BBC新闻：奥巴马枪控提案
奥巴马在枪击案悼念仪式讲话全文
但是，在我们的辩论变得严重两极化的时刻——在我们太急于把所有那些困扰世人的现象归咎于与自己观点不同的人的时刻——我们必须停下来想一想，让我们以带来愈合而不是伤害的方式与彼此说话。（掌声）
《圣经》告诉我们，世界上存在着邪恶，人们无法理解的可怕事情确实会发生。用约伯（Job）的话来说，“我等待光明，黑暗便來了。”坏事情是会发生的，我们必须避免事后过于简单地作出解释。
这些男女民众告诉我们，英雄行为不仅在战场上能看到。他们告诉我们，英雄行为并不需要专门的训练或体力。英雄行为就发生在这里，大无畏的精神就在我们众多同胞的心中，在我们周围无处不在，只待响应召唤——就像发生在星期六上午的情景。他们的行动，他们的无私精神向我们每个人提出了挑战。它提出了一个问题：除了祈祷和表示关切以外，在我们前进道路上还必须做些什么。我们如何纪念死者？我们如何能真正地缅怀他们？
在嘉比身上，我们看到公益精神的反映，看到那种为建设一个更完美的联邦而参与的愿望，而这是一个有时令人沮丧、有时发生争论、但总是不可或缺的、永无止境的进程。（掌声）
在克里斯蒂娜身上，我们看到所有的孩子。如此充满好奇心、如此真诚、如此精力充沛、如此神奇。如此值得我们去爱。如此值得我们去做他们的表率。
菲利斯·施奈克（Phyllis Schneck）是新泽西州人，她退休后来到图森，以避开雪天气候。但是在夏天她仍然回到东部，在那里，她的生活围绕着她的三个孩子、七个孙儿女和一个两岁的曾孙女。她是一位出色的工艺被子缝手，经常在她喜爱的树下缝做，有时在围裙上刺绣喷气机队（Jets）和巨人队（Giants）的标志——（笑声） ——然后去她做义工的教堂分发。她是共和党人，但喜欢上了嘉比，希望对她有更多了解。（掌声）
丹尼尔（Daniel），对不起，你可能不承认，但我们认定你是一位英雄，因为——（掌声）——你在现场一片混乱的时候冲上去救护你的上司，为她处理伤口，帮她维系生命。（掌声）
高考英语 考前突破阅读理解能力 社会生活 奥巴马呼吁国会通过枪支管制法素材
奥巴马呼吁国会通过枪支管制法US President Barack Obama appeared to fight back tears as he urged lawmakers to vote on gun control legislation that appears to be stalling in Congre ss.美国国会关于枪支管制的立法似乎停滞，奥巴马总统强忍住泪水敦促国会议员通过这项立法。
Speaking in Connecticut where 26 people died in a December school massacre, Mr Obama said citizens must demand action.Opinion polls have shown a majority of Americans support a ban on assault weapons an d other gun control measures.But gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, have been lobbying politicians against the bill."The day Newtown happened was t he toughest day of my presidency," Mr Obama said in his speech at Hartford, not far from Newtown, scene of the mass shooting four months ago."But I've got to tell you, if we don't respond to this, that'll be a tough day for me too."Worth fighting for?The Associated Press news agency reports there were tears in Mr Obama's ey es as he described Newtown parent Nicole Hockley, who has said every night she asks her six-year-old son Dylan to come to her in her dreams so she can see him again."If there's even one thing we can do to prevent a father from having to bury his child, isn't that worth fightin g for?" Mr Obama asked, amid repeated standing ovations（起立鼓掌） from the crowd.The Democratic president called for a vote on his three gun legislation priorities - strengthening background checks on gun buyers, limiting the size of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, and a ban on assault weapons.But the US Senate recently ditched the propose d ban on assault weapons and on high-capacity magazines, saying there was not enough support for the measure.On Monday, the pre sident said curbing gun violence was more important than partisan politics."Connecticut, this is not about me," Mr Obama said. "This is not about politics."This is about doing the right thing for all the families who are here that have be en torn apart by gun violence."Eleven parents of young children who were killed in the Newtown school shooting returned to Washington DC with the president aboard his official plane, Air Force One.They are due to lobby members of Congress who have not yet backed the gun control bill.。
奥巴马承认推动控枪法案失败：羞于做美国人(图)
奥巴马承认推动控枪法案失败：羞于做美国人(图)
2
奥巴马在10日的问答活动上承认推动控枪法案失败。
美国总统奥巴马当地时间10日对外承认其推动控枪法案失败。
奥巴马说，此时他羞于做美国人，并称作为一名父亲，他担心这个国家不能有效控枪而引发更多的悲剧。
奥巴马说，“我最大的失望在于，美国社会都不愿意采取一些最基本的措施来限制枪支，让这些危险的武器流落在一些会造成难以想象的伤害的人手上。
”
就在奥巴马讲话前不久，美国俄勒冈州刚刚又发生一起校园枪击案，一名青少年持枪射击造成一死一伤。
“我们都需要感到羞愧，”奥巴马说，世界上没有一个地方会发生如此多的惨剧。
据报道，尽管奥巴马政府的控枪议案已经在国会遭到搁置，但白宫官员表示他们仍未放弃这个议题。
2013年，奥巴马签署了23个控枪相关的行政命令，就是为了尽可能地绕开国会而采取一些适度的措施。
奥巴马称，他尊重美国宪法第二修正案所赋予的美国人持枪的权利，但他指责美国步枪协会(National Rifle Association)和部分制枪工厂向国会议员施压，让议员们不懈余力地攻击控枪措施。
“很多议员们都畏惧协会。
”
奥巴马在演讲中称，大部分美国人都支持控枪但缺乏推动的热情，而当美国一个又一个的枪击案发生后，奥巴马表示他作为一名父亲，不明白为什么受害人的家属要遭受这一切。
“为什么？为何我们不能做一些事情来防止这一切发生呢？”。
奥巴马与国会商讨枪控法案2016.6.22
【BBC 新闻】奥巴马与国会商讨枪控法案2016-06-22Campaigning to the EU referendum in Br itain has been suspended after a member ofparliament was killed in an attack in No rthern England. The Labor MP Jo Cox wa s shot andstabbed outside the library wher e she was meeting her constituencies in West Yorkshire. She'sthe first serving Bri tish MP to be murdered in 25 years. A 52 -year-old man has been arrested.An eyew itness Clarke Rothwell said he shouted 'B ritain First' during the attack. Our politica lcorrespondent Rob Watson have this to s ay about the possible motivation. I think t here's stillconsiderable confusion because despite that eyewitness's accounts that ha ppen, othereyewitness'accounts which in a way muddy the waters whether she abs olutely definitely wasclearly the intended target of her attacker. So I just think, give n one's experience of coveringthese sourc 参考翻译因英国议员在英格兰北部遇袭身亡，“退欧”和“留欧”宣传活动被迫暂停。
奥巴马控枪,“雨过地皮湿”而已
奥巴马控枪，“雨过地皮湿”而已作者：陶短房日前，美国总统奥巴马出人意料地宣布，将绕开国会表决程序，通过总统行政命令的形式加大控枪力度。
具体措施包括扩大购枪者背景审查，及加大现行枪支管理立法实施力度等。
所谓“出人意料”，是指此番绕开国会“霸王硬上弓”的姿态。
至于奥巴马有意推动控枪本身则早不是什么秘密：2012年康州新城小学“12·14”枪击血案发生后他就这么说过做过，2013年4月在国会推动七项控枪法案表决时他也这么说过做过，去年12月2日加州圣贝纳迪诺残疾人康复中心枪击案爆发后，还没等案情成因查明，奥巴马就迫不及待大谈“应该采取措施控枪，以免类似事件一再发生”——尽管此后的事态发展表明，那是一起蓄谋已久的恐怖袭击事件，控枪与否都不一定能产生效果。
在美国，这种“共和党谈武装自卫权、民主党谈控枪保平安”的反差一直存在。
奥巴马每次大谈控枪时都不免顺带抨击一番共和党人，而共和党议员们阻挠控枪议案时也不忘挖苦一下政府的无能。
2013年失败的七项控枪法案表决结果出台后，奥巴马曾猛烈抨击共和党的“党派私心”。
如今参众两院都由对方控制，绕开国会以行政命令强推“控枪”，既能显示自己“在作为”，又能凸显共和党“不作为”，何乐而不为？美国是有悠久私人持枪传统的国家，且宪法第二修正案中明文规定“人民拥有和携带武器权利不可侵犯”。
“武装自卫权”深入人心。
每当血案发生，许多普通美国人第一反应不是憎恶枪械，而是迫不及待地去买枪防身壮胆。
2012年几桩枪案发生后，奥巴马力推的“控枪法案”曲高和寡，而原本争议不绝的5个州“开放校园枪禁”地方法规迅速获得通过，提出相似修正案的州更一下超过20个。
这些都表明，“控枪”在美国是个“原则性”的敏感问题，且支持者和反对者同样声势浩大。
正因如此，2013年立法推动失败后，奥巴马一度在此话题上偃旗息鼓，可如今他已再无任何选举压力，通过行政命令绕开国会、各州强推“控枪”，有效果是自己露脸，无效果也无需付出什么政治代价（反正也快退休了）。
奥巴马图森枪击案疗伤演讲辞
奥巴马图森枪击案疗伤演讲辞1月12日，美国亚利桑那州图森举行仪式纪念枪击案遇难者，总统奥巴马拥抱遭枪击受伤女议员吉福兹的丈夫。
图/CFP美国总统奥巴马12日在亚利桑那大学的枪击案受害人悼念仪式上发表了充满感情的讲话，号召全国人民团结在一起，称不能让悲剧再导致更深的分裂。
当奥巴马向听众宣布脑部严重受伤的女议员吉福兹已经第一次睁开眼睛时，全场爆发出巨大的掌声。
