Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist

Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Md Troopers Assoc #20 & Westminster Md Fire Dept Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist

Saturday, May 23, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT THE UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY COMMENCEMENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 22, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT THE UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY COMMENCEMENT

United States Naval Academy
Annapolis, Maryland

10:18 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: 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. Vice Admiral Fowler and faculty, distinguished guests, parents, family and friends, the Brigade of Midshipmen -- (applause) -- and most importantly, the graduates of the Class of 2009. (Applause.) Seven hundred and fifty-six Navy and, I am told, the largest number of Marines in Naval Academy history. (Applause.)

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. (Applause.) I did say "minor." (Laughter.)

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. (Applause.) I should stop now. (Laughter.)

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, 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. (Applause.) 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. (Applause.) And I know you beat Army seven straight times. (Laughter.)

But most of all, most of all 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.

And 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. (Applause.)

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 for your patriotism. We are grateful. (Applause.)

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're the stories of their lives. And we honor all of our veterans here today. (Applause.)

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. 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 symbols 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. (Applause.) 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. (Applause.)

We see these values in every one of these sailors and Marines, including those who have already served their country -- the dozens among you with prior enlisted service.

It's the perseverance of Elvin Vasquez, a Marine supply chief in Iraq -- (applause) -- who finally got into the Naval Academy on his third try -- (applause) -- who never gave up trying because he says, "there's just something about being a Marine."

It's the example of Carlos Carbello -- (applause) -- who left the tough streets of L.A. 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. (Applause.)

It's the patriotism of Sade Holder -- (applause) -- 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." (Applause.)

And it's the reverence for tradition shown by James P. Heg -- (applause) -- a communications -- 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. (Applause.)

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, and 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 cyber threats.

So SEALs and special operations forces, we 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 holds 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. (Applause.) 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 a life of great sacrifice: long deployments, separation from 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 and the well-defined goals, the equipment and the support that you need to get the job done. (Applause.) 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. (Applause.)

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. (Applause.)

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, then America will take care of you -- (applause) -- with a modern VA that keeps faith with our veterans and wounded warriors, with a 21st century GI 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. (Applause.) 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's 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. (Applause.)

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 one 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. (Applause.)

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 will 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 Marine Corps. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END
10:41 A.M. EDT

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-US-Naval-Academy-Commencement/
Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/
Kevin Dayhoff Art: www.kevindayhoff.com Kevin Dayhoff Westminster: www.westgov.net

The GOP's new tool: Huffington Post By Michael Calderone


When Tom Coburn wanted to pitch his criticism of the Democrats’ health care plan last month, the senator’s office considered sympathetic media outlets like The Wall Street Journal and the conservative blog RedState.

Instead, the Oklahoma Republican went with The Huffington Post.

Despite its liberal leanings, Republican member and aides have begun heading to The Huffington Post to talk up their views.

Arianna Huffington, who co-founded the eponymous site four years ago this month, said that increased Republican engagement “is a reflection of our traffic, our brand, and the fact that we are increasingly seen ... as an Internet newspaper, not positioned ideologically in terms of how we cover the news.”

That's not exactly how the
Republicans see it. While GOP aides say they're treated fairly by Huffington Post reporters, they know that their views are likely to take a beating from the site’s bloggers, commenters and headline writers.

But the opportunity for impact is irresistible.

Just as
Democrats learned to love — or at least understand — the Drudge Report, Republicans flock to The Huffington Post largely because of the site’s broad reach. In April, The Huffington Post brought in a record 8.8 million unique visitors, according to Nielsen — a number that includes quite a few mainstream media journalists and cable news producers.

Read the entire column here: The GOP's new tool: Huffington Post By: Michael Calderone May 22, 2009

20090522 SDOSM Politico GOPs new tool Huffington by Michael Calderone

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22861.html

Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/
Kevin Dayhoff Art:
www.kevindayhoff.com
Kevin Dayhoff Westminster:
www.westgov.net

MSP has made a positive ID made of man found in burning truck

Maryland State Police has made a positive ID made of man found in burning truck

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 23, 2009


(Hampstead, MD) � A forensic examination has resulted in the positive identification of the man whose body was found inside a burning truck on a Carroll County church parking lot early yesterday morning.

The victim is identified as Duane F. Fuller, 39, of the 2600-block of Susanann Drive, Hampstead, Md. The identification was made through the use of dental records by forensic experts at the Office of the State Medical Examiner.

The cause and manner of Fuller's death remain under investigation. The circumstances surrounding his death continue to be investigated by State Police criminal investigators from the Westminster Barracks and deputy state fire marshals from the Office of the State Fire Marshal.

At about 4:15 a.m. yesterday, members of the Hampstead Volunteer Fire Department responded to extinguish a fully-engulfed pick up truck that was seen burning on the parking lot of a church in the 1600-block of Cape Horn Road, Hampstead. Fuller's body was found inside a 2006 diesel Ford utility pick up truck with a crew cab after fire personnel extinguished the blaze.

