing that will change is where the prisoners are held and few little procedural tweaks to make it less capricious. (It's nice that some sort of official committee will meet once in a while to decide if the war is over or if the prisoner is finally too old to still be a "danger to Americans.")

There seems to be some misunderstanding about Guantanamo. Somehow people have gotten it into their heads is that it is nothing more than a symbol, which can be dealt with simply by closing the prison. That's just not true. Guantanamo is a symbol, true, but it's a symbol of a lawless, unconstitutional detention and interrogation system. Changing the venue doesn't solve the problem.

I know it's a mess, but the fact is that this isn't really that difficult, except in the usual beltway kabuki political sense. There are literally tens of thousands of potential terrorists all over the world who could theoretically harm America. We cannot protect ourselves from that possibility by keeping the handful we have in custody locked up forever, whether in Guantanamo or some Super Max prison in the US. It's patently absurd to obsess over these guys like it makes us even the slightest bit safer to have them under indefinite lock and key so they "can't kill Americans."

The mere fact that we are doing this makes us less safe because the complete lack of faith we show in our constitution and our justice systems is what fuels the idea that this country is weak and easily terrified. There is no such thing as a terrorist suspect who is too dangerous to be set free. They are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. There is not some finite number of terrorists we can kill or capture and then the "war" will be over and the babies will always be safe. This whole concept is nonsensical.

As I said yesterday, there were some positive aspects to Obama's speech.  His resolve to close Guantanamo in the face of all the fear-mongering, like his release of the OLC memos, is commendable.  But the fact that a Democratic President who ran on a platform of restoring America's standing and returning to our core principles is now advocating the creation of a new system of indefinite preventive detention -- something that is now sure to become a standard view of Democratic politicians and hordes of Obama supporters -- is by far the most consequential event yet in the formation of Obama's civil liberties policies.

UPDATE: Here's what White House Counsel Greg Craig told The New Yorker's Jane Mayer in February:

"It’s possible but hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law," Craig said.  "Our presumption is that there is no need to create a whole new system. Our system is very capable."

"The first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law" is how Obama's own White House Counsel described him.  Technically speaking, that is a form of change, but probably not the type that many Obama voters expected.

UPDATE II: Ben Wizner of the ACLU's National Security Project is the lead lawyer in the Jeppesen case, which resulted in the recent rejection by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals of the Bush/Obama state secrets argument, and also co-wrote (along with the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer) a superb article in Salon in December making the case against preventive detention.  I spoke with him this morning for roughly 20 minutes regarding the detention policies proposed by Obama in yesterday's speech.  It can be heard by clicking PLAY on the recorder below.  A transcript will be posted shortly.

UPDATE III: Rachel Maddow was superb last night -- truly superb -- on the topic of Obama's preventive detention proposal:

UPDATE IV:  The New Yorker's Amy Davidson compares Obama's detention proposal to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II (as did Professor Amann, quoted above).  Johns Hopkins Professor Hilary Bok (aka Hilzoy) of The Washington Monthly writes:  "If we don't have enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we don't have enough evidence to hold them. Period" and "the power to detain people without filing criminal charges against them is a dictatorial power."  Salon's Joan Walsh quotes the Center for Constitutional Rights' Vincent Warren as saying:  "They’re creating, essentially, an American Gulag."  The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch says of Obama's proposal:  "What he's proposing is against one of this country's core principles" and "this is why people need to keep the pressure on Obama -- even those inclined to view his presidency favorably."

UPDATE V:  The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder -- who is as close to the Obama White House as any journalist around -- makes an important point about Obama that I really wish more of his supporters would appreciate:

[Obama] was blunt [in his meeting with civil libertiarians]; the [military commissions] are a fait accompli, so the civil libertarians can either help Congress and the White House figure out the best way to protect the rights of the accused within the framework of that decision, or they can remain on the outside, as agitators. That's not meant to be pejorative; whereas the White House does not give a scintilla of attention to its right-wing critics, it does read, and will read, everything Glenn Greenwald writes. Obama, according to an administration official, finds this outside pressure healthy and useful.