奥巴马试图平息枪击案所引起的政治风暴，奥巴马称：“事实是没人确切知道是什么引起了这次惨烈的袭击，没人确切知道什么可以避免子弹射出，没人知道一个暴力、疯狂的人的思想深处到底有什么。
”[演讲全文摘选]每一个遇害者，奥巴马都能说出他们的故事那些失去亲人的家庭，那些遇难者的朋友们，这所大学的同学们，以及今晚聚在这里的公仆，还有图森市乃至亚利桑那州的人们：今晚，我来到这里，作为一个美国人，和你们一样祈祷，也将会与你们站到一起，直到明天。
我难以用言语抚平你们心中突然的被撕裂的伤痛，但我知道：今晚，我们国家的希望在这里。
我们与你们一同为倒下的人哀悼。
我们和你们同样感到悲伤。
而且我们将和你们一样相信，加布丽埃勒吉福兹议员，以及其他活着的枪案受害者们，能够渡过难关。
在上周六的早上，盖比（吉福兹的昵称）、她的同事以及很多她的选民聚集在一家超市外面，行使他们和平集会、自由演讲的权利。
他们践行着民主的中心信条，那是我们的国家创立者立下的——代表人民，把他们的关切带到国家的首都。
盖比将这称为“家旁边的国会”——如同一个不断更新的政府，创立于人民，依靠人民，为了人民。
那样一个典型的美国情景，却被一个枪手的子弹击碎。
6人在周六失去了生命——他们同样代表着美国最好的东西。
约翰M罗尔，亚利桑那州联邦法官，为我们的司法系统服务了近40年，也是这所学校的毕业生。
他的同事描述他是第九区“最勤劳的法官”。
当他路过打算向吉福兹打招呼时，遭遇了枪案。
约翰依然活在他挚爱的妻子莫林、三个儿子及五个孙辈的心里。
Gun control 枪支管制
Gun control 枪支管制Gun control枪支管制Obama fires the opening shot奥巴马打响美国控抢对策的第一枪GRACE MCDONNELL’S parents gave one of her paintings to Barack Obama. The seven-year-old, who dreamed of being a painter, was shot dead in her classroom last month. The picture now hangs in the president’s study as a reminder to act. Even in a country as ac customed to gun violence as America, the murder of 26 people, including 20 children, in a Newtown, Connecticut school last month was especially shocking. On that day a tearful Mr Obama said serious action was needed to prevent any more tragedies. On January 16th Mr Obama, along with Vice-President Joe Biden, who headed the president’s gun task-force, unveiled the most sweeping gun-control proposals Washington, DC has seen for two decades. Whether they will be implemented or make much difference is another matter.The president’s plan was inspired not just by the children killed in Newtown, but by the more than 30,000 deaths caused by guns every year. Mr Obama announced 23 executive orders, which do not need congressional approval. These include strengthening the system of background checks (which is notoriously ineffective) and providing more support to law-enforcement agencies. Another order seeks to make schools safer by ensuring that each one has an emergency management plan (most of them, including the Newton one, already do).But Mr Obama will need congressional backing for the main part of his plan: a proposal to renew an assault-weapons ban that went into effect in 1994 but expired ten years later. The ban would include, as it did back in 1994, a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, containing more than ten rounds. The trouble is that ban, especially the magazine part of it, proved impossible to enforce.States, meanwhile, have jumped the gun. Andrew Cuomo, New York’s governor and a gun-owner, signed the NY Safe Act on January 15th. The state, which already had strong gun laws, has now banned military-style assault weapons, and has mandated universal background checks, including on buyers of ammunition. Martin O’Malley, Maryland’s governor, is a bout to introduce a sweeping gun-control package which echoes many of New York’s measures. Colorado’s governor has called for background checks for private gun sales, which are currently exempt. Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts, wants to limit gun sales to one a month. Of course, one can do quite a lot of damage with one gun a month.Cities, too, are taking a stand. Since the Newtown shooting, more than 100 more mayors have joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the 800-strong coalition founded by Michael Bloomberg, NewYork’s mayor.Welcome as these state and city actions are, without federal backup they are not much use. They may also be vulnerable to recision by the Supreme Court. Would-be killers need only cross state lines to places with weak gun laws to get access to weapons. Nor is it clear whether the president’s plan would have pr evented the Newtown massacre. There, the shooter did not have a background check; he used his mother’s guns.Mr Obama faces steep opposition, and not just from congressional opponents: even his fellow Democrat, Harry Reid, the majority leader of the Senate, has indicated that the assault-weapons ban will be a hard sell. While states like New York and California are moving to strengthen gun laws, other states are doing the opposite. Lawmakers in Arizona and Texas, for instance, intend to introduce bills that would loosen gun restrictions. A Kentucky sheriff has said he will not enforce any new gun laws that he deems unconstitutional.Most shockingly, gun sales have soared in recent weeks. In the month since the Newtown shooting 250,000 more people have joined the National Rifle Association, which has vowed to oppose the ban. The group is getting so cocky that it launched a free shooting app this week. For an extra 99 cents, players can use a MK-11 sniper rifle to shoot coffin-shaped targets.枪支管制奥巴马打响美国控抢对策的第一枪格蕾丝-麦克唐娜（音译）的父母送给奥巴马一副由格蕾丝作的画。
奥巴马总统关于重新审议情报监控问题的演讲
奥巴马1月17日在司法部举行新闻发布会，高调宣布自己对情报监控项目改革的决定，以期平息争议、挽回公众信任。
但其决定主要是笼统的改革意向，细则还有待今后数月内由政府部门、情报机构拟定，部分内容更需国会批准。
其要点包括：在对内监控方面，第一，奥巴马提出国家安全局对内电话监听项目开启“转型期”，暂停大规模搜集和存储美国公民电话记录的作法，寻求不由政府来存储这些记录的新方案，并下令司法部长霍尔德和情报部门在3月28日前拟定和上报新方案细则。
第二，他提议国会批准组建一个由专业人士组成的小组，参加美国外国情报监控法庭对秘密情报项目的审批过程，以代表民众保护隐私的呼声。
在对外监控方面，奥巴马承诺，情报监控必须以合法保护美国国家安全为目的，不能出于非反恐等安全需求而监控外国公众，不能对亲密盟友的领导人实施电子监控，以此挽回盟友及国际社会对美国的信心。
但他强调，美国情报机构将继续针对外国政府的情报搜集工作，美国政府不会仅仅因为自己情报工作更高效而道歉。
尽管宣布了一定改革意向，奥巴马在当天演讲中也利用大半篇幅强调，情报监控对后“9·11”时代美国应对恐怖主义等威胁至关重要，自己所要做的绝不是停止这些可以保护美国人安全的监控项目，他也相信审核工作也并未显示出美国情报体系曾寻求违法或触犯公民隐私。
奥巴马也在讲话中再次谴责了“棱镜门”事件告密者斯诺登的泄密行为。