The truck belonged to Sunrise Safety Services of Glen Burnie. Fuller was employed by that company and was involved in work on the Hampstead Bypass, which is near where the victim was found.

The investigation is continuing.

###

CONTACT: Mr. Gregory ShipleyOffice of Media Communications & Marketing410-653-4236 (Office) 410-653-4200 (through Headquarters Duty Officer)

20090523 SDOSM MSP has made a positive ID made of man found in burning truck

Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack:
http://www.kevindayhoff.net/ http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/
Kevin Dayhoff Art:
http://www.kevindayhoff.com/
Kevin Dayhoff Westminster:
http://www.westgov.net/

An Engineer's Guide to Cats

An Engineer's Guide to Cats

Two professional engineers illustrate the proper care and practical benefits of cats. None of the cats, humans, or engineers were mistreated in the making of this film. They were however, slightly annoyed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHXBL6bzAR4



I lost it at the cat-yodeling segment.

20090523 SDOSM An Engineers Guide to Cats
Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/
Kevin Dayhoff Art: www.kevindayhoff.com
Kevin Dayhoff Westminster: www.westgov.net

Recent Explore Carroll columns by Kevin Dayhoff

Recent Explore Carroll columns by Kevin Dayhoff

http://explorecarroll.com/search/more.php?f=news&y=0&p=1&s=Dayhoff

Dayhoff: Maryland National Guard Company H, had its beginnings in the flower business
Published May 22, 2009 by Westminster Eagle
We are deeply indebted to those who fought and died to give us the unalienable right to live free and cherish liberty in the pursuit of happiness. Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster. E-mail him at kevindayhoff AT gmail DOT com....

Mulkey is one of many, yet a special son of Carroll County
Published May 22, 2009 by Carroll Eagle
... thanks to Mount Airy councilwoman Wendi Peters and American Legion Post 191 commander Roy True for their help with this column. We will resume the history trivia quiz next Sunday. In the meantime, Kevin Dayhoff may be reached at

Celebrating Cockey's Tavern, birthplace of Carroll County
Published May 18, 2009 by Carroll Eagle
... When he's not hanging around old haunts such as Cockey's Tavern,....

Utz elected as new mayor of Westminster
Published May 18, 2009 by Carroll Eagle
… — compiled by Kevin Dayhoff

Dayhoff: The rebirth of the Cockey's Tavern building in Westminster
Published May 12, 2009 by Westminster Eagle
… column in the Carroll Eagle of The Baltimore Sun for more of the rich history of Cockey’s.Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster.

Crunching numbers, and historic perspective, in Westminster election
Published May 12, 2009 by Westminster Eagle
... The writer, Kevin Dayhoff, is a history columnist for The Eagle newspapers. He served as ... did his grandfather Frank Thomas Babylon for several years in the 1890s.

Utz elected as Westminster mayor
Published May 11, 2009 by Westminster Eagle
— compiled by Kevin Dayhoff...

For municipalities that still exist, elections renew a call to activism
Published May 10, 2009 by Carroll Eagle

Dayhoff: How water drove the growth Westminster ... and still does
Published May 4, 2009 by Carroll Eagle, Westminster Eagle
... 200 years after our community banded together to maintain a steady and reliable water supply. Feedback, questions, and comments are welcome in the readers’ comments section below.

Readers revel in the details of the great baseball tater caper
Published May 3, 2009 by Carroll Eagle
... who declared the caper the "hidden-ball trick to end all hidden-ball tricks." No history trivia question this week -- I'm missing the baseball game on TV. When he is not watching baseball…

20090523 Recent Explore Carroll columns by Kevin Dayhoff

Md Natl Guard Co H began in the flower business

The Maryland National Guard Company H, from Carroll County had its beginnings 110 years ago in the flower business.

From its roots in a Frizellburg flower business, to the shores of Normandy on D-Day, part of the family tree of the famed 29th Division, Company H, from Carroll County started to grow 110 years ago.

By Kevin Dayhoff, May 20, 2009

Next Monday is Memorial Day. It is a solemn day that Carroll County has faithfully observed for 142 years

Hopefully I will see you and your family at the historic Westminster Cemetery when we gather together, after the traditional Memorial Day parade, to our express our profound gratitude for the acts of brave patriots who gave their full measure to preserve our way of life.

Just after last year’s observances of Memorial Day, I wrote a Sunday Carroll Eagle column on D-Day, and the fact that many Carroll Countians served in the 29th Division - which along with V Corps and the 1st Infantry Division made up the total of 34,250 troops, 3,300 vehicles - who landed at “Omaha Beach” that faithful day on June 6, 1944, at 6:30 in the morning.

For several months after that column appeared, many readers asked for more information on the 29th Division and its humble beginnings in Carroll County as Company H of the Maryland National Guard

As a matter of fact, the D-Day column came as a result of reader feedback from an earlier column on the history and tradition of the Memorial Day observances in Westminster.

Folks also took me aside during last year’s Westminster’s Memorial Day ceremonies and contacted me after I had the opportunity to talk about the Memorial Day holiday and D-Day on WTTR with Gail Jones, the guardianship program coordinator for the Carroll County bureau of aging, on the “Carroll Senior News” program.

