Why Is President Obama Not Protecting American Citizens Abroad?

I am a big supporter of President Obama. I think that his election was not only historic because he is half black, but also because he is the first Democratic president who has been successful in gaining the public trust when it comes to national security without having to appear defensive. He regularly reminds us that his most important task as president is "to keep the American people safe."

But if he wants to keep us safe, should he not use the power of his office and the United States' leverage to protect American citizens not just here, but all throughout the world?

Roxana Saberi, an American citizen and journalist and former Ms. North Dakota has been held in Evin, Iran's most infamous and notorious Guantanamo-style prison in northern Tehran without a charge since January 31, 2009. Roxana has worked for the National Public Radio, BBC, ABC and a number of other international outlets.

When Secretary Clinton spoke up about Roxana and demanded her release, Iranian prosecutor's office announced that her interrogation has concluded and she'd be released shortly. With the end of the month approaching, Roxana continues to remain in jail. This shows that the weight of the office of the Secretary of State is not sufficient to get Tehran to end Roxana's open-ended detainment.

Reuters is reporting this afternoon that Roxana's father is saying that Roxana has become suicidal and threatened to go on a hunger strike.

On the eve of the Persian New Year, President Obama sent best wishes to the people of Iran. He managed to make references to Iran's nuclear program (to which Iran has complete rights under the Nonproliferation Treaty) and kept silent on Iran's real human rights crimes and Roxana's situation.

This kind of behavior has become quite typical of the American government, and frankly, it needs to stop. No sane person thinks war between the two countries is a good idea. Diplomacy is without a question the best method of making any kind of partner out of Iran. But the United States' obsession with Iran's nuclear program and silence on human rights crimes is costing America's image and popularity dearly among indigenous citizens.

How could President Obama speak up for humane treatment of foreign detainees at Guantanamo, but keep silent on the torture and mistreatment of Americans in Iran's Guantanamo?

President Obama has the responsibility as our elected leader to use the full weight of his office to demand justice and fair treatment for U.S. citizens throughout the world. Doing otherwise will set the precedent that American citizens and journalists are no longer safe anywhere outside of the borders of this country. That precedent cannot and should not be set.

President Obama: It's time to speak up about Roxana.

________________________________
(Follow Sam on Twitter; username: samsedaei)

Comments

[Derek Jansen]

(continued from previous post)

This is totally off the top of my head (and I don't know enough about international law/courts to really say this...), but it seems like what is needed is an impartial court (like the ICJ?) to arbitrate a settlement between U.S. and Iran. They believe she's our spy, we believe she's not. They present evidence that she is, we present evidence that she's not. In the meanwhile, she shouldn't be held in their prison.

Anyway, just some random thoughts. I think what ultimately concerns me about journalists being so concerned about one person and calling Obama to task for one instance when so many are in danger abroad, is that it redirects our focus onto what journalists care about instead of what readers care about, and neglects the larger issues facing Obama and our relationship with Iran. Also, I've been somewhat disconnected from this story and news in general, so if my thoughts here are way off base and uninformed, please forgive me. :)

Derek

[Derek Jansen]

Hey Sam,

Hope all is well with you. I was thinking about what you wrote here and what all these comments are saying, and I think I'm siding with those who thing Obama is right to not get too excited about Roxana's imprisonment. I also think that it's really easy for journalists (and bloggers) to get really upset about other journalists being held in prison because it strikes close to home - this doesn't make it wrong to be upset about it, but it does mean that a little bit of self-checking could go a long way. Many of the comments here bring up good issues, like Guantanamo and other Americans in foreign prisons. I believe that Roxana should be freed, and doubt that she is in fact a spy (and even if she is, want her back so she can spy somewhere else!), but Iran does believe that they have sovereignty. This means that it isn't an issue of "you are holding our citizen, give her back or we'll blow you up," and is instead an issue of us wanting a resource that they believe to be theirs that we believe to be ours. It strikes me that Iran is testing us, too. How much do we respect their sovereignty?

(continued next post)

[Ergon]

The US will have every right to lecture other countries about human rights when it closes down Guantanamo and prosecutes its own war criminals and CIA torturers.

[dhinds]

These are two separate issues. Roxanna is an American citizen and now that President Obama has declared her to be innocent of the accusations made against her, he should insist that she be released immediately.

She needs and deserves that much from him and hopefully, he will do so soon.

[jamilk99]

I'm so shocked that he declared she wasn't a spy. I was expecting him to say "Gee you guys caught our spy. We're really sorry. Can we please have her back." lol Can Muslim countries demand that we release their citizens from Guantanamo Bay? We've had their citizens locked up for alot longer. Oh yeah, and we've been torturing and waterboarding them!