Remarks by the President on Review of Signals IntelligenceDepartment of Justice, Washington, D.C.January 17, 2014At the dawn of our Republic, a small, secret surveillance committee borne out of the “The Sons of Liberty” was established in Boston. And the group’s members incl uded Paul Revere. At night, they would patrol the streets, reporting back any signs that the British were preparing raids against America’s early Patriots.Throughout American history, intelligence has helped secure our country and our freedoms. In the Civil War, Union balloon reconnaissance tracked the size of Confederate armies by counting the number of campfires. In World War II, code-breakers gave us insights into Japanese war plans, and when Patton marched across Europe, intercepted communications helped save the lives of his troops. After the war, the rise of the Iron Curtain and nuclear weapons only increased the need for sustained intelligence gathering. And so, in the early days of the Cold War, President Truman created the National Security Agency, or NSA, to give us insights into the Soviet bloc, and provide our leaders with information they needed to confront aggression and avert catastrophe.Throughout this evolution, we benefited from both our Constitution and our traditions of limited government. U.S. intelligence agencies were anchored in a system of checks and balances -- with oversight from elected leaders, and protections for ordinary citizens. Meanwhile, totalitarian states like East Germany offered a cautionary tale of what couldhappen when vast, unchecked surveillance turned citizens into informers, and persecuted people for what they said in the privacy of their own homes.In fact, even the United States proved not to be immune to the abuse of surveillance. And in the 1960s, government spied on civil rights leaders and critics of the Vietnam War. And partly in response to these revelations, additional laws were established in the 1970s to ensure that our intelligence capabilities could not be misused against our citizens. In the long, twilight struggle against Communism, we had been reminded that the very liberties that we sought to preserve could not be sacrificed at the altar of national security.If the fall of the Soviet Union left America without a competing superpower, emerging threats from terrorist groups, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction placed new and in some ways more complicated demands on our intelligence agencies. Globalization and the Internet made these threats more acute, as technology erased borders and empowered individuals to project great violence, as well as great good. Moreover, these new threats raised new legal and new policy questions. For while few doubted the legitimacy of spying on hostile states, our framework of laws was not fully adapted to prevent terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own, or acting in small, ideologically driven groups on behalf of a foreign power.The horror of September 11th brought all these issues to the fore. Across the political spectrum, Americans recognized that we had to adapt to a world in which a bomb could be built in a basement, and our electric grid could be shut down by operators an ocean away. We were shaken by the signs we had missed leading up to the attacks -- how the hijackers had made phone calls to known extremists and traveled to suspicious places. So we demanded that our intelligence community improve its capabilities, and that law enforcement change practices to focus more on preventing attacks before they happen than prosecuting terrorists after an attack.It is hard to overstate the transformation America’s intelligence community had to go through after 9/11. Our agencies suddenly needed to do far more than the traditional mission of monitoring hostile powers and gathering information for policymakers. Instead, they were now asked to identify and target plotters in some of the most remote parts of the world, and to anticipate the actions of networks that, by their very nature, cannot be easily penetrated with spies or informants.And it is a testimony to the hard work and dedication of the men and women of our intelligence community that over the past decade we’ve made enormous strides in fulfilling this mission. Today, new capabilities allow intelligence agencies to track who a terrorist is in contact with, and follow the trail of his travel or his funding. New laws allow information to be collected and shared more quickly and effectively between federal agencies, and state and local law enforcement. Relationships with foreign intelligence services have expanded, and our capacity to repel cyber-attacks have been strengthened. And taken together, these efforts have prevented multiple attacks and saved innocentlives -- not just here in the United States, but around the globe.And yet, in our rush to respond to a very real and novel set of threats, the risk of government overreach -- the possibility that we lose some of our core liberties in pursuit of security -- also became more pronounced. We saw, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, our government engaged in enhanced interrogation techniques that contradicted our values. As a Senator, I was critical of several practices, such as warrantless wiretaps. And all too often new authorities were instituted without adequate public debate.Through a combination of action by the courts, increased congressional oversight, and adjustments by the previous administration, some of the worst excesses that emerged after 9/11 were curbed by the time I took office. But a variety of factors have continued to complicate America’s efforts to both defend our nation and uphold our civil liberties.First, the same technological advances that allow U.S. intelligence agencies to pinpoint an al Qaeda cell in Yemen or an email between two terrorists in the Sahel also mean that many routine communications around the world