Then the topic came up again when I was honored to be the guest of George Miller and Paul Garver last year at the Westminster Senior Center for a Memorial Day program.

I promised that I would fill-in more of the history of Company H this year, in time for the 2009 Westminster observance of Memorial Day.

Candidly, the history and tradition of Company H of the Maryland National Guard and the 29th Division will remain a long-term project because one could write a lengthy book on the topic.

For this installment, we’ll just introduce you to the early roots of Company H and we’ll see what further questions arise and take it from there.

[…]

Read the entire column here: http://tinyurl.com/rb7542

Memorial Day http://www.explorecarroll.com/ Md Natl Guard Co H began in flower business Kevin Dayhoff http://tinyurl.com/rb7542
http://explorecarroll.com/opinion/2941/dayhoff/

20090520 sdosm Md Natl Guard Co H began in the flower business


Military Maryland National Guard, Dayhoff writing essays history, History Carroll Co, History 1890s, Ag Horticulture, Military Md Natl Guard Co H, Military 29th Divsion, Dayhoff writing essays military, Annual Memorial Day, Military Memorial Day,

City of Westminster Fire Hydrant Flushing Scheduled


City of Westminster Fire Hydrant Flushing Scheduled

City of Westminster
56 West Main Street
Westminster, MD 21158
Phone (410) 848-9000
Fax (410) 848-7476

Press Release
Contact: Mike Zechman
Phone: 410-848-5043

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, May 23, 2009

Fire Hydrant Flushing Scheduled

The City of Westminster, Department of Public Works, wishes to inform the public that Utility Maintenance Department personnel will systematically flush fire hydrants throughout the City from 8 pm to midnight on May 26 and 27. This will cause some discoloration to the water and it is advisable to refrain from doing laundry the following day.

The Department recommends opening all faucets first thing in the morning and running until it is clear. In addition, draw enough water the night before to allow for your morning usage, such as making coffee, etc. Residents can rest assured that even if water is discolored that it is still fully treated and potable.

Please bear with us during this procedure as it is necessary for continued quality service.


Areas affected are:

Carroll Meadows
Eden Farms
Devlin Square
Sullivan Road
Hahn Road
Cranberry Road
Westminster Town Mall
Cranberry Square
Airport area

For more information, please contact the Westminster Department of Public Works at 410-848-9000.

-End-

20090520 City of Westminster press release hydrant flushed

Friday, May 22, 2009

It was a lovely day to protest.







It was a lovely day to protest.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Pictured are the airport protesters at the Carroll County office building in Westminster Maryland.

Seems they are also protesting Carroll County commissioners Julia Gouge and Mike Zimmer.

Dayhoff Daily Photoblog
20090521 Airport protesters

Text of Dick Cheneys National Security Speech at AEI

Text of Dick Cheneys National Security Speech at AEI

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/21/raw-data-text-dick-cheneys-national-security-speech-aei/

RAW DATA: Text of President Obama's Speech on National Security [2009-05-21]
Obama 'Distracted' by Biden's 'Indiscipline,' Book Asserts [2009-05-21]

Obama Remains Steadfast in Plan to Close Gitmo, Blisters Bush Administration [2009-05-21]

Trade Deficit Widens to $27.6 Billion in March [2009-05-12]

Comedian Wanda Sykes Draws Fire With Cracks About Rush Limbaugh's Health, Patriotism

RAW DATA: Text of Dick Cheney's National Security Speech at AEI

Former Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute addressing the critical issues of national security and providing a blueprint for keeping American safe in the future.

FOXNews.com Thursday, May 21, 2009

Thank you all very much, and Arthur, thank you for that introduction. It's good to be back at AEI, where we have many friends. Lynne is one of your longtime scholars, and I'm looking forward to spending more time here myself as a returning trustee. What happened was, they were looking for a new member of the board of trustees, and they asked me to head up the search committee.

I first came to AEI after serving at the Pentagon, and departed only after a very interesting job offer came along. I had no expectation of returning to public life, but my career worked out a little differently. Those eight years as vice president were quite a journey, and during a time of big events and great decisions, I don't think I missed much.

Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I'm an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen - a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.

The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I'm not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. We understand the complexities of national security decisions. We understand the pressures that confront a president and his advisers. Above all, we know what is at stake. And though administrations and policies have changed, the stakes for America have not changed.

Right now there is considerable debate in this city about the measures our administration took to defend the American people. Today I want to set forth the strategic thinking behind our policies. I do so as one who was there every day of the Bush Administration -who supported the policies when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President's understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, hoping to bring down the towers with a blast from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.

Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact - crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.

That's how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least - but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat - what the Congress called "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.

We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We'd just been hit by a foreign enemy - leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn't know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.

These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass - a 9/11 with nuclear weapons.

For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.

There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day - word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I've heard occasional speculation that I'm a different man after 9/11. I wouldn't say that. But I'll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.

To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.

