Obama to Defy Court Order to Release Gitmo Photos

[Pangloss]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/president-oba-5.html

 

President Obama has done a 180-degree reversal on this issue over statements issued less than a month ago, saying that he has been convinced that the release of photographs of Guantanamo Bay detainee abuse would endanger US troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Which, by the way, was exactly the same position taken by the Bush administration.

 

IMO this is an incorrect decision now just as it was then (though I am enjoying watching MoveOn.org squirm). What do you all think?

[iNow]

What benefit comes from releasing the photos? I see only detriment.

 

Also, what power does the court have to "order" the president to do anything whatsoever?

 

 

These are serious questions, to which I don't have ready answers.

[Pangloss]

Oh this'll be fun, with me taking the liberal side and you on the conservative side!

 

Your question about when the court can order the president to do anything is a question for another thread (a subject change). There are numerous affirmative answers to that question.

 

The ACLU's position btw can be found here:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39587prs20090513.html

 

Their statement today speaks to the benefit question, answering (paraphrasing) that not releasing the photos encourages future instances of abuse and that we can't fully close out the issue until all the information has been received (i.e. they may raise more questions).

 

But that (notably) doesn't answer the question of why they need to be necessarily released now, which I think would be an excellent question to ask. If the rumors are true that Petraeus talked Obama into it, then it suggests that they would be released later following withdrawal from Iraq and some sort of successful outcome in Afghanistan. I can see some advantages there, sure.

[iNow]

Oh this'll be fun, with me taking the liberal side and you on the conservative side!

Just because reality has a liberal bias does not mean that I am some ideologue when I express liberal arguments.

In all honesty, I like to think of myself as open to ANY good argument, and grounded in reality and reason. I may not appear that way to others, but that is (for sure) part of my self-image.

 

 

Your question about when the court can order the president to do anything is a question for another thread (a subject change). There are numerous affirmative answers to that question.

 

The ACLU's position btw can be found here:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39587prs20090513.html

 

Their statement today speaks to the benefit question, answering (paraphrasing) that not releasing the photos encourages future instances of abuse and that we can't fully close out the issue until all the information has been received (i.e. they may raise more questions).

Point taken. That's the ONLY good argument of which I can conceive, and it's a meaty one.

 

I think a middle ground can be found. Something like... the pictures get released, but are still codified top secret. I just happen to agree with the sentiments of our military commanders on this one. Releasing them now adds unnecessary fuel to the proverbial fire.

 

None of us want that. We all want transparency. We all want accountability. However, none of us want another source of propaganda from the previous administration being used for recruitment and retaliation against our troops in the present. The question then becomes, of course... where is the line which we shall not cross?

 

How crappy this situation is. I think they should find a middle ground... some sort of compliance with the court order put forth by the ACLU with the caveat that these things won't be up on the internet within the hour.

 

 

But that (notably) doesn't answer the question of why they need to be necessarily released now, which I think would be an excellent question to ask. If the rumors are true that Petraeus talked Obama into it, then it suggests that they would be released later following withdrawal from Iraq and some sort of successful outcome in Afghanistan. I can see some advantages there, sure.

 

I like your idea of delay, but that also has some questionable implications. Also, did you mean Odierno? The article didn't reference Petraus, but did say,

 

 

"Perhaps what's motivated my own change of heart on this and perhaps influenced the president, is that our commanders, both Gen. McKiernan and Gen. Odierno, have expressed very serious reservations about this and their very very great worry that release of the photographs will cost American lives. That was all it took for me," Gates said at a House Armed Services Committee hearing.

 

Last Friday, President Obama met with White House counsel Greg Craig and other members of the White House counsel team in the Oval Office and told them that he had second thoughts about the decision to hand over photographs of detainee abuse to the ACLU.

 

They discussed possible counterarguments that they believed the Bush legal team hadn't tried -- namely, the argument that releasing the photographs constitute a national security risk.

 

AWhite House official said that the president "believes that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court."

 

At the end of that meeting, the president directed Craig to object to the immediate release of the photos on those grounds. In an Oval Office meeting with Odierno Tuesday, the president told him of his decision to argue against the release of the photographs.

 

 

 

Here's what gets me. This isn't about civil liberties, per se. All relevant information is already in the public domain. We all know what happened, and we all know who did it, and we all know that our new policies are different. So, what I'm struggling with is, why are the photos themselves being discussed as if they alone are the gate keeper between the concepts of a "secretive" administration versus a "transparent" one?

[Mr Skeptic]

Sometimes imagination is worse than reality. So now we have pictures of abuse so horrible that they cannot be released?