are within our reach. And at a time when more and more of our lives are digital, that prospect is disquieting for all of us.Second, the combination of increased digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of sifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads that may thwart impending threats. It’s a powerful tool. But the gov ernment collection and storage of such bulk data also creates a potential for abuse.Third, the legal safeguards that restrict surveillance against U.S. persons without a warrant do not apply to foreign persons overseas. This is not unique to America; few, if any, spy agencies around the world constrain their activities beyond their own borders. And the whole point of intelligence is to obtain information that is not publicly available. But America’s capabilities are unique, and the power of new techno logies means that there are fewer and fewer technical constraints on what we can do. That places a special obligation on us to ask tough questions about what we should do.And finally, intelligence agencies cannot function without secrecy, which makes their work less subject to public debate. Yet there is an inevitable bias not only within the intelligence community, but among all of us who are responsible for national security, to collect more information about the world, not less. So in the absence of institutional requirements for regular debate -- and oversight that is public, as well as private or classified -- the danger of government overreach becomes more acute. And this is particularly true when surveillance technology and our reliance on digital information is evolving much faster than our laws.For all these reasons, I maintained a healthy skepticism toward our surveillanceprograms after I became President. I ordered that our programs be reviewed by my national security team and our lawyers, and in some cases I ordered changes in how we did business. We increased oversight and auditing, including new structures aimed at compliance. Improved rules were proposed by the government and approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. And we sought to keep Congress continually updated on these activities.What I did not do is stop these programs wholesale -- not only because I felt that they made us more secure, but also because nothing in that initial review, and nothing that I have learned since, indicated that our intelligence community has sought to violate the law or is cavalier about the civil liberties of their fellow citizens.To the contrary, in an extraordinarily difficult job -- one in which actions aresecond-guessed, success is unreported, and failure can be catastrophic -- the men and women of the intelligence community, including the NSA, consistently follow protocols designed to protect the privacy of ordinary people. They’re not abusing authorities in order to listen to your private phone calls or read your emails. When mistakes are made -- which is inevitable in any large and complicated human enterprise -- they correct those mistakes. Laboring in obscurity, often unable to discuss their work even with family and friends, the men and women at the NSA know that if another 9/11 or massive cyber-attack occurs, they will be asked, by Congress and the media, why they failed to connect the dots. What sustains those who work at NSA and our other intelligence agencies through all these pressures is the knowledge that their professionalism and dedication play a central role in the defense of our nation.Now, to say that our intelligence community follows the law, and is staffed by patriots, is not to suggest that I or others in my administration felt complacent about the potential impact of these programs. Those of us who hold office in America have a responsibility to our Constitution, and while I was confident in the integrity of those who lead our intelligence community, it was clear to me in observing our intelligence operations on a regular basis that changes in our technological capabilities were raising new questions about the privacy safeguards currently in place.Moreover, after an extended review of our use of drones in the fight against terrorist networks, I believed a fresh examination of our surveillance programs was a necessary next step in our effort to get off the open-ended war footing that we’ve maintained since9/11. And for these reasons, I indicated in a speech at the National Defense University last May that we needed a more robust public discussion about the balance between security and liberty. Of course, what I did not know at the time is that within weeks of my speech, an avalanche of unauthorized disclosures would spark controversies at home and abroad that have continued to this day.And given the fact of an open investigation, I’m not going to dwell on Mr. Snowden’s actions or his motivations; I will say that our nation’s defense dep ends in part on thefidelity of those entrusted with our nation’s secrets. If any individual who objects to government policy can take it into their own hands to publicly disclose classified information, then we will not be able to keep our people safe, or conduct foreign policy. Moreover, the sensational way in which these disclosures have come out has often shed more heat than light, while revealing methods to our adversaries that could impact our operations in ways that we may not fully understand for years to come.Regardless of how we got here, though, the task before us now is greater than simply repairing the damage done to our operations or preventing more disclosures from taking place in the future. Instead, we