Despite earlier indications that there would be a release of detainee photos, President Obama has ordered that the photos been withheld in defiance of a judicial ruling. I discussed the development on this segment of the Rachel Maddow Show.
The Defense Department was set to release hundreds of photographs showing alleged abuse of prisoners in detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, the White House has announced that the President has yielded to demands to withhold the pictures, citing the safety of U.S. troops are the reason — the very same reason given by the Bush Administration.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated “the president reflected on this case and believes that they have the potential to pose harm to the troops. … Nothing is added by the release of the photos.” Well, there is that transparency in government thing. There is also showing the world that we are going to come to grips and take responsibility for our actions. It is hard to accept responsibility for acts that you will not disclose to the public. The value is to show that the United States will not hide its abuses or hide from its responsibility.
The Administration also ignores that enemies already have sufficient photos for recruiting. What they also have is the argument that we are a nation of hypocrites who engage in torture when it suits us — only to resist investigation of those war crimes. Concealing our abuse of detainees only reaffirms this message.
Obama’s comments come directly from the Second Circuit opinion rejecting the very arguments that he made in the press conference. The court rejected the attempt to use FOIA as “an all-purpose damper on global controversy.” Obama himself pledged in January not to allow agencies to withhold material under FOIA that would embarrass the government. To add insult to injury, he also said that the release might interfere with “future investigations” — like the investigation his administration has blocked into torture.
Here is the Second Circuit opinion, acluvdod_photodecision
For the full story, click here.
“What I have noticed – not that there haven’t been some eloquent, fair and rationale contradictory points of view (and you know who you are)I simply just think it’s too early to get out the spray paint and marching shoes. I will though, immediately join the protest – when it is clear that the current actions aren’t in the best interest of the country.”
Binx,
Coming late to this party I find my presence unnecessary given your above summation, which I heartily second. Kudos to Mespo, Rafflaw and Patty C. as well for apt argumentation.
‘It is, among other injustices, the fact that we tortured and continue to not live up to our highest moral values. This has been studied and you can look that up. It is actually something that can be factually assertained and has moved beyond the realm of opinion.’
—-
Thank you for not stating, again, that torture and/or abuse of detainees not only continues but has intensified under the present administration!
The misunderstandings, Jill, belong to you. I stated the matter accurately in my original post.
Initially, Obama decided to go beyond the initial FOIA request.
That part WAS at his discretion because he did not HAVE to do it. That’s one.
Where is Obama ‘claiming it was just a few bad apples.’?
That’s two.
Despite what you think, you are not making the arguments that JT is making nor for the same reason, although I believe you think you are.
I object to your wild notion that Obama is ‘in bed’ with the former administration! It is a fabulously ridiculous starting position.
I dare say, I see you attempting to do what Dick Cheney is by blurring the line BETWEEN the two administration as much as possible.
He’s trying to cover his butt.
You actually want people in this country to feel less safe than we really are.
Why do YOU hate America, Jill? ; p
I’m finding this debate very supportive of the rationale that got me to my current (and very odd) position of ‘wait and see’; and, at the same time, some sensible argument thereof, is quite relevant.
It seems to me that similar discussions had to take place in the proximity of where that decision took place. And while it’s nice that the relationship of the political supporters of President Obama does not require the tattoo and hymn book demanded by the previous administration; and, the criticism of President Obama is intellectually unrestrained; it still seems to me that we can’t possibly arrive at a verdict without all the evidence.
We make a lot of assumptions about information that is not public. At the risk of sounding like a total idiot (if that risk hasn’t been assumed already)I’m thinking that this argument attributes a lot of credit to facts not in evidence. It also removes this specific deed – the withholding from the public of more photographic evidence that may or may not be used in the prosecution of American citizens.
I’m listening to a lot of supposition – about a lot of indecision – and others have this all figured out with a simple connecting the dots to “rules-of-law” and presto – solved. Wow … impressive … but I’m not buying it. I have a difficult time believing that we’re having the same argument that has been going on in the West Wing with the same level of detail or the same consequences for getting it wrong.