We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations … the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program. It's required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan - and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive - and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

So we're left to draw one of two conclusions - and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event - coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.

The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn't invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force" to protect the American people.

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn't serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.

In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations.

In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.

Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.

By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public's right to know. We're informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called "Truth Commission." Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It's hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.

Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.

One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see - including the enemy - let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.

It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You've heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed - the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.

We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn't know about al-Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn't think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

Maybe you've heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.

In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about "values." Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe - it's no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term "war" where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we're advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, "Overseas contingency operations." In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, "man-made disaster" - never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, "enemy combatants," as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn't change what they are - or what they would do if we let them loose.

On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Now the President says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system. Others, he says, will be shipped to third countries. But so far, the United States has had little luck getting other countries to take hardened terrorists. So what happens then? Attorney General Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept a number of the terrorists here, in the homeland, and it has even been suggested US taxpayer dollars will be used to support them. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President's own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.

The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we've captured as, quote, "abducted." Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

It's one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we're no longer engaged in a war. These are just words, and in the end it's the policies that matter most. You don't want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you want - just don't bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war? Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a "recruitment tool" for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It's another version of that same old refrain from the Left, "We brought it on ourselves."

It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America's moral standards, one way or the other.

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world - these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.

The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world - for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences - and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for - our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.

This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It's almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.

As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won't let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I've formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It's worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.

I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations - and I am not alone. President Obama's own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country." End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration - the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn't change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us." End of quote.

If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it'll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs - on the continuing threat of terrorist violence, and on stopping the men who are planning it.

For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history - not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them. And when I think about all that was to come during our administration and afterward - the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of "hubris" - my mind always goes back to that moment.

To put things in perspective, suppose that on the evening of 9/11, President Bush and I had promised that for as long as we held office - which was to be another 2,689 days - there would never be another terrorist attack inside this country. Talk about hubris - it would have seemed a rash and irresponsible thing to say. People would have doubted that we even understood the enormity of what had just happened. Everyone had a very bad feeling about all of this, and felt certain that the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville were only the beginning of the violence.

Of course, we made no such promise. Instead, we promised an all-out effort to protect this country. We said we would marshal all elements of our nation's power to fight this war and to win it. We said we would never forget what had happened on 9/11, even if the day came when many others did forget. We spoke of a war that would "include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success." We followed through on all of this, and we stayed true to our word.

To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.

Along the way there were some hard calls. No decision of national security was ever made lightly, and certainly never made in haste. As in all warfare, there have been costs - none higher than the sacrifices of those killed and wounded in our country's service. And even the most decisive victories can never take away the sorrow of losing so many of our own - all those innocent victims of 9/11, and the heroic souls who died trying to save them.

For all that we've lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted.

Thank you very much.


20090521 Text of Dick Cheneys National Security Speech at AEI
Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/
Kevin Dayhoff Art: www.kevindayhoff.com
Kevin Dayhoff Westminster: www.westgov.net

From Soundtrack archives: Laura Rhodes April 4, 2008 photomontage


From Soundtrack archives: Laura Rhodes April 4, 2008 photomontage

An interview with Laura Rhodes about Respite Care in Carroll County

Photo credit: An interview with Laura Rhodes, the Program Development 20080404 LRhodes triptych1sm.jpg and 20080404 LRhodes triptych1sm.jpg

Manager at Granite House. April 4, 2008 Photomontage by Kevin Dayhoff

Monday, April 21, 2008 by Kevin Dayhoff

http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/2008/04/20080421-interview-with-laura-rhodes.html

From Soundtrack archives: An interview with Laura Rhodes about Respite Care in Carroll County http://tinyurl.com/q6ugse

http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/2008/04/laura-rhodes-offers-helping-hand-to.html

*****
From Soundtrack archives: Laura Rhodes offers a helping hand to those in need 04/23/08 By Kevin E. Dayhoff http://tinyurl.com/owkgsx

http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/2008/04/laura-rhodes-offers-helping-hand-to.html
20080404 Twitpic SDOSM FB Laura Rhodes photomontage
SDOSM 20090522

Carroll County Memorial Day and local carnival events Monday May 25 2009

Carroll County Memorial Day and local carnival events Monday May 25 2009

May 22, 2009

Memorial Day Westminster hosts its Memorial Day parade and service Monday at 10 a.m. The parade steps off on Pennsylvania Avenue and follows Main Street to the Westminster Cemetery, Church Street. Call 410-848-6179.