have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require. We need to do so not only because it is right, but because the challenges posed by threats like terrorism and proliferation and cyber-attacks are not going away any time soon. They are going to continue to be a major problem. And for our intelligence community to be effective over the long haul, we must maintain the trust of the American people, and people around the world.This effort will not be completed overnight, and given the pace of technological change, we shouldn’t expect this to be the last time America has this debate. But I want the American people to know that the work has begun. Over the last six months, I created an outside Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies to make recommendations for reform. I consulted with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created by Congress. I’ve listened to foreign partners, privacy advocates, and industry leaders. My administration has spent countless hours considering how to approach intelligence in this era of diffuse threats and technological revolution. So before outlining specific changes th at I’ve ordered, let me make a few broad observations that have emerged from this process.First, everyone who has looked at these problems, including skeptics of existing programs, recognizes that we have real enemies and threats, and that intelligence serves a vital role in confronting them. We cannot prevent terrorist attacks or cyber threats without some capability to penetrate digital communications -- whether it’s to unravel a terrorist plot; to intercept malware that targets a stock exchange; to make sure air traffic control systems are not compromised; or to ensure that hackers do not empty your bank accounts. We are expected to protect the American people; that requires us to have capabilities in this field.Moreover, we cannot unilaterally disarm our intelligence agencies. There is a reason why BlackBerrys and iPhones are not allowed in the White House Situation Room. We know that the intelligence services of other countries -- including some who feign surprise over the Snowden disclosures -- are constantly probing our government and private sector networks, and accelerating programs to listen to our conversations, and intercept our emails, and compromise our systems. We know that.Meanwhile, a number of countries, including some who have loudly criticized the NSA, privately acknowledge that America has special responsibilities as the world’s only superpower; that our intelligence capabilities are critical to meeting these responsibilities, and that they themselves have relied on the information we obtain to protect their own people.Second, just as ardent civil libertarians recognize the need for robust intelligence capabilities, those with responsibilities for our national security readily acknowledge the potential for abuse as intelligence capabilities advance and more and more private information is digitized. After all, the folks at NSA and other intelligence agencies are our neighbors. They're our friends and family. They’ve got electronic bank and medical records like everybody else. They have kids on Facebook and Instagram, and they know, more than most of us, the vulnerabilities to privacy that exist in a world where transactions are recorded, and emails and text and messages are stored, and even our movements can increasingly be tracked through the GPS on our phones.Third, there was a recognition by all who participated in these reviews that the challenges to our privacy do not come from government alone. Corporations of all shapes and sizes track what you buy, store and analyze our data, and use it for commercial purposes; that’s how those targeted ads pop up on your computer and your smartphone periodically. But all of us understand that the standards for government surveillance must be higher. Given the unique power of the state, it is not enough for leaders to say: Trust us, we won’t abuse the data we collect. For history has too many examples when that trust has been breached. Our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power; it depends on the law to constrain those in power.I make these observations to underscore that the basic values of most Americans when it comes to questions of surveillance and privacy converge a lot more than the crude characterizations that have emerged over the last several months. Those who are troubled by our existing programs are not interested in repeating the tragedy of 9/11, and those who defend these programs are not dismissive of civil liberties.The challenge is getting the details right, and that is not simple. In fact, during the course of our review, I have often reminded myself I would not be where I am today were it not for the courage of dissidents like Dr. King, who were spied upon by their own government. And as President, a President who looks at intelligence every morning, I also can’t help but be reminded that America must be vigilant in the face of threats.Fortunately, by focusing on facts and specifics rather than speculation and hypotheticals, this review process has given me -- and hopefully the American people -- some clear direction for change. And today, I can announce a series of concrete and substantial reforms that my administration intends to adopt administratively or will seek tocodify with Congress.First, I have approved a new presidential directive for our signals intelligence activities both at home and abroad. This guidance will strengthen executive branch oversight of our intelligence activities. It will ensure that we take into account our security requirements, but