[The Bear's Key]

Oh this'll be fun, with me taking the liberal side and you on the conservative side!

Yeah, I hoped the Obama fans wouldn't be excusing him, but instead show a good example of principles, and soon as I glimpsed iNow's response I was like "Doh! Stepped right into that one"

 

To be fair, I can't say iNow is doing that and certainly isn't being overly defensive about it, even being willing to compromise, but your response was funny because I sensed you were doing a test of sorts.

 

As for me, it's essential we hold this administration to an even higher standard than usual. Change is more possible than ever before, and it's not going to occur by letting them slip comfortably into the politician routine. There might be risk in exposure, yet that's mostly the Bush Administration's fault, not Obama's.

 

We can't have transparency, only to dismiss it when the previous leader's f*-ups resulted in shameful and/or controversial activities that might generate a storm of backlash.

 

Taking responsibility for your actions, isn't that a conservative motto? If the Bush Admin did nothing wrong, there should be no problem -- right?

 

However, if any Bush excusers claim a need to hide their dirty work, it must indeed be dirty.

 

Or, maybe it's even filthy.

 

I'm definitely with you on this, Pangloss.

[Pangloss]

In all honesty, I like to think of myself as open to ANY good argument, and grounded in reality and reason. I may not appear that way to others, but that is (for sure) part of my self-image.

 

Believe me I know, that's why I like arguing with you! Although I sense we're not really going to have much disagreement in this case.

 

 

None of us want that. We all want transparency. We all want accountability. However, none of us want another source of propaganda from the previous administration being used for recruitment and retaliation against our troops in the present. The question then becomes, of course... where is the line which we shall not cross?

 

Yup, and well-stated. You've clarified the crux of the problem.

 

Anyway without stressing the thread with another quote, you made an interesting point up there about how the info's already out there. I mentioned a counterpoint earlier, but I think your point is also valid and may be more important in the end. One reason I think this is because the Obama administration is not responsible for what occurred on the previous administration's watch, so they don't carry even the suggestion of cover-up. So if THEY think it's worth it to hang on to this for a little while longer, then maybe we ought to give them some latitude.

 

So yeah in the end I'll probably give them some latitude on this. As long as we get everything in the end. Every single thing. No exceptions.

 

 

... your response was funny because I sensed you were doing a test of sorts.

 

Just for the record, I would never bait members. I do enjoy hanging the occasional curve ball over the strike zone, however, just to see who can knock it out of the park.

[The Bear's Key]

Just for the record, I would never bait members. I do enjoy hanging the occasional curve ball over the strike zone, however, just to see who can knock it out of the park.

Of course. It's more like you said: a curve ball. Regardless, it tickled my expectations going into your reply post, and the opening quip cracked me a smile.

 

The good thing at least...Obama is showing a decent ability to change his mind when new facts or realities are introduced/highlighted -- which is a refresher (unless they deduced the same as you and therefore made it a political strategy to wait).

[iNow]

Sometimes imagination is worse than reality. So now we have pictures of abuse so horrible that they cannot be released?

 

Interesting point, and it did give me pause. However, after processing it a bit more fully, I think that releasing the pictures could very well be worse than letting people speculate about them. When actual pictures get released, there is no wiggle room. We can all see plain as day what the issue is/was. Our citizens and our enemies will judge them and use them as they see fit.

 

However, by avoiding release of the photos everyone is left with nothing any more substantial than pure speculation. Our citizens and our enemies can yell and incite and still do whatever they want, but they will have nothing tangible to support those rantings.

 

That's the tactical side with which I agree. Speculation will come for just about anything, but at least that's all it is. Tangible objects like pictures, though, are substantive, and that substance can be rather problematic.

 

In fairness, an argument could be made the other way, as well.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

and soon as I glimpsed iNow's response I was like "Doh! Stepped right into that one"

Why I oughta!

 

 

Actually, I should mention that the above was just my initial gut response. As I consider this more fully, I'm starting wonder if we shouldn't just take the hit now, get the photos out there, and move on. We know they exist. We know they are problematic. We also know they WILL eventually be released. Maybe we're doing more harm than good by holding on to them.

 

I also think Pangloss has hit on a nice point about timing the release better, although, there really never is a good time to shine light on another negative issue like this.

 

 

I'll need to think on this more. The Bear's Keys response made me realize that I just might not be holding myself to the same standard as I do others, and that's something I will quickly correct if brought to my attention. The long and short of it is, though, that I simply still feel a trust for the Obama administration. Bush lost my trust pretty early, and most of the critiques I leveled were a result of that lack of trust in his integrity and principles. I still maintain a degree of trust with the current administration, and I think that it is this which makes it easier for me to grant them some additional latitude.