The Mount Airy American Legion Gold Star Post 191 is holding their annual observance of Memorial Day at Pine Grove Cemetery on Memorial Day at 11:00 am, with lunch to follow at the Post on Prospect Rd. For more information call the Post at 301-829-9161

Union Bridge Union Bridge Fire Co., 8 W. Locust St., Union Bridge, will host its annual carnival beginning Monday and running through Saturday, May 30. Call David at 410-775-7422. For more information: Carnival season starts summer By Carrie Ann Knauer, Times Staff Writer

Harney VFW Post hosting events on Saturday By Beth Abbott, West Carroll Friday, May 22, 2009 Monocacy Valley Memorial Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 6918, in conjunction with the Harney fire company and the Harney Lions Club, will be having the annual Memorial Day Services to honor fallen veterans. Those wishing to participate should gather at 4:30 p.m. Saturday at the Post, 5801 Conover Road, Harney. For more information: http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/articles/2009/05/22/neighborhoods/west%20carroll/beth_abbott/beth983.txt

Scouts honor veterans by placing flags on graves By Bryan Schutt, Times Staff Writer Wednesday, May 13, 2009 MANCHESTER — After Marshall Singer planted the American flag in the ground, he hurried to catch up with the rest of his fellow Cub Scouts in front of the next tombstone. Placing flag after flag, the 20 or so Scouts solemnly walked through grounds of the New Lutheran Cemetery off Locust Street in Manchester, honoring some of Carroll’s veterans in advance of Memorial Day. In total, roughly 170 graves were memorialized Tuesday night by the Scouts of Cub Scout Pack 320 in Manchester, joining in a tradition kept alive by the American Legion Post 200 in Hampstead. For more information: http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/articles/2009/05/13/news/local_news/1_flags_scouts.txt

What: St. John Catholic Church carnival When: Monday through May 30, gates open at noon Monday, 5 p.m. all other days Where: School grounds, 43 Monroe St., Westminster Information: Call 410-848-4744 For more information: http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/articles/2009/05/22/news/local_news/1carnival_season.txt

20090522 sdosm Memorial Day Monday May 25 2009 events

Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack:
www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/
Kevin Dayhoff Art:
www.kevindayhoff.com
Kevin Dayhoff Westminster:
www.westgov.net

Mark Keidel from Carroll County promoted to chief operating officer of 1st Mariner Bank


1st Mariner Bank Promotes Executives as It Prepares for Future Growth

Company Release - 05/20/2009 12:00

On Wednesday May 20, 2009, 12:00 pm EDT

Mark A. Keidel is named director and chief operating officer of 1st Mariner Bank, Paul B. Susie is appointed chief financial officer and Robert P. Warr is promoted to chief risk officer and executive vice president

BALTIMORE, May 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- 1st Mariner Bank (Nasdaq:
FMAR - News) today promoted Mark A. Keidel to chief operating officer of the bank and holding company, and Robert P. Warr to chief risk officer and executive vice president. 1st Mariner also announced that Paul B. Susie will be appointed to the position of Chief Financial Officer.

As chief operating officer, Keidel will be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the bank and the holding company, 1st Mariner Bancorp, which has $1.377 billion in assets and employs 700 people. He also will become a director of both entities. Most recently, Keidel was 1st Mariner's chief financial officer.

As chief risk officer, a newly created position at the bank, Warr will be responsible for the quality and profitability of the bank's loan portfolio. He will oversee the credit function, legal department, construction administration and the bank's appraisal subsidiary. Most recently, Warr was senior vice president of commercial lending.

As chief financial officer, Susie succeeds Keidel and will be responsible for supervising the bank's general accounting, purchasing and regulatory accounting functions.

The promotions are effective immediately, said Edwin F. Hale Sr., Chairman and Chief Executive of 1st Mariner Bancorp.

"Mark and Bob are extraordinarily talented and dedicated individuals who have demonstrated remarkable skill during these past two difficult years," Hale said. "Paul is an excellent addition to our executive management team, bringing fresh perspective and solid business experience. They have each proven to be strong leaders and adept decision makers and will be an integral part of 1st Mariner Bank as we work to improve profitability and seize upon the many opportunities we see in the market."

Keidel replaces Joseph A. Cicero, 65, who retires May 22nd. Cicero, who was chief operating officer and president of 1st Mariner Bancorp, will continue to work with the bank on a consulting basis through the end of the year. He is a 14-year 1st Mariner Bank veteran and a 38-year veteran of the banking industry.

"Joe has made a significant contribution to the development of 1st Mariner," Hale said. "His efforts and leadership have been invaluable."

Keidel joined 1st Mariner in June 2000 as executive vice president and chief financial officer. Prior to that he was chief financial officer at Mason-Dixon Bancshares, Inc., in Westminster, Maryland, controller at Carroll County Bank & Trust, and managerial accounting officer at First National Bank of Maryland. A graduate of Frostburg State University, Keidel received his Certified Public Accounting credentials in 1991, and attended the Bank Administration Institute Financial School the same year.

Warr joined 1st Mariner in April 1997 as senior vice president in commercial lending. Prior to coming to 1st Mariner, Warr was senior vice president for real estate lending at the Bank of Baltimore where he managed the commercial loan workout program. He began his commercial banking career at Union Trust Company where he originated and serviced income property loans in Washington, D.C., northern Virginia and Maryland. Warr received a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Baltimore.

Susie is new to the 1st Mariner organization. He began his career with Coopers and Lybrand (now PriceWaterHouseCoopers) and has held senior financial positions with Baltimore Marine Industries, Earthshell Corporation and Celsion Corporation. A graduate of the University of Baltimore, he has over 18 years of experience in both public and corporate accounting and is a Certified Public Accountant.

