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.

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.

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.

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.

Cheney's speech is one of someone who's made a decision.  Obviously most here disagree with his opinion but he's not mixing his message.

Obama's speech is a weird combination of Seantaor/Candidate/President.  He needs to stop campaigning and start making decisions.

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.

I was hoping that the "cloud" could help me out on this.  I ran across this NY Times Article today.  I remember that this was all the kerfuffle a few months back, and that it came out that things like writing op eds were counted as terrorism, but I haven't been able to find any of the commentary on that.

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.

Don't give me the "ticking timebomb" scenario from the show 24 - where a terrorist says "The bomb is set to go off but you'll never find it muahahaha!" because that only happens on stupid TV shows and in dumb Nicholas Cage movies.  NEVER (as in not once, ever) in real life.  

It is worth the lives of 10,000 dead, bloody, charred, mangled American babies for us to not be a nation that tortures people.  Unless you're willing to take that clear moral ground, you are as confused as The Dick Cheney.

Where I disagree with Obama is his decision to move forward instead of investigating what happened that allowed our government to torture in our name.  Cheney said a very important sentence in his blowhard speech after the Prez spoke.  Cheney said that given the same circumstances, he would make the same decisions again. That is exactly why we need to prevent future administrators from doing what Bush and Cheney did. The laws that mandate Congressional notification of covert or potentially illegal actions were created to deal with widespread abuses by our intelligence agencies. The House and Senate intelligence committees are entrusted with the faith of the American people to oversee aggressive intelligence operations done in our name, and to ensure that they are necessary, effective and consistent with American laws and values. If Cheney et. al. were able to get the individual CIA staff who briefed the House Select Committee on Intelligence to report that torture was deemed legal but wasn't in use yet, to in effect, lie to Pelosi et. al., then they've easily bypassed the checks and balances meant to prevent illegal government actions.

Using torture is the biggest military policy reversal in our lifetimes, a change that not only endangers our military and taints our great country but is also clearly against signed treaties and international law, and today no one can say for sure if it actually was properly reported to Congress' Intelligence Committees, the final watchdogs on the CIA and military.