September 2, 2014 Press Briefing Transcript
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: Unfortunately not a lot of humor right now. Have you seen this purported video of the beheading of Steven Sotloff?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we --
QUESTION: And if you have, are you in any position to confirm it?
MS. PSAKI: Let me share with you everything I can at this point in time. We’ve seen reports of a video that purports to be the murder of U.S. citizen Steven Sotloff by ISIL. The intelligence community will work as quickly as possible to determine its authenticity. If the video is genuine, we are sickened by this brutal act taking the life of another innocent American citizen. Our hearts go out to the Sotloff family and we will provide more information as it becomes available.
I don’t have additional information at this point, but go ahead.
QUESTION: Well, I don’t – I mean, I don’t want to waste everyone’s time if you don’t – if you really don’t have anything else to say about this.
MS. PSAKI: I really don’t. Should we do just a couple and see --
QUESTION: Sure.
MS. PSAKI: -- if there are other relevant – go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: Well, I just wanted to ask you if you’ve determined the number of Americans that might be held by ISIL.
MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, as you know, we don’t get into specific numbers for the safety and security of individuals. We’ve said a few. That continues to be accurate.
QUESTION: Jen, what is your last information regarding Sotloff? Was he alive as of last week? What was your last information from him?
MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have any other additional information to provide. Certainly understand the interest.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Jen, you said you’ve seen reports. Does the U.S. Government actually have the video in its possession, or are you just citing media reports?
MS. PSAKI: Well, the video has been out there through many media outlets. That’s what I’m referring to.
QUESTION: Okay. So the authentication process has begun?
MS. PSAKI: Well, this is obviously a process that would have to be undergone by our intelligence community. I don’t know if it’s officially started. But obviously, in any case, that would be happening rapidly.
QUESTION: Just one more on the logistic --
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Do you know when you were made aware of this? Was it before this extremist monitoring group put it out, or do you know if the intel community was aware of it before then?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure there’s more I’m going to be able to say, Matt. I’m happy to take it and see if there’s more we can on that front.
Go ahead, James.
QUESTION: All right. I will defer to James.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Does the Obama Administration consider this an act of war?
MS. PSAKI: We certainly – I’m not going to put new labels on it, James. I would say we certainly consider this act, this reported act, the act of the killing of James Foley, as a horrific terrorist act that we certainly have – has helped – has not helped to, I should say – has been one of the motivating factors in the effort to undergo the creation of international coalition to address this threat.
QUESTION: So now we have on the books two American journalists beheaded by this group. Is there any doubt on your part or the part of this Administration that, in fact, the United States is at war with ISIS?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I want to be very careful here, just that we have not confirmed through the proper processes. And I just need to restate that as a U.S. – speaking on behalf of the U.S. Government. I know that wasn’t your intention.
I’m not going to, again, put new labels on it. I think it’s clear that we are concerned about the threat of ISIL to Western interests, to interests in the region. That’s why the Secretary, the President, Secretary Hagel are all going to be working every contact they have to continue to build a coalition to address this threat.
QUESTION: Will this event make any difference in our planning vis-a-vis airstrikes against ISIS?
MS. PSAKI: There are a range of factors, as you know, that are taken into account, including the interests of the United States. And I’m not going to read out further what the President will be looking at, but certainly, we look at a range of factors as those decisions are made.
QUESTION: I just want to try to address this one more --
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: -- one more way. A lot of Americans sit at home and they see Americans who are not even combatants but who are journalists being beheaded by this group overseas. And from a sort of common sense point of view, the average American will say to himself, “This group is at war with us. Why does our President or our Secretary of State not recognize that and say, ‘Indeed, we are at war with this group and we will destroy them’”?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think first of all, James, our actions speak for our commitment to this. And this President has authorized more than a hundred strikes in Iraq, as has been confirmed by the Department of Defense. There are a range of reasons, but part of it is to take on the threat of ISIL. Part of the reason we are leading the effort – and the United States has done more than any country in the world, whether it’s humanitarian assistance or other military efforts to take on this threat in Iraq.
So I think any American sitting at home should sit and look at the actions that we’re taking. I don’t think it’s a useful exercise to go back and forth about new terms. What’s important is what we’re doing about it, and the President’s authorization, what the Secretary will be doing over the next couple of weeks, is action in that regard.