Hale also announced that in addition to the individuals listed above, the Executive Management of the bank will include George H. Mantakos, Dennis E. Finnegan, Edward "Ned" Perry, and Kenneth C. Jones. George Mantakos will continue to serve as the bank's Chief Lending Officer. Dennis Finnegan will continue to serve as the director of retail banking, as well as overseeing the company's human resource, deposit operations, and information technology functions. Ned Perry will continue to serve as President of 1st Mariner Mortgage, and Ken Jones will continue to serve as Senior Vice President leading the bank's facilities administration.

Hale concluded, "I am confident that our executive management group has the right mix of experience, technical skills, and energy to lead 1st Mariner Bank through these difficult times. In spite of the challenges in the current market today, I am optimistic about 1st Mariner's future and this group's ability to tackle current challenges while preparing the company for future opportunities."

ABOUT 1st MARINER BANK

1st Mariner Bancorp is a bank holding company with total assets of $1.377 billion. Its wholly owned banking subsidiary, 1st Mariner Bank, (total assets $1.265 billion) operates 25 full service bank branches in Baltimore, Anne Arundel, Harford, Howard, Talbot, and Carroll counties in Maryland, the City of Baltimore, and Shrewsbury, Pennsylvania. 1st Mariner Mortgage, a division of 1st Mariner Bank, operates retail offices in Central Maryland, the Eastern Shore of Maryland, and Massachusetts. 1st Mariner Mortgage also operates direct marketing mortgage operations in Baltimore City. Mariner Finance, LLC (total assets $101 million) is a consumer finance subsidiary that currently operates branches in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, New Jersey, and Tennessee. 1st Mariner Bancorp's common stock is traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol "FMAR." 1st Mariner's Web site address is
www.1stMarinerBancorp.com, which includes comprehensive level investor information.


20090520 sdosm Mark Keidel from Carroll County promoted

Carroll Nonprofit Center Yard Sale to support Get Connected Family Resource Center


Carroll Nonprofit Center Yard Sale to support Get Connected Family Resource Center

Carroll Nonprofit Center

Date: May 30th, 2009

Time: 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Where: 255 Clifton Blvd. Westminster, MD

$15.00 per space (Space size is 2 parking spaces wide)

Rain date: June 6, 2009 - 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

To reserve a space and for additional information contact:

Karen Koenigsberg at the Get Connected Family Resource Center 410-871-0008

Yard Sale Sponsored by the Get Connected Family Resource Center.

This has been approved by HR.


20090522 sdosm notice for Yard sale public

Fire Marshals And Troopers Investigate Death And Fire In Carroll County

Fire Marshals And Troopers Investigate Death And Fire In Carroll County

NEWS RELEASE
DEPARTMENT OF
MARYLAND STATE POLICE
HEADQUARTERS: PIKESVILLE, MD 21208
(410)486-3101 TTY For Hearing Impaired (410)486-0677
Toll Free: 1-800-525-5555

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 22, 2009

FIRE MARSHALS AND TROOPERS INVESTIGATE DEATH AND FIRE IN CARROLL COUNTY

(Hampstead, MD) – Deputy state fire marshals and state troopers are investigating the death of a man whose body was found inside a burning truck on a Carroll County church parking lot early this morning.

The victim is described as a white male, possibly 35-45 years of age. The name of the individual is not being released at this time. Although a possible identity is known, a positive identification of the body has not been made.

At about 4:15 a.m. today, a 9-1-1 call was received from a near-by resident who reported a fire on the parking lot of St. Mark’s Lutheran Church, in the 1600-block of Cape Horn Road, Hampstead, Md. Units from the Hampstead Volunteer Fire Department responded to the scene and extinguished the blaze that had engulfed a 2006 diesel Ford utility pickup truck with a crew cab. Fire personnel found the victim deceased in the back seat of the truck and notified law enforcement authorities.

Deputies and a K-9 team from the Office of the State Fire Marshal and troopers from the Westminster Barracks responded to the scene. Investigators from the Westminster Barracks Criminal Investigation Section, the State Police Homicide Unit, and crime scene technicians from the State Police Forensic Sciences Division also responded to assist with the investigation.

The victim’s cause of death is not known at this time. His body was taken to the Office of the State Medical Examiner in Baltimore for an autopsy. There were no immediately obvious signs of trauma on the body, other than what are consistent with burn injuries.

The truck was destroyed in the fire. A cause of the fire has not been determined at this time and remains under investigation by the Office of the State Fire Marshal.
The truck was owned by Sunrise Safety Services of Glen Burnie, Md. The company is one of the contractors working on the Hampstead Bypass.

Anyone with information about this incident, or who may have been driving on Cape Horn Road between the hours of 9:30 p.m. yesterday and 4:15 a.m. today, is urged to contact Maryland State Police at the Westminster Barracks. Investigators can be reached at 410-386-3000.

