Grade Obama’s Cairo Speech

Today’s speech by an American president in an Arab capital was different from all previous ones in one particular fashion. To alter Marshall McLuhan’s famous dictum, the man is the message. Many have mocked Barack Obama’s considerable self-regard, but his private history–much documented and bizarrely twisted, if not debated, during the campaign–clearly embodies the opportunity for Arab leaders and citizens to listen. Perhaps not to trust. Perhaps not to act. But, surely, to listen. That, for me, might constitute the “new beginning.”

The forthright, scrupulous, and candid presentation of his argument was remarkably fresh. That, more than anything else, defines the president’s evolving moral authority, namely, the equitable discussion of reality. As in the Philadelphia race speech and the Notre Dame commencement speech, Obama makes a full accounting of grievances from many sides and shows a sensitivity to the many interpretations of the roots of those grievances. He acknowledges what few have in the past, that what is said in private is seldom expressed in public. That holds true in backyards in Haifa, in Gaza, and in Riyadh as much as it does in the backyards in Birmingham, Charlestown, or the four neighborhood quadrants of Washington, DC. Perhaps until now.

Whether it’ll lead to less war or even more peace in the Middle East remains to be seen, but speaking truth from power as well as to power…that’s leadership. In a region in which intransigent issue after intransigent issue has long been stalemated and mired, that leadership coupled with the president’s unique private history could create a climate for renewed dialogue at least. At least, perhaps, that. And if the president has engendered an openness to listen in the Middle East, that could prove the great breakthrough of today’s speech.

And yet in the Middle East, the “and yets” pile up.

Not for doubting the president’s oratorical capacity, however, nor for expecting that his own mind and frames of argumentation wouldn’t have a large imprint over the speech–it’s been reported that he wrote much of it–my anticipation for the speech was pessimistic. I feared he’d essentially say what every American president in recent memory has said, and that’s exactly what he did: that the U.S. is not embattled with Islam, that America respects Islam, that only a small band of extremists impede peace, that democracy must be earned and not forced, that Israel must exist, and that Palestinians must be freed from occupation. He said all of this–so did President Bush, as well as Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, and so on as far back as anyone can recall.

As I’ve been writing here recently, this is not surprising given how the Middle East community essentially sees one American foreign policy no matter who is president and from either party. That foreign view is not surprising because most of the time that’s actually the case. Today’s speech changes little in that respect and is little different. But President Obama might himself be the catalyst for new respect and an actual difference.

This post originally appeared on Politico

Should Obama change course on GITMO? If not, where should detainees be sent?

No perfect solution

Guantanamo might be the greatest, cleanest, best run prison facility since Robbin Island in the eyes of its defenders, but it remains a fresh black 21st century stain on America’s reputation as a country that values due process and human rights, and no amount of nativist panic in Congress will change that fact. As I wrote yesterday on this topic, of the 240 prisoners there, “a third of these have been cleared some time ago to be sent home without charges.

Another third are being kept because the military believes there is evidence to try them– whether in military or in federal courts, where, by the way, there is precedent for shielding the public from classified evidence–though only two dozen have actually been charged and of these only three have been brought to trial. Finally, of the other third, there lacks evidence to charge these individuals with anything–although intelligence officials insist these prisoners are too risky to set free.

They’re the ones who have to be dealt with, and they were going to have to be dealt with whether Guantanomo is kept open or not.” It’s a difficult decision. President Bush struggled with it too and passed it on to the next administration.

There will be no perfect solution. To answer the question then: Continue with plans to close Guantanamo. Reaffirm to the letter our trust in the Geneva Conventions. Afford detainees the right of habeas corpus and due process. Transfer some detainees to super-maximum security prisons in the U.S. and others–who are in fact prisoners of war–to the NATO detention system in Afghanistan. And, finally, develop a repatriation program with international partners to return non-convicted detainees to their home countries.

This post originally appeared on Politico’s Arena.

Subscribe (RSS) to Take 2

Focus on your writing at the Attic Writers’ Workshop

U.S. Is Now Pro-Human Rights…Again

“U.S. to Join U.N. Human Rights Council, Reversing Bush Policy” written by Colum Lynch

from The Washington Post

Focus on your writing at the Attic Writers’ Workshop

follow david on twitter