[zull2]

Here's your answer: Because there are thousands of concerns that some would consider just as important as yours, meaning that if Obama held press conferences every minute of every day since the inauguration, he'd still not get through them all. And even if he did try something like that, it'd just be drowned out by the next problem.

Some say he's taking on too much at once. Some say he's got too much on the plate. The guy is trying to get through as many things as possible. Guantanamo, right now, directly plays an effect on multiple fronts of foreign policy and international relations, which is why he made a big deal about it because making a big deal about that helps to lay the groundwork for his overall plan. Of course the guy is concerned about Americans held abroad, but making a huge deal about them before you've laid the groundwork for improved international relations is a complete waste of time and potentially dangerous to those who ARE held abroad. If he made a big deal about them before taking care of the ones the US were holding, the assumption would be to the rest of the world that the president was just as petulant and hypocritical as the last one.

[IForgotMyName]

Are you sure that criticizing Iran publicly for human rights abuses will help Roxana? Maybe silent diplomacy will work much better than public outrage.
Usually regimes don't like to be criticized and speaking out publicly would probably just politicize the whole problem. This would make it impossible for Iran to release her without looking weak.
So maybe there is a good reason for Obama to be silent about human rights violations.

[Rule Of Law]

And time, as I posted yesterday, to talk about Israel's murder of a peaceful, American anti-war activist shot through the head by their army, and not a word from Obama about it.

Why?

[Pedestrian]

Under Iranian law, dual citizenship is NOT permitted. So whatever other citizenship she may have, inside Iran, she is ONLY an Iranian.

It is no business of Obama's to speak of what Iran is doing to its own citizens.

No matter how horrendous the situation.

[Sam Sedaei - Huffpost Blogger]

So we have to respect the laws of other countries no matter how undemocratically they're written and how they impact our citizens? What about the Nuremberg laws of Nazi Germany that allowed for the extermination of Jews? Should we have kept silent about those too because it was not our business what Germany was doing to its citizens, "no matter how horrendous the situation"?

[Pedestrian]

Nazi Germany has no right or credibility to point out human rights abuses elsewhere.

The United States, a country responsible for some of the worst human atrocities in the past century certainly has NO RIGHT to condemn human rights abuses inside Iran.

This has nothing to do with excusing the horrendous acts carried out inside Iran. But a matter of the Iranian "digh beh digh mighe root siyah" (one side as bad as the other can not be criticizing)

And anyways, if we are talking about abiding the LAW, under Iranian law, this lady is only an Iranian - so Obama has no right to enter the argument by bringing up her American-ness.

[jamilk99]

If she was an Iranian in the US spying for Iran, she'd be getting waterboarded in Guantanamo right now so we have no room to talk.

[AdamX]

Your assertion that the president should address ALL issues at ALL times is absurd.

[Sam Sedaei - Huffpost Blogger]

I made no such assertion that the president should address "all issues at all times." the blog is about a very specific case.

Now crickets have been chirping on this article because there is no Bush/Republican bashing in it. While I'm a liberal, I regularly find that most liberals get hypocritical when it comes to human rights issues. They get outraged about Darfur, but don't care about Iran. It's your prerogative to express your opinion, so I'll leave it up to your conscious to decide whether to come up with excuses for Obama or speak up when he isn't doing the right thing. Although I wonder if you would have honestly come up with the same excuse if it were Bush that this blog was criticizing.

[winningticket]

Sam: of course I would like see this woman released and sent home. But this young lady knew the risks of going overseas, especially to a country that the US is not a good terms.

[just saying]

Because liberals are always for other nation's citizens before our own. That's seen as ethnocentrism to actually care about us over there - because of course we brought it all on ourselves.

[violettefemme]

And actually, it just occurs to me, that President Obama's daughters are African-American through The First Lady, but not through the President. Through the President they are 25% African of his descent, and 25% whatever background his mother had.

It's a fascinating genetic make-up for the American First Family!

[violettefemme]

President Obama is not "half African-American" in the way you are using the term.

He is half African, from his full-blooded father, and half of white-European descent through his mother.

In the context you phrased it, African-American would describe the bloodlines of someone who's forebears were brought here as slaves, or born here as slaves.

[MPeter]

You've got to be very stoopid to veer into these selfish, reckless errors and still expect a President working on a screwed up economy, a bunch of loonie citizens, a global system in a mess plus keeping us all in the U.S.secure, to be speaking up for fools like you who ventured out into danger because it was fun. You are a punk, go to hell. Go hung...