CONTACT: Greg Shipley Joe Zurolo Office of Media Communications Office of the State Fire Marshal 410-996-2790 410-653-4236

Sdosm 20090522
Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/
Kevin Dayhoff Art: www.kevindayhoff.com
Kevin Dayhoff Westminster: www.westgov.net

FOXNews.com: Text of President Obama's Speech on National Security


These are extraordinary times for our country. We are confronting an historic economic crisis. We are fighting two wars. We face a range of challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st century. There is no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear.

And we have begun to make progress. Just this week, we have taken steps to protect American consumers and homeowners, and to reform our system of government contracting so that we better protect our people while spending our money more wisely. The engines of our economy are slowly beginning to turn, and we are working toward historic reform of health care and energy. I welcome the hard work that has been done by the Congress on these and other issues.

In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. That is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It is the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.

This responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our people, and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do us great harm. We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.

Already, we have taken several steps to achieve that goal. For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy. We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons, and launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We are better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.

These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.

I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words - "to form a more perfect union." I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never - ever - turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset - in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.

Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world.

It is the reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they'd receive better treatment from America's armed forces than from their own government.

It is the reason why America has benefited from strong alliances that amplified our power, and drawn a sharp and moral contrast with our adversaries.

It is the reason why we've been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism, outlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free nations and free people everywhere in common cause and common effort.

From Europe to the Pacific, we have been a nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law. That is who we are. And where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology.

After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era - that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law; that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out.

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that - too often - our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us - Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens - fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach - one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable - a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass. And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.

First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of America.

I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. What's more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts - they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.

The arguments against these techniques did not originate from my Administration. As Senator McCain once said, torture "serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us." And even under President Bush, there was recognition among members of his Administration - including a Secretary of State, other senior officials, and many in the military and intelligence community - that those who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the debate, and the wrong side of history. We must leave these methods where they belong - in the past. They are not who we are. They are not America.

The second decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists. Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years. Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setbacks, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system. Meanwhile, over five hundred and twenty-five detainees were released from Guantanamo under the Bush Administration. Let me repeat that: two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. Indeed, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law - a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year.

The third decision that I made was to order a review of all the pending cases at Guantanamo.

I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and complex. There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we do not have the luxury of starting from scratch. We are cleaning up something that is - quite simply - a mess; a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my Administration is forced to deal with on a constant basis, and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.

Indeed, the legal challenges that have sparked so much debate in recent weeks in Washington would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo. For example, the court order to release seventeen Uighur detainees took place last fall - when George Bush was President. The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican Presidents. In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.

There are no neat or easy answers here. But I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo. As President, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. Our security interests won't permit it. Our courts won't allow it. And neither should our conscience.

Now, over the last several weeks, we have seen a return of the politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years. I understand that these problems arouse passions and concerns. They should. We are confronting some of the most complicated questions that a democracy can face. But I have no interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them together as Americans.

And we will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue. Listening to the recent debate, I've heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country. So I want to take this opportunity to lay out what we are doing, and how we intend to resolve these outstanding issues. I will explain how each action that we are taking will help build a framework that protects both the American people and the values that we hold dear. And I will focus on two broad areas: first, issues relating to Guantanamo and our detention policy; second, issues relating to security and transparency.

Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders - highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal "supermax" prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: "The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational."

We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for dealing with them. As we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last Administration, detainees were released only to return to the battlefield. That is why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past. Instead, we are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and our security demands. Going forward, these cases will fall into five distinct categories.

First, when feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts - courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and juries of our citizens are tough enough to convict terrorists, and the record makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center - he was convicted in our courts, and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. Zaccarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker - he was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo.

Recently, we prosecuted and received a guilty plea from a detainee - al-Marri - in federal court after years of legal confusion. We are preparing to transfer another detainee to the Southern District of New York, where he will face trial on charges related to the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania - bombings that killed over 200 people. Preventing this detainee from coming to our shores would prevent his trial and conviction. And after over a decade, it is time to finally see that justice is served, and that is what we intend to do.

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are best tried through Military Commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be effectively presented in federal Courts.

Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They are wrong. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process and rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal. I did, however, support the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms. And those are the reforms that we are making.

Instead of using the flawed Commissions of the last seven years, my Administration is bringing our Commissions in line with the rule of law. The rule will no longer permit us to use as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify. These reforms - among others - will make our Military Commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and legal authorities across the political spectrum on legislation to ensure that these Commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.

The third category of detainees includes those who we have been ordered released by the courts. Let me repeat what I said earlier: this has absolutely nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with the rule of law. The courts have found that there is no legitimate reason to hold twenty-one of the people currently held at Guantanamo. Twenty of these findings took place before I came into office. The United States is a nation of laws, and we must abide by these rulings.

The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved fifty detainees for transfer. And my Administration is in ongoing discussions with a number of other countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for detention and rehabilitation.

Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

As our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These issues are fodder for 30-second commercials and direct mail pieces that are designed to frighten. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. And if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future. I have confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what is right to protect this country than in political posturing. I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution - so did each and every member of Congress. Together we have a responsibility to enlist our values in the effort to secure our people, and to leave behind the legacy that makes it easier for future Presidents to keep this country safe.