That being said – I’m very grateful that we’re getting this information in real-time, and the argument is happening in the open and well …. it seems like good argument if it eventually gets us to operating closer to the likes of the Constitution – and the return of the operating principles that were jettisoned under the cover of Homeland Security during the last Administration.
What I don’t think is necessary or helpful are the comparisons to the Bush Administration (Including JT’s) Personally I believe that serves only to narrow the breadth of the argument and it’s just cutesy name calling – considering that Bush/Cheney
epithets are incendiary.
I would also point out that the same administration who supposedly cares about our troops has put them in Afghanistan to fight a counter insurgency war with their equipment not having been sent yet. I am wondering how the failure to provide equipment shows concern for our troops. For that matter I am wondering how the escalation of the war in Afganistan and Pakistan, which only forces an already stretched group of soldiers to be stretched beyond any human limit into further multiple redeployments, shows concern for our troops.
M72 stated:
“Apparently the military brass, who we charge we protecting our children while at war and who have access to the relevant intelligence, believe otherwise”
_______________
We who were in the military especially know that military intelligence is a prime oxymoron. Similarly, Supreme Court justice, Texas Justice, Equal law enforcement, ad nauseam.
Look what this intelligence has gotten us so far…re Colin Powell et al.
mespo,
I do know this from past experience. There has been a great deal of information that shows what helps recruit the most people to fight against us. It is, among other injustices, the fact that we tortured and continue to not live up to our highest moral values. This has been studied and you can look that up. It is actually something that can be factually assertained and has moved beyond the realm of opinion.
As to the rule of law. You are arguing the unitary executive theory of David Addington. Our president had a court order, where evidence was presented by his DOJ and the ACLU, according to the proceedures of our law, and he was ordered to release the pictures. Our president may not refuse to disclose the pictures on his say so. He may, as I said earlier, appeal this to a court of law. If he appeals and loses he must disclose the pictures. He is not above the law, it is not his discretion. If he appeals and is sucessful, the pictures will not be disclosed, not because he is the president and thus able to at will disclose and not disclose information at will, but because he has a judicial ruling allowing him to prevent disclosure.
Jill:
And on your contention that the 2nd Circuit has spoken, I suggest that, in matters of national security and the interplay between the branches of government concerning this issue, the binding law is not when the good judges from NYC rule, but when the good Justices from First Street NE deny certiorari. Until then it’s opinion subject to appeal, and likely stayed opinion at that.
Jill:
“You can’t believe hiding those pictures will make our troops safe. It’s just the opposite.”
*****************
I don’t know that and likely you don’t either. Apparently the military brass, who we charge we protecting our children while at war and who have access to the relevant intelligence, believe otherwise. Are you willing to ignore their counsel and risk the life of someone else’s child in your seemingly obsessive quest for immediate gratification?
CCD:
and they have definitely spent too much money in Iraq and Afghanistan on both war and rebuilding. Again Why are the American people putting up with this shizzle?
CCD:
that James Madison guy is brilliant. And we have pretty much been at war since 1918 in one form or another.
I thought Mr. Turley was in great form on this interview.
Maddow too showed character over political alliance.
Both Maddow and especially Olbermann were shameless and uncritical cheerleaders for Obama when he ran for office, even when he changed his position 180deg on the Telecom Immunity issue.
So I was afraid they were as bad about Obama as the Faux News crew were about Bush – that their figureheads simply could do no wrong.
But here we see some substance over form, Maddow here is actually fundamentally questioning Obama’s character and moral fiber, based upon these inexplicable information withholding decisions.
Turley has been consistent throught, he is as harsh on Obama as he was when Bush was destroying due process of law and creating justifications ad hoc.
His most quotable quotes here (at 3:55 on this video)
“This administration is becoming the greatest bait and switch in history”
“He is morphing into his predecesor”
I really don’t understand why and how Obama is capable of making these 180deg turns within weeks; this has happened at least 3 times I am aware of. I am beginning wonder maybe someone has very damaging information on him. Something bad enough that they can make him look like a waffling fool by remote control.