QUESTION: But Jen, I thought that the President’s authorization, what he authorized the airstrikes for, was not necessarily to take on the threat by ISIL except as it relates to the humanitarian situation of the minority communities like the Yezidis and these others – the Turkmen community – and then to protect U.S. military and diplomatic personnel and facilities, not – you would argue that that goes to also taking on the threat of ISIL --
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I think it’s --
QUESTION: -- the broader threat that they pose to Americans but also – American civilians, but Brits, but other nationalities?
MS. PSAKI: Well, one, that’s only part of what our effort is. But speaking to that particular point, obviously, impacting the capabilities of ISIL in Iraq because of the concern we have about humanitarian issues, whether it’s Amirli or the communities around Erbil, as well as the national interests of the United States, including the safety and security of American citizens, there certainly is an impact on the capabilities when we take those actions.
QUESTION: Okay, fair enough. But those are actions that are being taken in Iraq or what was part of Iraq. This – I mean, the original – the Foley video and this one presumably – it looks similar, I think – I was under the impression that people were generally of the opinion that it was filmed in Syria. So --
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, though I think regardless, this is – ISIL has not differentiated between geographic boundaries. That’s why, obviously, there are a range of options the President will consider. But we’ve already taken actions in Iraq to address this threat and to defend United States interests.
QUESTION: Right. But as far – but to date, the Administration has only, publicly at least, confirmed one operation inside Syria, and that was the rescue mission --
MS. PSAKI: Correct, yes.
QUESTION: -- right?
MS. PSAKI: That’s correct. That hasn’t changed.
QUESTION: So the argument that you’re taking on the threat of ISIL with the President’s authorization for those two specific things, humanitarian and protection of U.S. personnel facilities, would apply only to Iraq at the moment, correct?
MS. PSAKI: Correct.
QUESTION: Not to Syria as well?
MS. PSAKI: That’s correct, Matt. However, that’s only part of our effort, and obviously, ISIL and the threat it poses to the region has a trickle-out effect from Iraq, from Syria, from other places. But the second piece, which is also vitally important, is our effort to build an international coalition. A number of countries have taken steps – humanitarian steps, steps to provide military assistance in Iraq – as a result, and we’re going to continue those discussions.
QUESTION: Right. But again, all within Iraq and nothing within Syria, which is where this problem began, right?
MS. PSAKI: I understand, Matt, but I also think --
QUESTION: And a lot of people would suggest that the Administration’s – the President’s reluctance to do more to oppose the extremists in Syria has resulted in this situation.
MS. PSAKI: I would – in what capacity?
QUESTION: Well, I mean, they became a major fighting force and rolled over the border into --
MS. PSAKI: Well, when you say “this situation,” what are you referring to?
QUESTION: Well, I’m referring to the widespread criticism in the foreign policy community or whatever – even outside of that community – that not enough was done to fight this threat while it was relatively contained within Syria, and that’s why it has mushroomed out.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I would disagree with that. And I think there’s obviously several components of this, which is why it’s a complicated issue. But one is the threat of ISIL has grown and their strength has grown over the last several months. Our assistance has also grown over that course – the course of time to the moderate opposition in Syria but also to the Iraqi security forces. We have also undergone several efforts over the course of that time to address this threat. So it’s not as if our response to this is new. Their growth is – has been increasing over the last several months, as has our assistance and our effort to combat it.
QUESTION: Jen, but if the – like some people allege, that ISIS terrorists themselves have nullified the border between Syria and Iraq, why the holdback? Why is, let’s say, their bases in Syria are not being struck, if they themselves have basically – they say that the border ceased to exist?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, I’m not going to rule options in or off the table. Obviously the President has the prerogative to make decisions. You’re familiar with the fact that there are a range of contingency options. That’s always the case. But I’m not going to get ahead of where we are. We’ve been clear that the geography is not going to limit our options, but there’s no new decisions to announce for you.
QUESTION: And I know you mentioned the strikes. Do we have any kind of figure or any kind of data or guide on how much ISIS capabilities have been degraded by these strikes?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any statistics in that regard.
QUESTION: Jen, can I ask – just go back to the video. Have you been in touch with Mr. Sotloff’s family this morning?