also our alliances; our trade and investment relationships, including the concerns of American companies; and our commitment to privacy and basic liberties. And we will review decisions about intelligence priorities and sensitive targets on an annual basis so that our actions are regularly scrutinized by my senior national security team.Second, we will reform programs and procedures in place to provide greater transparency to our surveillance activities, and fortify the safeguards that protect the privacy of U.S. persons. Since we began this review, including information being released today, we have declassified over 40 opinions and orders of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which provides judicial review of some of our most sensitive intelligence activities -- including the Section 702 program targeting foreign individuals overseas, and the Section 215 telephone metadata program.And going forward, I’m directing the Director of Na tional Intelligence, in consultation with the Attorney General, to annually review for the purposes of declassification any future opinions of the court with broad privacy implications, and to report to me and to Congress on these efforts. To ensure that the court hears a broader range of privacy perspectives, I am also calling on Congress to authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an independent voice in significant cases before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.Third, we will provide additional protections for activities conducted under Section 702, which allows the government to intercept the communications of foreign targets overseas who have information that’s important for our national secu rity. Specifically, I am asking the Attorney General and DNI to institute reforms that place additional restrictions on government’s ability to retain, search, and use in criminal cases communications between Americans and foreign citizens incidentally collected under Section 702.Fourth, in investigating threats, the FBI also relies on what's called national security letters, which can require companies to provide specific and limited information to the government without disclosing the orders to the subject of the investigation. These are cases in which it's important that the subject of the investigation, such as a possible terrorist or spy, isn’t tipped off. But we can and should be more transparent in how government uses this authority.I have therefore directed the Attorney General to amend how we use national security letters so that this secrecy will not be indefinite, so that it will terminate within a fixed time unless the government demonstrates a real need for further secrecy. We will also enable communications providers to make public more information than ever before about theorders that they have received to provide data to the government.This brings me to the program that has generated the most controversy these past few months -- the bulk collection of telephone records under Section 215. Let me repeat what I said when this story first broke: This program does not involve the content of phone calls, or the names of people making calls. Instead, it provides a record of phone numbers and the times and lengths of calls -- metadata that can be queried if and when we have a reasonable suspicion that a particular number is linked to a terrorist organization.Why is this necessary? The program grew out of a desire to address a gap identified after 9/11. One of the 9/11 hijackers -- Khalid al-Mihdhar -- made a phone call from San Diego to a known al Qaeda safe-house in Yemen. NSA saw that call, but it could not see that the call was coming from an individual already in the United States. The telephone metadata program under Section 215 was designed to map the communications of terrorists so we can see who they may be in contact with as quickly as possible. And this capability could also prove valuable in a crisis. For example, if a bomb goes off in one of our cities and law enforcement is racing to determine whether a network is poised to conduct additional attacks, time is of the essence. Being able to quickly review phone connections to assess whether a network exists is critical to that effort.In sum, the program does not involve the NSA examining the phone records of ordinary Americans. Rather, it consolidates these records into a database that the government can query if it has a specific lead -- a consolidation of phone records that the companies already retained for business purposes. The review group turned up no indication that this database has been intentionally abused. And I believe it is important that the capability that this program is designed to meet is preserved.Having said that, I believe critics are right to point out that without proper safeguards, this type of program could be used to yield more information about our private lives, and open the door to more intrusive bulk collection programs in the fut ure. They’re also right to point out that although the telephone bulk collection program was subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and has been reauthorized repeatedly by Congress, it has never been subject to vigorous public debate.For all these reasons, I believe we need a new approach. I am therefore ordering a transition that will end the Section 215 bulk metadata program as it currently exists, and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata.This will not be simple. The review group recommended that our current approach be replaced by one in which the providers or a third party retain the bulk records, with government accessing