Ambinder doesn't mean me personally or exclusively; he means people who are criticizing Obama not in order to harm him politically, but in order to pressure him to do better.  It's not just the right, but the duty, of citizens to pressure and criticize political leaders when they adopt policies that one finds objectionable or destructive.  Criticism of this sort is a vital check on political leaders -- a key way to impose accountability -- and Obama himself has said as much many times before.

It has nothing to do with personalities or allegiances.  It doesn't matter if one "likes" or "trusts" Obama or thinks he's a good or bad person.  That's all irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is whether one thinks that the actions he's undertaking are helpful or harmful.  If they're harmful, one should criticize them.  Where, as here, they're very harmful and dangerous, one should criticize them loudly.  Obama himself, according to Ambinder, "finds this outside pressure healthy and useful."  And it is.  It's not only healthy and useful but absolutely vital.

Robobama Comes To Disney World

The New York Times' Jacques Steinberg has an exclusive on the animatronic Barack Obama which is set to be unveiled at Disney World's revamped Hall Of Presidents when it reopens on July 4th. Obamatron is said to be shockingly realistic, even imitating the President's mannerisms. The real President Obama has also provided recordings of him making a short speech and taking the oath of office for use by his mechanical alter-ego.

The all-new Hall Of Presidents will also feature Abraham Lincoln performing the Gettysburg Address in its entirety, while plucky newcomer George Washington will get his first speaking role. This post comes via Boing Boing, where it's suggested that, "Presumably, Obamabot will explain how the reasonable middle-ground demands suspending habeas corpus, covering up war crimes, and blocking the prosecution of participants in illegal wiretapping programs."

Video and Transcript: President Obama's Speech at US Naval Academy (22 May)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

OBAMA: Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Please, be seated. Governor O'Malley, thank you for your generous introduction and for your leadership here in Maryland. To Vice Admiral Fowler and faculty, distinguished guests, parents, family and friends. The Brigade of Midshipmen. And most importantly, the graduates of the Class of 2009 — 756 Navy, and, I am told, the largest number of Marines in Naval Academy history.

Now, I know it's customary at graduation for guests to bring a gift. And I have. All midshipmen on restriction for minor conduct offenses are hereby officially absolved. I did say "minor."

Midshipmen, I'm told that the extra ribbon on your chest is for the honor you earned, for only the second time in the storied history of the Naval Academy, the Navy's Meritorious Unit Commendation Award.

So I've consulted with Admiral Fowler, and I can make this announcement. For all you midshipmen returning next fall, I hereby grant you something extra: an extra weekend! I should stop now.

I am extraordinarily honored to be with you today because, of all the privileges of serving as president, I have no greater honor than serving as your commander in chief. Every day, I count on Naval Academy graduates like Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the CNO, Admiral Gary Roughead; and my director of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair. I'll also be counting on Ray Mabus, the former — a former surface warfare officer, as our new secretary of the Navy. Every day, I rely on former sailors and Marines on my staff, young men who served as intelligence officers in Iraq and Afghanistan; and the 32nd commandant of the Marine Corps, supreme allied commander, and now my national security advisor, General Jim Jones.

I've admired your prowess on the football field. At the White House last month, I was proud to present the team and Coach Ken with the Commander-in-Chief Trophy — which you won for the sixth straight time. And I know, you've beat Army seven straight times.

But most of all — most of all, I — I've admired the spirit of your service. Because it's not the strength of our arms or the power of our technology that gives the United States our military dominance.

It's our people. It's our sailors and Marines, soldiers and airmen and Coast Guardsmen, who perform brilliantly in every mission we give them.

Class of 2009, today is your day. It's your day to reflect on all you've achieved or, should I say, all that you endured: the madness of I Day that began your transformation from civilians to sailors and Marines; that endless Plebe Summer when you were pushed to new levels, new heights, physically, mentally, morally.

And speaking of new heights, I'm told that one of your proudest achievements still stands: one of the fastest times for the Herndon climb. Congratulations on that.

And families, today is your day too. It's the latest in a line of proud firsts: the first time you saw your son or daughter with that Navy haircut, that first time you saw them in their summer whites and today, the first time you'll see them as officers.

So to all of you — moms and dads, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, grandmas and grandpas, and all the local sponsor families who opened your homes to these Midshipmen — thank you for your support and your patriotism. We are grateful.