MS. PSAKI: This – these reports just came out. I would have to check on that, Jo, and see.
QUESTION: And did you – I don’t know if you saw in the video that they are also threatening to kill a British citizen as well, which they say they are holding. Do you have any information about him or --
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any additional information to provide.
QUESTION: And what’s --
MS. PSAKI: If that changes over the course of the afternoon or evening, we’re happy to provide it.
QUESTION: And are you – and have you been in contact – I know it’s just happening, but have you already been in contact with your counterparts in London on this or --
MS. PSAKI: Well, again, this happened in the last – the reports came out publicly in the last 30 minutes or so, so I would have to check and see if there have been contacts. I’m certain that one of the first calls we would make is to the UK, which wouldn’t be a surprise.
QUESTION: What is the legal authority under which President Obama has launched the more than 100 airstrikes that you just referenced?
MS. PSAKI: In Iraq? Well, the Iraqi Government has invited the United States in to help them address this threat, and that is the legal authority.
QUESTION: And he has reported to the Congress on this subject, has he not?
MS. PSAKI: Yep, absolutely.
QUESTION: Under what aegis? Under the aegis of what statute?
MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s the – he does War Powers Acts every time there is a need to notify Congress.
QUESTION: So we have a Commander in Chief who has launched more than 100 airstrikes at a given enemy who is reporting to the Congress under the aegis of the War Powers Act, who is watching our people beheaded by this enemy, but who, for some reason, feels queasy about saying that we are, in fact, at war with this enemy?
MS. PSAKI: James, I think I’m not going to put new words into the mouth of the President of the United States. My point is that his actions to authorize these strikes, his effort to send Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel, any resource we have in the United States to lead the building of a coalition, speak to his commitment to taking on this threat. And of course we want to see ISIL destroyed. But that is not an overnight effort.
QUESTION: Can I just ask one more thing about the Administration’s broader thinking on ISIL/ISIS in that is it still the Administration’s position that it is President Assad who is to blame for the growth of this group and its mushrooming?
MS. PSAKI: In Syria, yes, that he’s been a magnet for terrorism. That certainly has not changed in our view.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Our position.
QUESTION: Okay. So without Assad there, you’re – you think that this would have not – this would have been different, this wouldn’t have happened? I realize it’s a hypothetical and I realize you can’t prove a negative, but you believe if Assad had been gone years ago, ISIL/ISIS would not have gained the foothold, the stronghold that it has?
MS. PSAKI: Well, clearly, Matt, obviously there are other parts of the region where ISIL has gained some strength.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: But they have been provided with a safe haven that has helped lead to the building of their strength.
QUESTION: And --
MS. PSAKI: And obviously the attraction of individuals who have aligned with them has been in part the result of the brutality and the actions the Assad regime has taken.
QUESTION: And you believe that safe haven was provided by President Assad?
MS. PSAKI: I think when --
QUESTION: Is that --
MS. PSAKI: -- you are the president of a country where some of these terrorists safe havens have --
QUESTION: Okay. Because his argument and the argument of his allies, the Russians and the Iranians, for example, has been that he has been fighting these people the entire time, and it’s not him that’s provided a safe haven, but that by supporting the – his opponents, you all have made it – turned it into this cauldron of – I don’t know what you want to call it – cauldron of instability and extremism.
MS. PSAKI: Matt, I think there’s a bit of revisionist history there going on --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: -- when this is an individual who has brutally killed 200,000 – almost 200,000 of his own people, and certainly there has been a building of opposition to him over the course of the last several years. Now the direction that that results is, of course, we’re also concerned about the growth of ISIL.
QUESTION: But isn’t it true, though, that one of your allies, Turkey, has allowed these fires to go on almost unchecked to this area and basically congregate and create this kind of force? Isn’t that true?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure what you’re referencing, Said --
QUESTION: My reference --
MS. PSAKI: -- if there’s a report or something --
QUESTION: Okay. Let me be –
MS. PSAKI: -- that you’d like to send to us.
QUESTION: -- more direct. Turkey is one of your allies. It’s a NATO ally. It’s a strong friend of the United States. Many of these fighters that go into Syria that have morphed into ISIS were – have actually come through their border.
MS. PSAKI: We work closely --
QUESTION: Don’t you think that they --
MS. PSAKI: -- with Turkey to address --
QUESTION: -- assume responsibility?
