President Barack Obama delivered an address from Cairo directed at the “Muslim World” entitled “A New Beginning.” Opinio Juris’s Roger Alford favorably compares the address to Woodrow Wilson’s famous speeches and distills the message to seven key issues. The New Republic’s William Galston concurs, pointing out that Obama has a knack for seizing the moment. Mouin Rabbani is more skeptical, labeling the speech a “Ctrl+Alt+Del” operation in which American Middle East policy is merely “being rebooted into the same decrepit operating system … it’s the same wars, same autocratic friends and discredited allies, same objective of hegemony and domination.” The New Republic’s Michael Crowley similarly catalogues parallels with President Bush’s language, but maintains that Obama’s speech will have a far greater impact. Harper’s Scott Horton, however, is surprised by the strong criticism that Obama had for all major players in the region, though Afghan Haseeb Humayoon sensed a lack of boldness in Obama’s tone and substance on promoting democracy and human rights. The president’s line that Iran should articulate “not what it is against, but what future it wants to build” resonates with Iranian Taj Bahkhsh. Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab notes that the speech was eloquent and set lofty expectations, but says that failure to follow through with actions “will be much worse than had they not been made in the first place.”
The reaction among commentators on Israel has been mixed. David Newman applauds the speech and says it is time for Israel to stop merely speaking of peace and start implementing it by dismantling settlements. James Kirchick finds it “deeply unsettling” that Obama saved his harshest words for Israel. Daniel Gordis thinks Obama split the difference between ideological extremes and assumed positions “virtually identical to those of Israel’s political center.”
The Blog of Legal Times’ Jordan Weissman describes an important victory for civil libertarians as a federal judge rejected the government’s request to withhold Guantanamo “factual returns” that lay out the case for holding each detainee. CQ Politics reports, however, that they received a blow in another suit as a California federal judge dismissed several lawsuits against telecommunications companies emanating from former President Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program. The ACLU’s Ann Brick says that the Ninth Circuit must overturn the decision, lest we “give the phone companies a free pass for flouting both the law and the privacy rights of their customers.” The ACLU also reports favorably on efforts by Democratic representatives to limit the sweeping state secrets privilege invoked by the executive in recent cases. Mother Jones’ Nick Baumann also applauds House Democrats efforts to block the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009, which would authorize the administration to halt the release of photos of detainee treatment.
CQ Politics David Nather reports that some Republican lawmakers want greater congressional oversight over President Obama’s plans to invest another $30 billion in General Motors. Balkinization’s Heather Garland would probably see this as a positive development, noting that if a New Deal 2.0 is afoot, then a Democracy 2.0 should accompany it.
The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court continued to fuel commentary. CQ Politics’ Seth Stern reports that conservative activists are encouraging Republican Senators to engage in a “great debate” and even consider filibustering her nomination. Balkinization’s Mark Tushnet details why he thinks it is a mistake for Republicans to delay a vote on Sotomayor’s nomination. The New York Times’ newest columnist, Ross Douthat, decries “Justices Gone Wild” and hopes for a broader discussion on judicial activism. Jack Balkin explains why “judicial activism” is an incoherent term and why Justices must remain responsive to popular will over time. Heather Gerken adds that the real problem with contemporary discussions of “judicial activism” is that they hone in on disagreeable results, rather than problematic decision-making processes.
The New York Times’ Scott Shane and David Johnston report that three newly leaked torture memos reveal discord over the moral and political consequences of torture tactics, but not their legality. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald and EmptyWheel’s Marcy Wheeler deride the report as doing the bidding of torture apologists. Also concerning torture, CQ Politics Jeff Stein is curious why, according to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s logic, there hasn’t been an attack since 2004 since reports increasingly show that the CIA stopped using torture in interrogations.
Opinio Juris’s Duncan Hollis has a useful comparison of Presidents Obama and Bush treaty priorities.
Left-leaning commentators Scott Horton and Spencer Ackerman are both upset that Stanley McCrystal continues to dodge questions concerning the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners in the custody of a unit he oversaw.
The New Republic’s Dylan Matthews writes that recent statements by Democratic Representative Barney Frank are consistent with rumors that the Human Rights Campaign struck a deal with congressional leaders not to act on the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy until next year.
Tags: Weekly Web Watch