This class is about to become the latest link in a long, unbroken chain of heroism and victory; a chain forged in battles whose names are etched in the stone of this stadium — from Coral Sea to Midway to Guadalcanal, from Iwo Jima to Inchon, from the Mekong Delta to Desert Storm.

For some among us, these are not just places on a map. They are the stories of their lives. And we honor all of our veterans here today.

This chain of service calls to mind words that were spoken here in Annapolis, on another spring day, a century ago.

The crowds assembled, the bands played, the cannons roared, and as John Paul Jones' body was carried to the Yard, President Teddy Roosevelt spoke to the midshipmen gathered there that day. "Remember," he said, "our words of admiration are but as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals if we do not prepare to emulate their deeds."

Emulate their deeds. That is what you are called upon to do. And in doing so these past four years, you've not only given meaning to your own lives; you serve as a reminder and a challenge to your fellow Americans to fulfill the true meaning of citizenship.

America, look at these young men and women. Look at these sailors and Marines. Here are the values that we cherish. Here are the ideals that endure. In an era when too few citizens answer the call to service, to community or to country, these Americans choose to serve. They did so in a time of war, knowing they might be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Indeed, as we near Memorial Day, we pay tribute to all those who have given their lives so that we might live free, including those aboard that Navy helicopter who were lost this week in the waters off California. We send our prayers to their families and to all who loved them.

In a culture where so many chase the outward markers of success that can so often lead us astray — the titles and status, the materialism and money, the fame and popularity — these Americans have embraced the virtues that we need most right now: self-discipline over self-interest, work over comfort, and character over celebrity.

After an era when so many institutions and individuals acted with such greed and recklessness, it's no wonder that our military remains the most trusted institution in our nation.

And in a world when so many forces and voices seek to divide us, it inspires us that this class came together and succeeded together, from every state and every corner of the world. By building an institution that's more diverse than ever — more women, more Hispanics, more African-Americans — the Naval Academy has reaffirmed a fundamental American truth: that out of many, we are one.

We see these values in every one of these sailors and Marines, including those who've already served their country, the dozens among you with prior enlisted service; the perseverance of Elvin Vasquez, a Marine supply chief in Iraq who finally got into the Naval Academy on his third try — who never gave up trying because, he says, "There's just something about being a Marine."

It's the example of Carlos Carbello, who left the tough streets of LA to serve on a destroyer in the Pacific and who has used his time here to mentor others, because he's the oldest midshipman — the old man — at the age of 26.

It's the patriotism of Sade Holder, who came to America as a child from Trinidad, enlisted in the Navy and then earned the titles she values most: "U.S. citizen," and "Navy midshipman," and, today, "ensign."

And it's the reverence for tradition shown by James P. Heg, a communications maintenance Marine in Iraq who today is joined by the man who first urged him to sign up, his grandfather, returning six decades after he was a midshipman, a submariner from World War II, 89-year-old Captain James E. Heg.

Honor, courage, commitment.

These are the values that have defined your years in the Yard and that you'll need in the years ahead — as you join the fleet, as you join and lead the Marines, as you confront the ever-changing threats of an ever-changing world.

For history teaches us that the nations that grow comfortable with the old ways and complacent in the face of new threats — those nations do not long endure. And in the 21st century we do not have the luxury of deciding which challenges to prepare for and which to ignore. We must overcome the full spectrum of threats — the conventional and the unconventional, the nation-state and the terrorist network, the spread of deadly technologies and the spread of hateful ideologies, 18th century-style piracy and 21st century cyberthreats.

So, SEALs and Special Operations Forces, we'll need you for those short-notice missions in the dark of night. But we'll also need you for the long-term training of foreign militaries so they can take responsibility for their own security.

Marines, we need you to defeat the insurgent and the extremist. But we also need you to work with the tribal sheikh and local leaders from Anbar to Kandahar who want to build a better future for their people.

Naval aviators and flight officers, we need you to dominate the airspace in times of conflict, but also to deliver food and medicine in times of humanitarian crisis.

And surface warfare officers and submariners, we need you to project American power across the vast oceans, but also to protect American principles and values when you pull into that foreign port, because for so many people around the world, you are the face of America.