information as needed. Both of these options pose difficult problems. Relying solely on the records of multiple providers, for example, could require companies to alter their procedures in ways that raise new privacy concerns. On the otherhand, any third party maintaining a single, consolidated database would be carrying out what is essentially a government function but with more expense, more legal ambiguity, potentially less accountability -- all of which would have a doubtful impact on increasing public confidence that their privacy is being protected.During the review process, some suggested that we may also be able to preserve the capabilities we need through a combination of existing authorities, better information sharing, and recent technological advances. But more work needs to be done to determine exactly how this system might work.Because of the challenges involved, I’ve ordered that the transition away from the existing program will proceed in two steps. Effective immediately, we will only pursue phone calls that are two steps removed from a number associated with a terrorist organization instead of the current three. And I have directed the Attorney General to work with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court so that during this transition period, the database can be queried only after a judicial finding or in the case of a true emergency.Next, step two, I have instructed the intelligence community and the Attorney General to use this transition period to develop options for a new approach that can match the capabilities and fill the gaps that the Section 215 program was designed to address without the government holding this metadata itself. They will report back to me with options for alternative approaches before the program comes up for reauthorization on March 28th. And during this period, I will consult with the relevant committees in Congress to seek their views, and then seek congressional authorization for the new program as needed.Now, the reforms I’m proposing today should give the American people greater confidence that their rights are being protected, even as our intelligence and law enforcement agencies maintain the tools they need to keep us safe. And I recognize that there are additional issues that require further debate. For example, some who participated in our review, as well as some members of Congress, would like to see more sweeping reforms to the use of national security letters so that we have to go to a judge each time before issuing these requests. Here, I have concerns that we should not set a standard for terrorism investigations that is higher than those involved in investigating an ordinary crime. But I agree that greater oversight on the use of these letters may be appropriate, and I’m prepared to work with C ongress on this issue.There are also those who would like to see different changes to the FISA Court than the ones I’ve proposed. On all these issues, I am open to working with Congress to ensure that we build a broad consensus for how to move forwa rd, and I’m confident that we can shape an approach that meets our security needs while upholding the civil liberties of every American.Let me now turn to the separate set of concerns that have been raised overseas, andfocus on America’s approach to intelligence collection abroad. As I’ve indicated, the United States has unique responsibilities when it comes to intelligence collection. Our capabilities help protect not only our nation, but our friends and our allies, as well. But our efforts will only be effective if ordinary citizens in other countries have confidence that the United States respects their privacy, too. And the leaders of our close friends and allies deserve to know that if I want to know what they think about an issue, I’ll pick up t he phone and call them, rather than turning to surveillance. In other words, just as we balance security and privacy at home, our global leadership demands that we balance our security requirements against our need to maintain the trust and cooperation among people and leaders around the world.For that reason, the new presidential directive that I’ve issued today will clearly prescribe what we do, and do not do, when it comes to our overseas surveillance. To begin with, the directive makes clear that the United States only uses signals intelligence for legitimate national security purposes, and not for the purpose of indiscriminately reviewing the emails or phone calls of ordinary folks. I’ve also made it clear that the United States does not collect intelligence to suppress criticism or dissent, nor do we collect intelligence to disadvantage people on the basis of their ethnicity, or race, or gender, or sexual orientation, or religious beliefs. We do not collect intelligence to provide a competitive advantage to U.S. companies or U.S. commercial sectors.And in terms of our bulk collection of signals intelligence, U.S. intelligence agencies will only use such data to meet specific security requirements: counterintelligence, counterterrorism, counter-proliferation, cybersecurity, force protection for our troops and our allies, and combating transnational crime, including sanctions evasion.In this directive, I have taken the unprecedented step of extending certain protections that we have for t he American people to people overseas. I’ve directed the DNI, in consultation with the Attorney General, to develop these safeguards, which will limit the duration that we can hold personal information, while also restricting the use of this information.The bottom line is that people around the world, regardless of