MS. PSAKI: -- this threat and to also address – work closely on counterterrorism efforts. I don’t think I have anything more for you, and I’m not sure --
QUESTION: Do you think that Turkey --
MS. PSAKI: -- about the accuracy of your reports.
QUESTION: -- is incapable of controlling its border, that it has become so porous that they cannot control it?
MS. PSAKI: Not at all what I said.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just follow-up from last week about the U.S. is asking Turkey to seal the border with Syria. Did you have any kind of response from Turkey or any --
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything new for you on that.
QUESTION: About the global coalition you have been talking about, is there any detail right now how the work of building this coalition is going on?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think it’s important for everybody to note that there are already steps that a range of countries have taken to address this threat in Iraq. But still we’re talking about the threat of ISIL. I would give you just a couple of examples, which you’re familiar with, but I think it’s worth noting. Canada has pledged has – to provide humanitarian assistance, including food, hygiene kits, and tents. Australia has also pledged a great deal of money. Australia also was a partner with the United States, France, and the UK on airdropped humanitarian supplies in Amirli. There are a number of countries, including France, who have delivered military equipment to the KRG.
So the point I’m making – and obviously there’s – I could go on and on, and a range of countries have announced their own efforts – but is that there are a number of countries who are also concerned, share our concern about the threat of ISIL. We want to engage with them and build a coordinated effort to take on this threat. There are different capabilities different countries will have. It may be humanitarian, it may be military, it may be financial, but that’s what we’re undergoing to discuss. NATO is an opportunity to discuss that. The Secretary has spent time on the weekend, over the weekend, of course, talking to counterparts around the world and that effort will continue. He’s also co-hosting a meeting with Secretary Hagel in Wales. And his travel following NATO will be – in the coming weeks will be also part of this effort.
QUESTION: President Obama last week talk about also Sunni forces or Sunni states in the region that can help against the threat of ISIS. Do you have an update on the Sunni forces, including Turkey, on this coalition?
MS. PSAKI: I think clearly we’re going to be reaching out, and we are already reaching out to a range of countries have a range of backgrounds and populations to address this threat. And this is not only a threat that’s just true in Iraq, but true in the region as well, that is facing one sect over another. So I can – I think it’s safe for you to assume that we’re reaching across – reaching out to countries across Europe, across the Arab world, that have a variety of backgrounds.
QUESTION: My final question: There have been number of commentaries in – whether in the Middle East or in the U.S. and they’re asking that for three or four years the Assad regime and forces have been raping and torturing and killing and barrel-bombing. And the ISIS have been killing and doing all this stuff for two years. And the Sunni forces and states in the region asking U.S. to build this coalition, but they did not get response, and once these unfortunate incidents are happening to U.S. journalists, that U.S. comes back and asking for Sunni or regional states to help building coalition. Do you have – do you see any merits in this criticism?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t. I think, obviously, the events of – that happened just a couple of weeks ago with the death of James Foley put this on the front pages of newspapers and on the top of news reports around the United States and countries around the world. We have been undergoing an effort for several months now to build capacities, to discuss with our allies and partners, but the – our growing concern about Western passports has also been a motivating factor in working closely with international partners around the world.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: You have said that this won’t happen overnight, that the defeat of ISIS is a long-term commitment.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Can you assure the American people that President Obama will complete this mission of destroying ISIS before he leaves office?
MS. PSAKI: Look, I think, James, obviously, destroying ISIL is the goal that not just the United States but many countries around the world have. But I’m not in a position to put a deadline or a timeline on that. We want to do it as quickly as possible, but we’re not naive about their capabilities, about the growth of their support, about their efforts around the world, so I’m not going to put a timeline on it.
QUESTION: Jen, can I ask – you mentioned just now about Western passports, and earlier this week, British Prime Minister David Cameron said that they would --
QUESTION: It was on Tuesday.
QUESTION: Oh, was it last week? Sorry, excuse me. Coming back up holiday.
QUESTION: She was not inaccurate. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: That they would – they’re looking at possibly temporary suspension of passports for those people who’ve been proven to have gone and fought abroad for these groups in Syria or Iraq or in foreign terrorist organizations. Is this something that – I know you were asked about this previously, but is this something that the United States will start considering? Is it something that’s within your remit?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we --
QUESTION: Obviously, the State Department hands out passports.