The second set of issues that I want to discuss relates to security and transparency.

National security requires a delicate balance. Our democracy depends upon transparency, but some information must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security - for instance, the movements of our troops; our intelligence-gathering; or the information we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and other cases, lives are at stake.

Several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous Administration's Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, or because I reject their legal rationale - although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush Administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos, we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated is unfounded - we will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach, because that approach is now prohibited.

In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.

On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individuals who violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated and held accountable. There is no debate as to whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong, and nothing has been concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my judgment - informed by my national security team - that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion, and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning and inaccurate brush, endangering them in theaters of war.

In short, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm's way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving in harm's way.

In each of these cases, I had to strike the right balance between transparency and national security. This balance brings with it a precious responsibility. And there is no doubt that the American people have seen this balance tested. In the images from Abu Ghraib and the brutal interrogation techniques made public long before I was President, the American people learned of actions taken in their name that bear no resemblance to the ideals that generations of Americans have fought for. And whether it was the run-up to the Iraq War or the revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt like part of the story had been unnecessarily withheld from them. That causes suspicion to build up. That leads to a thirst for accountability.

I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued - and never will - that our most sensitive national security matters should be an open book. I will never abandon - and I will vigorously defend - the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war; to protect sources and methods; and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe. And so, whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions - by Congress or by the courts.

We are launching a review of current policies by all of those agencies responsible for the classification of documents to determine where reforms are possible, and to assure that the other branches of government will be in a position to review executive branch decisions on these matters. Because in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers - especially when it comes to sensitive information.

Along those same lines, my Administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the "State Secrets" privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. It has been used by many past Presidents - Republican and Democrat - for many decades. And while this principle is absolutely necessary to protect national security, I am concerned that it has been over-used. We must not protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrasses the government. That is why my Administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.

We plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the State Secrets privilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without first following a formal process, including review by a Justice Department committee and the personal approval of the Attorney General. Finally, each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why, because there must be proper oversight of our actions.

On all of these matter related to the disclosure of sensitive information, I wish I could say that there is a simple formula. But there is not. These are tough calls involving competing concerns, and they require a surgical approach. But the common thread that runs through all of my decisions is simple: we will safeguard what we must to protect the American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system. I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why.

In all of the areas that I have discussed today, the policies that I have proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. To protect the American people and our values, we have banned enhanced interrogation techniques. We are closing the prison at Guantanamo. We are reforming Military Commissions, and we will pursue a new legal regime to detain terrorists. We are declassifying more information and embracing more oversight of our actions, and narrowing our use of the State Secrets privilege. These are dramatic changes that will put our approach to national security on a surer, safer and more sustainable footing, and their implementation will take time.

There is a core principle that we will apply to all of our actions: even as we clean up the mess at Guantanamo, we will constantly re-evaluate our approach, subject our decisions to review from the other branches of government, and seek the strongest and most sustainable legal framework for addressing these issues in the long-term. By doing that, we can leave behind a legacy that outlasts my Administration, and that endures for the next President and the President after that; a legacy that protects the American people, and enjoys broad legitimacy at home and abroad.

That is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.

I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.

I can stand here today, as President of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: if we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as President. And if we cannot stand for those core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall.

The Framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the challenges that have unfolded over the last two hundred and twenty two years. But our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights - through World War and Cold War - because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way. It hasn't always been easy. We are an imperfect people. Every now and then, there are those who think that America's safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building. We hear such voices today. But the American people have resisted that temptation. And though we have made our share of mistakes and course corrections, we have held fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength, and a beacon to the world.

Now, this generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism. Unlike the Civil War or World War II, we cannot count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and - in all probability - ten years from now. Neither I nor anyone else can standing here today can say that there will not be another terrorist attack that takes American lives. But I can say with certainty that my Administration - along with our extraordinary troops and the patriotic men and women who defend our national security - will do everything in our power to keep the American people safe. And I do know with certainty that we can defeat al Qaeda. Because the terrorists can only succeed if they swell their ranks and alienate America from our allies, and they will never be able to do that if we stay true to who we are; if we forge tough and durable approaches to fighting terrorism that are anchored in our timeless ideals.

This must be our common purpose. I ran for President because I believe that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together. We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America - it can and must be a cause that unites us as one people, as one nation. We have done so before in times that were more perilous than ours. We will do so once again. Thank you, God Bless you, and God bless the United States of America.


20090521 Text of President Obamas Speech on National Security
Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/
Kevin Dayhoff Art: www.kevindayhoff.com
Kevin Dayhoff Westminster: www.westgov.net
Military National Security, Pres 2009 44 Obama speeches, Pres 2009 44 Obama-Barack, World Middle East Afghanistan, Military Natl Security Intel CIA, Military Global War on Terror, Military enhanced interrogation, Enhanced Interrogation qv Military, Torture qv Military enhanced,