The president's lengthy address could mean he's serious about closing Gitmo. Obama security speech: 5 questions

President Barack Obama’s security speech Thursday — covering topics from terrorism and drones to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay — was by far the most sweeping address he’s delivered on the subject since the early months of his first term.

He made some concrete announcements, including a lifting of the moratorium he imposed four years ago on returning prisoners to Yemen. And he fleshed out a series of statements his subordinates have made in recent months about the legal and practical restraints on the U.S. government’s use of drones to fight far-flung terrorist networks.


But the speech left lingering uncertainty about some important aspects of Obama’s counterterror campaign and about his commitment to deliver on key aspects of his agenda, like his long overdue promise to close Guantanamo in his first year in office.

( PHOTOS: Pro, con: Best quotes about drones)

Here’s POLITICO’s list of five key questions still up in the air after Obama’s speech:

1. When will the war be over?

In his speech, Obama embraced the idea that the U.S. needs to prepare for an end to the war on terror. He declared “core” Al Qaeda to be decimated. And he said the terror threats facing the country, while serious, are manageable.

But, perhaps fearing post-Benghazi style political attacks if he declares victory and terrorists lash out, he didn’t declare the war to be over — or really explain how we’d know when it was.

“He alluded to the war on terror winding down, which I think is right, but he didn’t really tell us when it will be over?”said Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch. “He could have given basically the same speech and said, ‘The war is over. We won….’ If the threat is now the same as it was pre-9/11 — prior to 9/11, we didn’t have a war.”

( Also on POLITICO: Obama's booming drone business)

Republicans also made clear Thursday that they think declaring or even hinting at an end to the war on terror is a bad idea and one for which Obama will pay a political price.

“The Obama Administration’s return to a pre-9/11 counterterrorism mindset puts American lives at risk,” House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said in a statement. “This war will continue whether the president acknowledges it or not.”

2. On Gitmo closure: Does he mean it this time?

Four years ago this week, Obama gave a lengthy speech at the National Archives outlining his vision for detention policy. He called the issue a national security priority, and vowed: “As President, I refuse to allow this problem to fester.”

But when Republicans in Congress hardened their line against closing the island prison, the administration put up little resistance. In fact, after the May 2009 speech, Obama almost never mentioned the issue in public, save for a couple of occasions when he was asked about it directly.

“On Guantanamo, the problem really was a lack of political determination. He just capitulated to the opposition when it arose. It wasn’t a battle he was willing to fight,” said Roth. “What he said back in 2009 was a nice statement of principles, the key question is will he stick with it and invest the political capital needed to realize his vision.”

The best indicator that Obama could be serious this time might be his willingness to devote an hour-long speech to the issue, when he could have continued deferring the discussion to lower-profile venues. With his re-election behind him, the president may also feel that both he and Congress have a bit more room to maneuver.

One clear test of Obama’s political commitment will be whether he stands up to any future efforts by Congress to tie his hands on Guantanamo. In Thursday’s speech, he could have pledged to veto any legislation that imposes similar limits — but didn’t.

3. Does Obama still favor indefinite detention or not?

In his speech, Obama conceded that the thorniest problem at Guantanamo is the question of what to do with the roughly 46 prisoners his administration has concluded are too dangerous to release, but can’t be tried in civilian or military courts because the evidence against them may have been obtained through torture or in some other way that renders it inadmissible.

The president suggested that holding these prisoners indefinitely is immoral.

”Imagine a future – ten years from now, or twenty years from now – when the United States of America is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not a part of our country,” Obama said. “Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike. Is that who we are? Is that something that our founders foresaw?”

But in terms of a plan to deal with the dangerous-but-untriable, the president had little to offer beyond sheer personal faith that something will work out.

“Once we commit to a process of closing Gitmo, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law,” he said.

The Brookings Institution’s Ben Wittes called that “one of the low points of the speech.”

“The only thing he has to say about what to do is: ‘People can figure that out.’ Well, I’m not sure we can figure that out. He’s the one who had a detention policy task force and they couldn’t figure this out and said we’ll have to hold these people,” said Wittes, who favors indefinite detention for some terror suspects. “He’s no closer to an answer on what to do about that than he was four years ago.”

Opponents of indefinite detention also said the president was short on concrete details. “He had a great sentence or two about how indefinite detention must end. He clearly wants it to end and sees it ending at some point, but he doesn’t say how we get there,” said Chris Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union.

But bringing some detainees to the U.S. for open-ended detention could be even more politically problematic than bringing them here for military or civilian trials — meaning the president remains short on good alternatives to the current policy.

4. Are terrorists without Al Qaeda ties off limits to droning?

“Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target Al Qaeda and its associated forces,” Obama said in his speech.

The statement seemed to offer assurances against a boundless war and to confirm that the president was sticking with his powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that Congress passed after the September 11 attacks.

But as time goes on and anti-American militant groups seem to be spreading to places like Mali and Somalia, it seems likely the U.S. may consider military style tactics against forces with no obvious tie to Al Qaeda.

The definition already seems to have expanded a bit. In his 2009 speech, Obama talked about “a war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates.” On Thursday, it was Al Qaeda’s “associated forces,” a phrase which may allow for a more tenuous connection.

In a conference call Thursday with lawyers and advocates active on detainee and terrorism policy, a top administration lawyer said the phrase “associated forces” is supposed to serve as a constraint, at least on counterterrorism operations, a source familiar with the call told POLITICO. However, State Department legal adviser Avril Haines also said that the president would never say he won’t rely on his Constitutional power to use force to defend the country, the source said.

Haines said the White House is discussing whether it could make public a list of all groups considered “associated” with Al Qaeda, the source added.

A White House official told POLITICO that Obama hasn’t authorized strikes at groups unconnected to Al Qaeda, but she stopped short of saying it couldn’t happen.

”We have not used force in this manner under this administration, but in theory we could do so, just not under the AUMF, which applies to AQ and Associated Forces. We’d have to find some other authorities to do so,” said the official, who asked not to be named.

Some also have fears about others limits Obama expressed on drones, like a pledge to use them only when there’s a “near certainty” that civilians won’t be killed.

“That risks inviting terrorists to surround themselves with civilians and could have unintended and counterproductive consequences,” said Duke law professor Charlie Dunlap, who spent more than 30 years as an Air Force lawyer.

5. Who swoops in to oversee drone strikes?

Obama said he was open to two different kinds of legislative proposals to add another set of eyes to the process of selecting U.S. citizens for deadly drone strikes: a special court, or an independent review within the executive branch. The president was noncommittal about which was best and noted that both have potential flaws.

The court proposal “raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority,” he said. And the extra executive branch reviews may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into national-security decision-making, without inspiring additional public confidence in the process.

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who has joined with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to offer a bill mandating review of U.S.-citizen targets by an independent “red team” of intelligence specialists, welcomed Obama’s interest.

“This is a sort of classic compromise of two constitutional principles: protecting the country and preserving the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment right to due process,” King told POLITICO. “There’s an escape hatch for situations in the heat of battle….We’re trying to work out something that’s effective, realistic and constitutional.”

King said he’d concluded that federal judges were not the ideal ones to oversee the process. “You’re asking a court in this situation to really make what’s not necessarily a factual decision on the nature of the threat whether a threat is imminent,” he said.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he welcomes more safeguards on the use of deadly force against Americans, but remains uncomfortable of stepping outside the traditional court system in order to kill U.S. citizens.

“I’m glad the President finally acknowledged that American citizens deserve some form of due process,” Paul said in a statement. ”But I still have concerns over whether flash cards and PowerPoint presentations represent due process; my preference would be to try accused U.S. citizens for treason in a court of law.”