MS. PSAKI: The United States, including the State Department, has long had the authority to revoke passports. Obviously, there are different reasons for that, including fraud but also pending legal charges, which would be more applicable in some of these cases that we’re discussing. Clearly, we wouldn’t make those decisions on our own. We would make them in coordination with law enforcement authorities.
There are also capabilities that the United States has, including putting individuals on a no-fly list. So that, of course, doesn’t take place necessarily at all out of the State Department, but these are efforts we work through the interagency on.
So I think, obviously, there are a range of steps and ways that we can prevent individuals who pose harm to us from either returning to the United States or being allowed to stay – or not stay, but being allowed to operate as private citizens in the United States. And that’s – we’ve long had those capabilities.
QUESTION: Are there any such maneuvers actually in – underway at the moment, in the works, to revoke passports from people who you believe to be fighting with ISIS, for instance?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve long had those capabilities and we’ve long been able to implement them, so it’s not a new effort by the United States. But I’m not going to be able to confirm numbers or any specifics.
QUESTION: But is there anyone specifically related to, for instance, ISIL, who you are in the process – without naming names, because I understand that provides a difficulty for you – but is there anybody who you are currently looking at?
MS. PSAKI: Those just are not details that I can confirm from here.
QUESTION: Is joining or fighting for a designated terrorist organization something for which you can automatically lose your – your passport can be revoked? Is that --
MS. PSAKI: Well, again, this is information that we would have to consult with --
QUESTION: I understand, but --
MS. PSAKI: -- legal authorities on. It’s not as black and white as that.
QUESTION: It’s not?
MS. PSAKI: Well, obviously, Matt, in order to confirm specifics, there’s more that needs to happen. I’m not going to go much further down on this, but --
QUESTION: Okay. But as far as – well, maybe you could take the question and ask the lawyers if it is possible to revoke someone – the passport of a U.S. citizen, or even revoke their citizenship perhaps, if they join or become a member of, fight for, however you want to define it, a foreign – an organization that the U.S. Government has designated to be a terrorist organization.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I will check with the lawyers and see if there’s more to say. It’s unlikely there will be more, but I’m happy to check with them and see.
QUESTION: Actually, what I would prefer you to check with the lawyers and see if there’s any way an individual, having been confirmed to have gone and fought for an entity designated by our government as a foreign terrorist organization, could somehow be allowed to keep their passport.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, James --
QUESTION: I’d be more shocked if they could keep their passport than if it were somehow – measures could be taken to revoke it.
QUESTION: I don’t know what the law is.
MS. PSAKI: We can revoke passports for a range of reasons. I think revoking one and not allowing them to keep it is a very similar term, or they’re synonyms, I guess I should say. I will see if there’s more to say. I think it’s important for people to understand that the State Department has the prerogative to do that for a range of a reasons. There are a broad range of reasons. I will see if there’s more we can add.
QUESTION: But this – we’re talking about something that’s less than an actual legal conviction of a crime, something for which might be in the statutes or in the regulations.
QUESTION: As an administrative matter, is what you’re saying.
QUESTION: Exactly. Can you go ahead and just do it? So if one of these guys gets on a plane in wherever and pulls his passport out, they’ll say, “Well, sorry, your passport’s been revoked,” and they don’t even know it’s happened?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I mentioned, broadly speaking, there are also a range of steps we can take, including putting individuals on a no-fly list. So every country has different capabilities and different tools at their disposal.
Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: I just wanted to move to another topic, the raid on the Shabaab last night or the night before.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Okay. Can you confirm whether the head of al-Shabaab, Mukhtar al-Zubeyr, was killed in that raid? Mukhtar al-Zubeyr.
QUESTION: Anything (inaudible) State Department assets were used in this raid?
MS. PSAKI: Said, I don’t have any information to confirm at this point in time. I can tell you, and I think it’s worth repeating for all of you, that obviously al-Shabaab was designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 2008. There, of course, have been efforts underway to take on the threat posed by this group. We have a range of ways we can do that, including designations, but including other actions. I don’t have any more at this point in time to confirm for you, though.
U.S. Department of State Press Briefing on ISIL and Beheading of Steven Sotloff
- Details