 

 

Obama is showing a decent ability to change his mind when new facts or realities are introduced/highlighted -- which is a refresher

 

That struck a chord with me while reading the article, as well.

Edited May 14, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

Timing the release of the photos does seem like the best solution. It still gives us transparency, albeit delayed, and gives us time to stabilize Iraq and remove our soldiers from there and whatever resentment these photos may stir up. It also does not label the abuse as so bad that photos of it can't be released. It should be safe to release them by about just before the 2016 election.

[SH3RL0CK]

Timing the release of the photos does seem like the best solution. It still gives us transparency, albeit delayed, and gives us time to stabilize Iraq and remove our soldiers from there and whatever resentment these photos may stir up. It also does not label the abuse as so bad that photos of it can't be released. It should be safe to release them by about just before the 2016 election.

 

Hmm...I'm thinking it October 2012 might be determined to be the best time...although I agree October 2016 is a strong possibility. I'd also give Oct. 2010 or Oct. 2014 as alternative (but less likely) possibilities.

[GutZ]

No one is leaving Iraq for a long time. You might as well never release the photo. How relevant will it be like 30 years down the road. Releasing the photo's later, but I have an issue with not releasing them. Sure you could put the troops in danger, they are in danger everyday! The general public is sick of the war, Obama replaces one set of troops with another and calls it a withdrawal. That is his plan no?

 

I see Obamas position, and it would be hard for me not to do the same thing, There is always a reason not to do something. There is always an arguement for illegal wire tapping, take away freedoms, Where does it stop?

 

The America public doesn't need to specifically know a lot of things that go on in white house or pentagon, but how will we ever know that the people we put in charge are doing thier job properly based on our requirements?

 

I bet you Dick Cheney realized this long ago and knew that they could get away with everything. There has to be some sort of system change that from now on the government has no choice but release information. If it's horrible than we toss out the guilty. THAT information would of ended the bushs BS long time ago...

 

Hell we could of avoided this economic crisis potentially. This is not just some pictures. I hope for you guys this changes, because...you've give your leader a free pass to do anything. "IT;s in our best interest". With the past, I think I rather decide for myself what's in my best interest, with idiotic and sly people in power, I refuse to take it lightly. I feel bad for Obama to be in the hot seat, but hes a smart guy, he should know this as he was running for prez.

Edited May 14, 2009 by GutZ

[Pangloss]

The long and short of it is, though, that I simply still feel a trust for the Obama administration. Bush lost my trust pretty early, and most of the critiques I leveled were a result of that lack of trust in his integrity and principles. I still maintain a degree of trust with the current administration, and I think that it is this which makes it easier for me to grant them some additional latitude.

 

This does seem to cut right to the heart of the trust issue, doesn't it?

 

Just to expand on that a bit, I think cross-ideological trust is severely strained in the modern American political landscape, but not entirely broken. An example of this may be seen in a breakdown of, say, Florida Republican governor (and now Senate candidate) Charlie Crist's poll numbers, which show something like 64% approval amongst Democrats -- only two points lower than his Republican support. Obama himself enjoys probably the widest level of support amongst the opposing party since the middle Clinton years (though I believe it's still under 50% from Republicans). It's difficult to separate "trust" from "approval" and I realize this isn't made entirely clear by these kinds of poll numbers, but I think this at least supports the idea that people can trust politicians from the other party even if they don't agree with their ideological view or their specific actions.

 

Once that "trust" (whatever that really is) has been "violated" (whatever that really means), then it's a different story. Feelings toward the politician seem to change from something like "disagreement" to something more like outright animosity and across-the-board condemnation.

 

I think that's part of what underlies the acceptance or non-acceptance of this decision. Or put another way, if the people (on average) support this decision, and did not support Bush making the exact same decision for the exact same reasons, then that must be telling us something about trust.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Pangloss

[bascule]

I'm more concerned about Obama's plans to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial. So much for habeas corpus

[Lance]

Should we honestly use the needless deaths of soldiers as a slap on the hand to prevent future abuse? I don't even see this a political decision. This is 100% military. It's called operational security.

[The Bear's Key]

Should we honestly use the needless deaths of soldiers as a slap on the hand to prevent future abuse? I don't even see this a political decision. This is 100% military. It's called operational security.

Military doesn't trump government in our land. Yet citizens trump government. But no one trumps law (which guides/details the consequences) -- not even the people.