their nationality, should know that the United States is not spying on ordinary people who don’t threaten our national security, and that we take their privacy concerns into account in our policies and procedures. This applies to foreign leaders as well. Given the understandable attention that this issue has received, I have made clear to the intelligence community that unless there is a compelling national security purpose, we will not monitor the communications of heads of state and government of our close friends and allies. And I’ve instructed my national security team, as well as the intelligence community, to work with foreign counterparts to deepen our coordination and cooperation in ways that rebuild trust going forward.Now let me be clear: Our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Ucreate一起备课——新闻英语听力3 STEPS TO IMPROVE LISTENING奥巴马呼吁国会通过枪控法案1作者：刘立军2王珍珍3编辑：陈 萌4Step 1: Listen●TASK 1: NotetakingYou’re going to hear a genuine BBC News report. Listen carefully and take notes according to the following table. Just write down the key words.新闻要素（5W+1H）笔记要点(KEY WORDS)WHEN?WHERE?WHO?WHAT?WHY?HOW?1题目为作者所加，原文并未提供英文题目。
2燕山大学教师，英国华威大学应用语言学硕士。
3燕山大学教师，上海外国语大学英语语言文学硕士。
4外语教学与研究出版社编辑。
1 / 8Ucreate一起备课——新闻英语听力TASK 2: Choose the best answerYou will hear one BBC News report. At the end of it, you will hear THREE questions. Both the news report and the questions will be spoken only once. After you hear a question, you must choose the best answer from the four choices marked [A], [B], [C] and [D] according to the notes you took in TASK 1.Questions 1 to 3 will be based on the following news item.Question 1:[A] President Obama criticized the Congress for not passing the law of gun control.[B] President Obama advocated the Congress to pass the law of gun control.[C] President Obama believed the gun control debate needed to change.[D] President Obama disagreed with the gun control act carried out by the Congress.Question 2:[A] It took place in Orlando last Sunday.[B] It took place in Newtown last Sunday.[C] Some US politicians were involved in the shooting.[D] President Obama offered solace to people who suffered from the mass shooting.Question 3:[A] Whether to check the background of gun buyers.[B] Whether to stop gun trade in some states.[C] Whether to prevent potential terrorists from buying guns.[D] Whether to impose higher tax on the gun trade.Step 2: Learn the key words and listen againTry listening again. Here are the definitions of key vocabulary items in the news which may help you.2 / 8Ucreate 一起备课——新闻英语听力3 / 8VOCABULARY词汇和短语 词性 音标 英文释义中文释义 legislation n. [led ʒɪs'le ɪʃ(ə)n] a law or laws passed by a government立法 conspirev.[k ənˈspaɪə]If two or more people or groups conspire to do something illegal orharmful, they make a secret plan to do it.合谋assault n. [əˈs ɔ:lt] a strong attack made on an area held by the enemy 猛攻，攻击，袭击 inflictv.[ɪnˈflɪkt]to make someone or something suffer使遭受（伤害，破坏或痛苦等）Step 3: Transcript and Answer1 TRANSCRIPTPresident Obama has challenged the Republican-controlled congress to rise to the moment on pass gun control legislation. After meeting relatives of those killed in the mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando on Sunday, Mr. Obama said U.S. politics have conspired to make it easy for a terrorist or a disturbed person to buy powerful weapons. I am pleased to hear that the Senate will hold votes on preventing individuals who were possible terrorist ties from buying guns, including assault weapons. I truly hope the senators rise to the moment and do the right thing. I hope the senators who voted no on background checks after Newtown have a change of heart. And then I hope the House does the right thing and helps to end the plague of violence that these weapons of war inflict on so many young lives.Adapted from /broadcast/201606/450407.shtml2 QUESTIONSQuestion 1:What is the news mainly about?Ucreate 一起备课——新闻英语听力4 / 8[A] President Obama criticized the Congress for not passing the law of gun control. [B] President Obama advocated the Congress to pass the law of gun control. [C] President Obama believed the gun control debate needed to change.[D] President Obama disagreed with the gun control act carried out by the Congress.Question 2:Which of the following is true about the mass shooting?[A] It took place in Orlando last Sunday. [B] It took place in Newtown last Sunday.[C] Some U.S. politicians were involved in the shooting.[D] President Obama offered solace to people who suffered from the mass shooting.Question 3:What will the Senate hold vote on?[A] Whether to check the background of gun buyers. [B] Whether to stop gun trading in some states.[C] Whether to prevent potential terrorists from buying guns. [D] Whether to impose higher tax on gun trading.3 SUGGESTED ANSWERS● TASK 1:新闻要素（5W+1H ） 笔记要点 (KEY WORDS)WHEN?● on SundayWHERE?● in OrlandoWHO?● President ObamaWHAT?● challenged the Republican-controlled Cc ongress to rise to the moment on passing gun control legislationWHY?● U.S. politics have conspired to make it easy for a terrorist or a disturbed person to buy powerful weapons.Ucreate 一起备课——新闻英语听力5 / 8HOW?● I hope the House does the right thing and helpsto end the plague of violence that these weapons of war inflict on so many young lives.● TASK 2:Question 1:What is the news mainly about?[A] President Obama criticized the Congress for not passing the law of gun control. [B] President Obama advocated the Congress to pass the law of gun control. [C] President Obama believed the gun control debate needed to change.[D] President Obama disagreed with the gun control act carried out by the Congress.【答案】B【考点】主旨题，表明新闻要点，听懂新闻大意。