These great opportunities come with great responsibilities. Indeed, midshipmen and presidents swear a similar oath — not only to protect and defend the American people, but the Constitution of the United States.

Yesterday I visited the National Archives and the halls that hold our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights. I went there because as our national debate on how to deal with the security challenge that we face proceeds, we must remember this enduring truth: The values and ideals in those documents are not simply words written into aging parchment; they are the bedrock of our liberty and our security. We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to; not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe and keep us true to who we are.

Because when America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops. So as Americans, we reject the false choice between our security and our ideals. We can and we must and we will protect both.

And that is just what you will pledge to do in a few moments when you raise your right hand and take your oath. But that simple act — by that simple act, you will accept the life of great sacrifice: long deployments, separation for loved ones, tests and trials that most Americans can't imagine. But that is the oath you take, the life you choose, the promise you make to America.

And today, this is the promise I make to you. It's a promise that as long as I am your commander in chief, I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy, the well-defined goals, the equipment and the support that you need to get the job done.

This includes the job of bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end and pursuing a new comprehensive strategy to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And to get you the support you need, we're enlisting all elements of our national power — our diplomacy and development, our economic might and our moral suasion — so that you and the rest of our military do not bear the burden of our security alone.

We'll also ensure you can meet the missions of today, which is why we've halted reductions in Navy personnel and increased the size of the Marine Corps. And we will ensure you can meet the missions of tomorrow, which is why we're investing in the capabilities and technologies of tomorrow, the littoral combat ships, the most advanced submarines and fighter aircraft, so that you have what you need to succeed. In short, we will maintain America's military dominance and keep you the finest fighting force the world has ever seen.

Now, as you advance through the ranks and start families of your own, know that we will be with you every step of the way, increasing your pay, increasing child care and helping families deal with the stress and separation of war.

Because as my wife Michelle has come to see in her visits with military families, across the country, when a loved one is deployed, the whole family goes to war.

And finally whether you're 26 years old or 89, if you've worn the uniform and taken care of America, America will take care of you with a modern VA that keeps faith with our veterans and wounded warriors, with a 21st-century G.I. Bill that gives our veterans and their families the chance to live out their dreams.

This is America's covenant with you, a solemn commitment to all those who serve. And while our nation has not always fulfilled its duties to its armed forces, let there be no doubt, America's men and women in uniform have always fulfilled theirs. And that's exactly what America's Navy did just last month, in the seas off Somalia.

I will not recount the full story of those five days in April. Much of it is already known. Some of it will never be known. And that is how it should be. But here on this day, at this institution, it must be said.

The extraordinary precision and professionalism displayed that day was made possible, in no small measure, by the training, the discipline, and the leadership skills that so many of those officers learned at the United States Naval Academy.

And after that operation, after Captain Phillips was freed, I spoke to one of the Navy SEALs, who was there, and with the skipper of the USS Bainbridge, Commander Frank Castellano, Naval Academy Class of 1990. And I can tell you, as they would, that the success of that day belongs not only to a single commander or a small team of SEALs. It belongs to the many.

It belongs to all the sailors — officers and enlisted, not on one ship but several — who diligently stood their watch. It belongs to the pilots and airmen who gave cover overhead, to the intelligence specialists and negotiators and translators, to all the people who worked, day after night, on the scene and in command centers half a world away, to save a man they knew only as a fellow American.

And we recall that in those moments of danger and decision, these Americans did what they were trained to do. They remembered their skills. They did their duty. They performed their job. They stood their watch. They took their time and then they took their shot. And they brought that captain home.

And as Commander Castellano said later of his sailors, "Every citizen in the country should be happy and thankful that they're there." And I told him that we are.

So Class of 2009, months or years or decades from now, should you find yourself in a moment of danger, a moment of decision, and should you wonder, "What is expected of me? What should I do?" — just look at that ring on your finger. Remember your days on the bank of the Severn.

Remember all you achieved here and all that you learned here: devotion to honor, strength from courage. Live these values. Live these virtues. Emulate the deeds of those who have gone before you. Do this, and you will not only distinguish yourselves as sailors and Marines; you'll be in the lead as we write the next proud chapter in the story of this country that we love.

Congratulations, Class of 2009.

God bless the Navy. God bless the Marines Corps. And God bless the United States of America.