“Most decent people believe in the rule of law…” Bron
Dredd has an insightful piece.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/05/when-theres-nothing-right-left-to-do.html
rafflaw,
You can’t believe hiding those pictures will make our troops safe. It’s just the opposite. Do you really think the people fighting our troops have never seen these pictures or heard accounts, or been tortured by the US? You have to know they have. By hiding those pictures we are confirming every bad thing they’ve ever been told about the US. That’s not going to make them less likely to fight and kill our people, it’s going to make them more determined than ever. Obama is putting the troops directly in harms’ way by this decision.
It’s clear that is not his motivating factor in refusing the release of these photos. This is to save the sorry asses of bushco and very likely the asses of international groups/countries, and the giant private contractors. These pictures would implicate them. Obama is claiming it was just a few bad apples. That’s a bald face lie and he knows it. I urge reading Glenn Greenwald on this as well.
Also there is a big misunderstanding about this case that needs addressing. The release of the pictures is not up to our leader’s discretion. The release was ordered by a court of law. Arguments were made and the govt. did not prevail in their case. This isn’t Obama’s decision to make. He has the legal right to appeal the decision in a court of law. Our law says he should lose. If he loses in court he has no legal authority to withold those pictures.
It’s not about our leaders discretion and it’s not about protecting the troops. It’s CYA for war criminals.
“about $150,000 disagree that taxes are too low.”
I mean they wont argue that taxes are too high.
CCD:
by finding common ground, most decent people believe in the rule of law, individual responsibility and individual liberty. I think where most people disagree is on capitalsim, what it is, how it should be used what controls or limitations should be applied, etc. I know some think socialism is a good thing and it probably is in heaven, but here on earth mans nature gets in the way of humanitarian ideals.
Another area of disagreement is
how best to take care of people that need help. Example, I am a dyed in the wool capitalist and think the free market gives the most benefit to the most people, but I understand that some among us are not able to fend for themselves and need a helping hand for a short period or maybe indefinitely. There needs to be some way to help these people but I see the history of government helping them as an abysmal failure from Johnsons Great Society to Bush’s Compassionate Conservatism, it dosent seem to work very well, we still have a bunch of poor people. Why? It certainly hasnt been from lack of money expended or education. (quick note from Justice Scalias comment about the right schools-Government Service, welfare for the rich and connected?
We are paying for that simple minded wood pecker to sit on the bench, why shouldnt the sons and daughters of the middle class have a shot if they are smart enough?)
I see a compassionate government as detrimental to our liberties and I see current rates of taxation (all levels and kinds) as a form of serfdom (granted we need to pay something to run the government). But many disagree with that. Although I dont think too many people making under about $150,000 disagree that taxes are too low.
I also think we can agree that government spending is out of control, they are not good shepards of our money and waste a great deal on bridges for 50 people to farm subsidies and corporate welfare. I once read that someone got a multi-million dollar grant to advertise orange juice overseas. Why are we paying for that? Let the orange farmers pay for it, its their business let them pay to expand it.
any way just some thoughts and a little venting.
rafflaw,
You can’t believe hiding those pictures will make our troops safe. It’s just the opposite. Do you really think the people fighting our troops have never seen these pictures or heard accounts, or been tortured by the US? You have to know they have. By hiding those pictures we are confirming every bad thing they’ve ever been told about the US. That’s not going to make them less likely to fight and kill our people, it’s going to make them more determined than ever. Obama is putting the troops directly in harms’ way by this decision.
It’s clear that is not his motivating factor in refusing the release of these photos. This is to save the sorry asses of bushco and very likely the asses of international groups/countries, and the giant private contractors. These pictures would implicate them. Obama is claiming it was just a few bad apples. That’s a bald face lie and he knows it. I urge reading Glenn Greenwald on this as well.
The proffesor and Rachel ,from last night.The point in the interview that mad the greatest point to me was”these pictures show that this was more wide spread than just what happened at Abu-Ghraib”I quouted what was said as best as I could remember.
Here is video of the interview:
“hmmmm sounds like democrats and republicans, anyone for a third party that actually thinks about the people?” Bron
Yes, I’m ready for a less polarized state. Have no clue how one gets created though.